One thing I noticed about the RPGA tables at Gencon: No wizards. I ran three tables, played in two, and didn't see a single wizard. A friend at the show played in five slots and saw one wizard. I got the feeling at the show that most attendees thought of 4E wizards as sub par.
For raw damage they do seem a bit underwhelming (especially at first glance), but they seem quite good at inflicting status effects with big saving throw penalties. And they do have more flexibility than the other classes.
Are they good despite underwhelming damage potential? Or is their damage potential just as it should be?
Or do they just plain suck?
One thing I've found about 4E is that it is hard to judge in play just from reading the books. So until I see a problem in play, I'm inclined to think they are probably fine given the emphasis on class balance in 4E.
|
At DragonCon I had a wizard at almost every table but that was mostly down to playing with the same folks (quite coincidentally). I know there were other wizards there but they were not as plentiful as swordmages, clerics, and warlords. There seemed to be quite a few leaders and defenders compared to strikers and controllers.
|
Playing a tiefling wizard at Dragon Con, I didn't feel too poor. I got to do something every round, and even managed to mix things up with Burning Hands one encounter. I can't speak beyond that really, since I just got the books and haven't really read in depth. But for the first game I was quite happy with it.
I think the jury is still out on that. However I do see some cause for concern. the wizard is still a class that needs everyone else to defend them. In return they get good area effect powers that can be used at range. Thats pretty good and very helpful but area effect powers, while capable of dealing out the most raw damage are often not the most effective for a party. The most dangerous encounters are not usually the ones with lots of minions, since minions are weak with or without a wizard. The most dangerous encounters are against the big solos and this is exactly where a good striker shines and the wizard is at their weakest. Area effect damage is not much use if your only fighting one big nasty.
Party tactics would also generally be more geared to taking down individual opponents rather then damaging all of the opponents a little bit. Wizards are not usually as good at this basic tactic then strikers and yet they need to be protected and defended more then the average striker.
Essentially they are still the weakest and most physically frail class but its not clear that they make up for that by being the most powerful offencive class in the game or being an arsenal of problem solving abilities that are absolutely required in the game.
Now their more powerful then very low level 3.5 wizards but maybe not as powerful at low levels then the rest of the classes. Do they make up for this by being a little better later in levels? Possibly - I guess we will see.
Of all the classes in 4e, I'd say it was the wizard who changed the most from previous editions. Is it possible that players who liked playing wizards in 3e aren't interested in playing a 4e wizard?
In our group the Wizard definitely packs a powerful punch, especially against multiple minions. My next character will probably be a Wizard 'cause to me they seem so versatile.
|
I've spent a lot of time lately playing 4e more and giving it a "2nd chance" (my first playtest went very poorly and I was fairly determined not to play again, but I got talked into trying it one more time). Anyway, the thing I have begun to figure out with the Wizard is that you have to play them in a tactical way far more so than 3.5 wizards. Wizards in 4e are the chessmasters. They immobilize, push, stun, incapacitate, weaken, teleport, manipulate, and shape the battlefield. If you are playing a 4e Wizard for raw damage you will be disappointed as they can not keep up with Strikers at all and are often outclassed by defenders and leaders as well. However, if what you want is a character who revels is shaping the battlefield to their liking and forcing the opponent into bad tactical positions, vulnerability, or outright "lockdown" there is noone better. You can also get quite a bit of good damage output out of a Wizard with the right build. Wizards get a let better on the damage side of things when they get access to paragon paths and specifically Blood Mage.
Anyway, I find that playing a 4e wizard has been a lot of fun in the game I am playing with my wife and kids. I know at the outset that I won't deal the most damage or be right in the thick of things in melee. However, my character is instrumental in setting the rest of the party up for success. My battlefield control is just as important as the paladins leadership. In terms of damage, I have a few tricks up my sleeve as well. In paragon tier, a bolstered blood pulse coupled with a fey step and action point based Thunderwave and I can put a serious hurting on my enemies.
My character is level 11, and has the following stats....
Eladrin Wizard 11 Bloodmage Paragon Path
HP 72 AC 25 (+3 leather armor) Fort 18 Ref 22 Will 23 (+2 Cloak)
Init: +12 Implement Mastery: Orb and Wand
Str 9 (8+1 boost at 11th level)
Con 12 (11+1 boost at 11th level)
Dex 17 (14+2+1 race and boost at 11th level)
Int 21 (16+2+3 race and boosts at 4th, 8th, 11th level)
Wis 17 (14+3 boost at 4th, 8th, 11th level)
Cha 13 (12+1 boost at 11th)
Feats:
Improved Initiative 1st
Armor Proficiency Leather 2nd
Toughness 4th
Wintertouched 6th
Burning Blizzard 8th
Spell Focus 10th Retrained
Second Implement Wand 11th
Spells:
At-Will
Magic Missile +13 against Ref 2d4+8 One Target Range 20
Thunderwave +13 against Fort 1d6+8 and push 3 Close Blast 3
Encounter
Blood Pulse +13 against Will 2d6+8 and opponent takes 1d6 damage for every square they leave til your next turn Burst 3 Range 20
Icy Terrain +13 against Ref 1d6+10 and knocked prone Burst 1 Range 10 area is difficult terrain til end of your next turn
Fire Burst +13 against Ref 3d6+8 Burst 2 Range 20
Color Spray +13 against Will 1d6+8 damage Close Blast 5 and target dazed until end of next turn
Daily
Sleep +13 against Will Target is slowed (save ends). If target fails first saving throw target is unconscious (save ends).
Bigby's Icy Grasp +13 against Ref 2d8+10 and hands grab target Range 20 Sustain Minor Grabbed Target takes 1d8+10 damage
Wall of Fire Conjure wall of fire 8 squares long and 4 squares high, lasts til end of your next turn. Any creature starting turn adjacent takes 1d6+8 damage. If Creature Moves into or starts turn in walls space takes 3d6+8 damage. Sustain Minor Wall persists.
Utility
Blur
Dimension Door
Shield
Items: Magic Orb +3, Leather Armor +3, +2 Cloak Resistance
Saves: Opponents required to make saves against spells must roll a 10 or better on a 20 sided dice. Spell Focus gives them a -2 to that roll and once per encounter I can use my Orb Mastery to give them an additional -3 penalty. This means that in effect, I can force an opponent to need to roll a 15 or higher on a d20 to save against my spells once per battle. This is especially useful when applied to a spell like sleep.
Paragon Features:
Blood Action - When spending an action point, if the extra action is used to make an attack the attack deals and additional ongoing 10 psychic damage
Bolstering Blood - Once per turn as a free action I may bolster an encounter, daily, or blood mage power that I use. I take either 1d10 or 2d10 damage (my choice which) and whenever the power I apply it to deals damage, it deals extra psychic damage equal to the amount of damage that I took.
So if I want to really hurt a foe, I start my turn getting within 10 squares of my opponent. I use Bolstering Blood in conjunction with Blood Pulse on whichever target I want to effect. On average, if I take 2d10 damage I will take 11 and add 11 damage to my spell damage. I may also use my wand mastery (from second implement mastery) to make Blood Pulse an attack at +16 and deal 2d6+19 damage on average plus 1d6+11 damage for every square the target leaves until the end of my next turn. I may then spend an action point to cast Thunderwave and go +13 and deal 1d6+8 damage and ongoing 10 psychic damage and force the opponent to push 3 squares taking 3d6+33 damage from Blood pulse in the process. If I spend a round setting it up, I can put up a Wall of Fire first and have it so that I can push the target into the wall for an additional 3d6+8 damage. Even if I cant set up the wall, I have a good shot of doing 2d6+19+3d6+33+1d8+8 base damage with 10 ongoing damage until the opponent makes a save needing a 12. So that works out to 5d6+1d8+60 damage at 11th level. On average that will do 80 or so damage to one opponent. If I can set up the wall of fire first, I can add another 18 damage to that.
Anyway, I just want to point out that you can do damage with the Wizard. That isn't where they excel though. Doing save locks to force opponents into status conditions (like using Sleep and making it only 25% likely they can break it) and then setting up walls and things that do ongoing damage as a way to putting the hurt on things.
Bottom line though, is that I am having a TON of fun playing 4e with my family and that even after I promised myself I would not give it another chance. There is a lot of tactical thinking involved, and when it comes to playing a 4e wizard, that is how you have to play the character. Be a tactician and the wizard will not disappoint you.
Yeah, I have some PCs who hate the 4th edition wizard because they favor a more "I blow s$*$ up" approach rather than "I slow people down" tactical approach. They just hate not doing as much damage as the strikers.
I like to believe, in a game, that it doesn't have to come down to the terminology they have chosen, and I'm sure you could catagorize any edition this way (striker leader etc)...but it feels wrong (prologue over) I'm starting in a 4e game in the next week or so, and I want to play a wizard. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have the books as of yet, there's no sorcerer right? I have always tryed to use different spells creatively to effect, and control combat situation, but from what I gather, that's the focus. Am I a 3.5 wizard player whose going to be disappointed? Is it all combat and no weird fluff spells that can be applied to the situations?
I began KOTS as the pregen wizards expecting to switch to a warlock within a few weeks and when I was given the chance I couldn't give my wizard up because I love a big fan of the new 4e wizards.
|
|
I like to believe, in a game, that it doesn't have to come down to the terminology they have chosen, and I'm sure you could catagorize any edition this way (striker leader etc)...but it feels wrong (prologue over) I'm starting in a 4e game in the next week or so, and I want to play a wizard. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have the books as of yet, there's no sorcerer right? I have always tryed to use different spells creatively to effect, and control combat situation, but from what I gather, that's the focus. Am I a 3.5 wizard player whose going to be disappointed? Is it all combat and no weird fluff spells that can be applied to the situations?
There are utility spells. Some of them are daily and encounter powers that you can cast during combat to do things like turn invisible, fly, dimension door, and so on. In addition to that, there are rituals that cover some of the other utility spells like animal messenger or Tensor's floating disk. Now that I am playing again and have given the edition a 2nd chance, I think all the claims that all the options have been taken away is just not very accurate. They are in there, but the way in which you use them is different. Some spells have been changed or removed to allow other classes to shine at what they do I think. On the whole, I don't feel like the Wizard doesn't have a bag of tricks that let them to different things. What I do think is that it has been limited such that the Wizard isn't better at doing other classes jobs than they are anymore. That is IMHO a good thing.
The biggest strength of the 4e in my opinion and the reason that I am enjoying it so much the 2nd time around is that the game at it's core is very simple to learn and to play, even at higher levels, but at the same time there is a subtle complexity that allows you to do all kinds of things. As they release additional supplements and sourcebooks the options will expand, although I don't think the rules are nearly as restrictive as my initial impressions suggested anyway. Another great strength is that as I have gone up in level, I haven't found there to be an increase in difficulty in playing and doing the bookkeeping for my character. I have a lot of things I can do, and a spellbook that lets me switch out my powers to suit the occasion, but it still keeps the book keeping aspect of things much simpler than in 3.5.
I still like a lot of things about 3.5, and I think PFRPG is an improvement over 3.5. That said, 4e is much better than my initial experiences with it suggested. I am having fun playing it and the ease of game preparation and building characters and the like has made it much easier to find the time to game in my busy schedule. I still play Pathfinder and love Paizo's products. I am a superscriber and intend to continue that way. That said, 4e is a very fun game and for the time being the one I am playing the most because it is just easier to find the time to do it. My initial impression was that 4e sacrificed depth for ease of play. Now I think the complexity is in there, but it takes some time playing the game to catch on to it. Just reading the book in a book store didn't do it justice or even accurately portray it for me. Even my first playtest went bad. Now though, I am really enjoying the new system.
My best advice to you is to give it a try and see what you think. The Wizard I am playing has not disappointed me in the least. If you really want to focus heavily on blasting I would probably recommend the Warlock over the Wizard, but the Wizard can hold their own too. Also, if you are accustomed to the Wizard being the ultimate "I can do anything and do it better than you" character then you will need to adjust to the fact that the rules design is intended to let every class shine at their role. There are things you can't do with a Wizard now that you could do in 3.5, and I think that comes down to 2 basic issues. The first is that they intentionally want every class to be good at what they do and so they make it such that no class is good at everything. The second is that they haven't had a chance to publish any supplemental books and so you are left with only the options in the books published so far. As the books increase in number so too shall the options you have for what any particular character can do.
I hope that is helpful. I was really down on 4e after the release and in my first few play tests. Now that has changed because I am seeing the game through a different lense and most importantly, I am having fun playing it.
Wizards have all the area effect spells!
While the Warlock does more damage, he does so only to a single target.
Wizards on the other hand blast several targets at the same time, which make them highly useful against swarms (creature type) and minions.
Also, I agree with the earlier poster, that wizards can shape and control the battlefield.
Finally Wizards seem to be just a tad more flexible. With their cantrips, and ability to switch their daily and utility spells.
So overall I think they look good, and I would play one readily.
Yeah, I have some PCs who hate the 4th edition wizard because they favor a more "I blow s*!~ up" approach rather than "I slow people down" tactical approach. They just hate not doing as much damage as the strikers.
You could say the 3.5 wizard split into two classes in 4; The Warlock and the Wizard. So what these players want might be the warlock.
Still, I share the overall concern over wizard power, tough I have only seen one up to 4th level yet.
thanks Brent, you aleveiated a bit of apprehension I was having as to my choice....when I saw the thread title I just kinda went "Oh...damn" My focus is usually on weirdness. :)
That said, I'm 3 in PFRPG games and enjoying them greatly. But I'll try anything.
I have to say that for the first time I am actually interested in playing a wizard. The class was never of any interest to me i the past editions. Whether that was my roots of cutting my teeth on sword & sorcery books like Conan where the main hero was more martial or I just didn't enjoy the make-up of the classes is hard to tell. It may have been a combination of the two. The 4E's wizard just feels more effectively wizardly to me this time around. If I ever get the chance to actually play (I DM mostly), I think I will definitely go for the wizard.
I am of the opinion that Wizards do not suck in 4E. Many people are disappointed that they are no longer the veteran's class. The person playing the wizard in my current 4E campaign said that it was "too easy" to play a wizard now. He believes that "wizards should be difficult to play."
I disagreed with him quite a bit but understood where he's coming from. It seems to me like the wizard class is where most experienced gamers ended up once they got the hang of the rules and spells. Why? Because in 3.X, a wizard can be designed to do anything or fill nearly every party role.
4E no longer has the "easy" class and the "hard" class anymore. It used to be, "Oh, you've never played before? I'll help you make a sword and shield fighter and you can hit things with your sword at THIS bonus and do THIS much damage." Now all classes have about the same learning curve, which is good and bad. It's good in that new players can easily play anything they want now. It's bad in that SOME veteran players seem to find the new classes a little bland at times because spellcasters and more "advanced" classes don't have the options they used to. I am of the opinion that a class is only as bland as you play it out to be, but that's just me.
I've also found that the usefulness of wizards in 4E depends on the style of the DM and the type of encounters he sets up. If you just keep running into bland 8x8 rooms with nothing but monsters in them, then the wizards don't seem to do quite as well. If you set up more intersting encounters with lots of cool terrain, cover, and hazards then the wizard becomes more fun with his de-buff and blasting spells. A favorite tactic of my group's wizard is to Fey Step behind enemies on ledges and Thunderwave them off, setting them up for the other party members and dealing extra damage. Also, your wizard will have more fun running from cover to cover and taking part in the action rather than just sitting 40 feet back chucking magic missiles over and over again. This is actually more fun for EVERYONE in the party.
My ultimate issue with the wizard (my favorite class choice together with bard in past editions) is that 4e builds are too much combat-oriented. When flipping through the paragon path options, everything is connected to being better at some combat effect. Compared to the options available in just the core 3.x books, where you could create subterfuge-based mages, scholars expert in forbidden lore, etc etc, the class seems totally bland from the point of view of role-playing (in the sense of integrating magic in your character's life beyond blasting or subduing things) and non-combat encounters. The ritual list also feels quite odd, with many good non-combat wizard tricks (like scrying) at extremely high levels, and curtails many magical options. It definitely feels like playing a Warhammer Battle Wizard (as per 2nd ed, where I have also left wizards altogether) instead of, e.g., a Dragonlance Wizard of High Sorcery, an Egyptian Scroll Sage or a Acadamae student in Golarion. No problem with the blasting power, but definitely not my things. At least Warlocks have a better rationale for their magical origins and the limited and focused nature thereof (as they are pact-bound). The 4e "academic wizard" is better-equipped to be a fantasy NRA member than a scholar of the arcane.
Of all the classes in 4e, I'd say it was the wizard who changed the most from previous editions. Is it possible that players who liked playing wizards in 3e aren't interested in playing a 4e wizard?
Perhaps. In contrast, the new wizards are my favorite part of 4e.
Yeah, I have some PCs who hate the 4th edition wizard because they favor a more "I blow s!%@ up" approach rather than "I slow people down" tactical approach. They just hate not doing as much damage as the strikers.
Guess they didn't notice the warlock class, huh?
:P
|
|
My ultimate issue with the wizard (my favorite class choice together with bard in past editions) is that 4e builds are too much combat-oriented. When flipping through the paragon path options, everything is connected to being better at some combat effect. Compared to the options available in just the core 3.x books, where you could create subterfuge-based mages, scholars expert in forbidden lore, etc etc, the class seems totally bland from the point of view of role-playing (in the sense of integrating magic in your character's life beyond blasting or subduing things) and non-combat encounters. The ritual list also feels quite odd, with many good non-combat wizard tricks (like scrying) at extremely high levels, and curtails many magical options. It definitely feels like playing a Warhammer Battle Wizard (as per 2nd ed, where I have also left wizards altogether) instead of, e.g., a Dragonlance Wizard of High Sorcery, an Egyptian Scroll Sage or a Acadamae student in Golarion. No problem with the blasting power, but definitely not my things. At least Warlocks have a better rationale for their magical origins and the limited and focused nature thereof (as they are pact-bound). The 4e "academic wizard" is better-equipped to be a fantasy NRA member than a scholar of the arcane.
I had the same misconception. As it turns out, you can still do a lot of those things with 4e wizards. You have to look at combat spells, utility spells, and rituals to get a full picture of the 4e Wizard. More than that you also have to understand how the 4e skill system works and how some skills have substituted for things the Wizard used to just use a spell for. You can play an "academic" wizard as easily as you can a blaster wizard. You just have to "play" him that way. I don't have my books handy, but most of the spells that let Wizards do that sort of thing are available in the utility or rituals lists. The exceptions tend to be when a spell was removed so that the Wizard can't do every other classes job as well or better than they can, or removed to fix something that was working poorly in 3.5.
I didn't like the Wizard class or the system at all the first time I played it. I got talked into trying it again, and I have a completely different perspective. I never find I don't have useful options for anything I want to do with my Wizard, and that includes out of combat stuff. There are a few archetype things Wizards could do that aren't in the core book, but I have no doubt they will get to them eventually. One notable omission is summoning spells. On the whole though, my Wizard can fulfill a variety of roles. I can't do everything and fill every role in the party anymore, but that is a good thing. It is poor game design when one class is capable of doing everything every other class can do and in most cases do it better. I feel like 4e emphasizes teamwork more than any other edition of the game I have played. I still want to see what happens as they expand the game by adding additional source books, classes, paragon paths and so on. If they can keep the game balance that they have achieved in the core books and still add new options for players, then I think the fun of the game will grow immensely. As it is, I am glad I gave it a second look because I am having a blast playing 4e now. I still do play and love Pathfinder, but 4e isn't the anathema to all fun I thought it was the first time I played it with some friends.
I had the same misconception. As it turns out, you can still do a lot of those things with 4e wizards. You have to look at combat spells, utility spells, and rituals to get a full picture of the 4e Wizard...
I see your point, but believe me I've tried and... I find the PHB quite a promising thing until I get to wizards. Maybe I was too generic. The main facts which put me off are (and this is no attack on the rules or claims of "broken classes", just reasons why I don't feel like playing a 4e wizard):
1) Paragon Paths do not really offer much variety. A paragon path, besides a good source of powers, is an splendid character building tool (less abuse-prone than PrCs perhaps), but for Wizards the published ones are just different ways of blasting. I can RPG a "loremaster" wizard who gets no benefits to divination rituals or knowledge magic, but just some more "battle punch".
2) Both spells and rituals are missing many of the things I find iconic for a wizard character. Not just a D&D wizard, but a wizard in fantasy literature, movies, other RPGs, etc. I am thinking of summoning things (absent), creating illusions (same thing), etc. The system is more compact indeed, but those areas are too iconic for the way I represent fantasy wizards for the core class to be attractive.
3) The impossibility to learn spells from enemies (just rituals). One of the thrills of playing a wizard (to me at least) is seeing an enemy caster trying to melt your party with a particular interesting spell you don't know and the expectation of adding it to your spellbook when/if you vanquish him. Much as a fighter jonesing for the evil warlord's Rod of Lordly Might. That is gone; cool to get new rituals, but let's face it, fighting for and getting to learn Horrid Wilting is more exciting than cracking the secrets of Cure Disease.
4) "academic" also meant "knowing your spells". Thinking ahead what combination of magic would be useful for a certain mission or battle. Given the far narrower spell preparation span right now, that whole part is near gone. If you prepare, e.g., Feather Fall, no Shield for you at 2nd level. I guess many people find this part not worth the effort, but some players did enjoy it.
5) Making many spells "personal" (I am thinking tactical advantage ones, like Flight or Levitate), apparently to reduce the wizard's party boosting capacity (as that's for "Leaders" now). Actually that does little to help the "collaborative wizard" approach: Harpy attack? Cast Flight on the Fighter and let him teach them a couple things.
Try as I may, I find the wizard losing his or her luster for me.
Yeah, I have some PCs who hate the 4th edition wizard because they favor a more "I blow s*%% up" approach rather than "I slow people down" tactical approach. They just hate not doing as much damage as the strikers.
I agree with this statement. The Wizard and Cleric have been trimmed down in comparison to their 3rd Ed counterpart and I say why not. They have their role in a group, can contribute greatly so why should they have so many extra options compared to other classes.
The only thing I'm not sure of is why they wern't given the same option with their Encounter Spells as they are with their Dailys. They should have double the number of encounter and can choose when they rest read their spell book and refresh their spells. Likewise they would get an extra spell if they had the Expanded Spellbook feat from which they could choose.It would just give them a little extra choice and a reason for the spellbook which most people are complaining about.
Damage wise wizards are fine. They might even excel at doing damage and Area effect spells in 4e BUT they just don't feel like wizards to me. Like all other classes its the same old same old At will, daily, encounter power rinse repeat with the occasional Ritual thrown in. They have lost there flavor that has been wizards since the dawn of Dungeons & Dragons. Couple that with the fact they have very LIMITED selection of things they can do as a result of spellbooks only existing in name because when a wizard levels up he has to forget a power to know another or something to that effect(I don't have my books in front of me so can't remember exactly). Lots are house ruling there arses off to change the above problems with wizards but it still is a patch for an ongoing problem with 4e which is a generic feel molded around MMoRPG's.
|
|
Damage wise wizards are fine. They might even excel at doing damage and Area effect spells in 4e BUT they just don't feel like wizards to me. Like all other classes its the same old same old At will, daily, encounter power rinse repeat with the occasional Ritual thrown in. They have lost there flavor that has been wizards since the dawn of Dungeons & Dragons. Couple that with the fact they have very LIMITED selection of things they can do as a result of spellbooks only existing in name because when a wizard levels up he has to forget a power to know another or something to that effect(I don't have my books in front of me so can't remember exactly). Lots are house ruling there arses off to change the above problems with wizards but it still is a patch for an ongoing problem with 4e which is a generic feel molded around MMoRPG's.
I see all of the points you raise as a good thing. Yes, the wizard has changed. It is no longer the class that dominates play at mid to high levels. The wizard is no longer the game breaker.
The wizard may seem limited but it is still the class with the most flexibility. Where every other class is limited to a single big daily ability the wizard can choose from one of two (or thee with the expanded spell book) on any given day. Throw in ritual casting and the wizard becomes an amazingly flexible and effective class.
But that does not mean the wizard dominates play as it did in 3e. That seems to be the big change that most folks do not like.
|
Damage wise wizards are fine. They might even excel at doing damage and Area effect spells in 4e BUT they just don't feel like wizards to me. Like all other classes its the same old same old At will, daily, encounter power rinse repeat with the occasional Ritual thrown in. They have lost there flavor that has been wizards since the dawn of Dungeons & Dragons. Couple that with the fact they have very LIMITED selection of things they can do as a result of spellbooks only existing in name because when a wizard levels up he has to forget a power to know another or something to that effect(I don't have my books in front of me so can't remember exactly). Lots are house ruling there arses off to change the above problems with wizards but it still is a patch for an ongoing problem with 4e which is a generic feel molded around MMoRPG's.
I'd laugh, but I can't be bothered....
I never in all the years running wizards had trouble with them dominating. Full disclosure requires me to mention that my players which I have 8 regulars and about 4 transient people who work alot or are away from home often and they are not min/maxers whose interest in games I run is to craft a story not disrupt the game and whatnot. It is ones personal choice 4e wizards etc but I am only speaking from my experience and 3 of my players love wizards and won't touch 4e versions. They tried them and got bored within 2 sessions of them. It is possible that all the coming splat books will add options and filler to make wizards optionally more appealing to the Older school crowd.
/Shrug
|
|
I never in all the years running wizards had trouble with them dominating. Full disclosure requires me to mention that my players which I have 8 regulars and about 4 transient people who work alot or are away from home often and they are not min/maxers whose interest in games I run is to craft a story not disrupt the game and whatnot. It is ones personal choice 4e wizards etc but I am only speaking from my experience and 3 of my players love wizards and won't touch 4e versions. They tried them and got bored within 2 sessions of them. It is possible that all the coming splat books will add options and filler to make wizards optionally more appealing to the Older school crowd.
/Shrug
I understand that the 4e wizard will not appeal to everyone. And I am glad that you have never experienced the gamebreaking potential of the 3e wizard. However, it does not take a munchkin or a min/maxer to abuse the 3e wizard. The spells available to wizards from levels 12 and up just get wacky and by the time a wizard is 15 and 16 they can break games with little or no effort - force cage and time stop are two prime examples of highly abusive spells.
Yes, the 4e wizard does not have the same level of flexibility as the 3e wizard did. The class playing field has been leveled. Now each class can excel in its role without dominating play at any given level. I see that as a very good thing.
I understand what you are saying I really do but I have learned a few things from 22 years of gaming, most of that running games.
1. A Game is what you and your players make of it. If you or they abuse things then yes a class will dominate in cases of Dungeons & Dragons specifically.
2. Like life not everything is fair. Many, many systems D&D included has some classes etc that outshine others. I have alot of experience with systems that do this such as Rifts, Underground and a few others. To expect a even playing field is a odd concept to me especially in the case of wizards which yes at higher level do tend to rule because they are wizards. Shaping magic is a skill that should give you control like no other not just in damage but in all areas. A Fighter should not be able to compare to a wizard at high levels and in my experience.
3. Your choice to play a class or race should be based on your desired view of what you are playing or role playing concept I call it. I have had players play children in games where the others are EPIC in power and you know what? They had a blast because its what they wanted to play and knew what they were getting into from the start. If you don't have a well developed concept of RP or are just looking to "Win" the game then yes you will either get bored with a game or be upset that another player is killing more then you.
I own all 4e material released to date. Maybe with the release of other 4e products(Forgotten Heroes: Fang, Fist, and song is an example of a decent start) my players and I will find the creative outlet we had in other incarnations of D&D but at the moment the books sit on my shelf and wait.
/cheers
|
|
1. A Game is what you and your players make of it. If you or they abuse things then yes a class will dominate in cases of Dungeons & Dragons specifically.
In the case of the wizard in 3e you need to actively choose less than optimal spell mixes in order to avoid dominating play. I agree that the game is what you make of it but there are times when the system channels play for you no matter how hard you try to avoid it.
2. Like life not everything is fair. Many, many systems D&D included has some classes etc that outshine others.
I agree but having a game that has, at its core, the notion of PC balance gives every player the opportunity to contribute in a meaningful manner both in and out of combat. Just because life is not fair does not mean we should accept that as a part of the games we play.
3. Your choice to play a class or race should be based on your desired view of what you are playing or role playing concept I call it.
I agree wholeheartedly. The real difficulty come when the game is played. Any given D&D session is half combat time and half out of combat roleplay. If my PC can be involved in both on an equal footing with the other PCs then I will enjoy my game time. If one or two PCs dominate play then my ability to draw enjoyment from the game will take a very big dip.
As much as I miss the utilitarian nature of the 3e wizard I rather enjoy the more egalitarian team play of 4e.
I have ran and played in many games and the issue of balance has never come up. The only thing I have seen when I have joined groups in my local game stores is "So and so is a min/maxer" or "Dude is all about the hack and slash". People play what they want, power level comes based on that basic mindset.
Kinda funny story but mostly games I have run a character you think will be weak ends up driving the story the most because the player of sed PC is on the money and REALLY feels his character or by some token ends up being the driving force in the game. A characters stats on his sheet have never to my recollection been the deciding factor in my localized experience.
Anyway, I'm kinda looping in on myself now so Ill leave it at that. To each his own, pip pip cheerio etc.
From my personal gaming table experience... I love the 4E wizard. We have 7 people, and the role of DM is rotated between myself and another. The party has seven characters.
Marilee Steelgirdle--Dwarf Fighter
Brandall--Halfling Rogue
Tarakos--Tiefling Warlord/Wizard
Dalron--Eladrin Wizard
Gort--Human Wizard
Max Danvers of Highmoon--Half Elf Fighter/Wizard
Two-fer--Warforged Ranger
Recently we were busting into a room of 5 hobgoblin soldiers and 1 warcaster. Initiative was on our side, for the most part. Between the two wizards, the warlord and my fighter we turned that room over the course of two rounds into an "oven" (as Jim Darkmagic of the New Hampshire Darkmagics would say... loved that podcast). The 5 soldiers were bunched together to hold a phalanx line. So were proceeded to blast them with every AoE spell we had: force orb, burning hands, color spray, scorching burst, thunderwave, etc. By the time the other fighter and I started "tanking", most of the front line were well below the bloodied line in HP. This made getting to the warcaster and putting him down much easier. The strikers could then focus on downing the wizard as fast as possible.
I think 4E wizards are great for their role as controller. They do what they are currently designed to do: control the action. I really love the chessboard analogy used above. The frost spells are great: one wizard used icy rays to pin down the rear rank of some duergar later on in that same adventure exampled above. They can turn a bad situation into a manageable one with only a couple of spells. And if you are faced with lots minions, almost half of the encounter's XP allotment could be blown up with one or two spells.
If you want an arcane caster that blows stuff up, you can build a wizard that focuses on the higher damage spells or go with a warlock. Every class shines in their roles in this edition; they just shine in different ways.
BTW: I also miss illusions and summonings, much like I miss my bards and druids. But I am sure that eventually we will see them all in some form or another. (I have already preordered XRP's Advanced Player's Guide and WotC's PHB II.)
I have not played a wizard yet, but I have one in the group I am DMing (I need to post a campaign log -- the campaign is going awesome).
And,
he loves it.
He was a little hesitant at first because of the lack of options (as opposed to the current 3.5 version with its millions of spells), but we kind worked out a magical scheme for our campaign that works well -- more focus on elemental magic and feeding of the magical residue of the great arcane times of ages past.
He is really coming into his own. And now that he can enchant magic items . . .he is the group's best friend.
I have not played a wizard yet, but I have one in the group I am DMing (I need to post a campaign log -- the campaign is going awesome).
And,
he loves it.
He was a little hesitant at first because of the lack of options (as opposed to the current 3.5 version with its millions of spells), but we kind worked out a magical scheme for our campaign that works well -- more focus on elemental magic and feeding of the magical residue of the great arcane times of ages past.
He is really coming into his own. And now that he can enchant magic items . . .he is the group's best friend.
What was the magical scheme you used, I'm trying to put together a slightly more varied Wizard option?
Yeah, I have some PCs who hate the 4th edition wizard because they favor a more "I blow s*!~ up" approach rather than "I slow people down" tactical approach. They just hate not doing as much damage as the strikers.You could say the 3.5 wizard split into two classes in 4; The Warlock and the Wizard. So what these players want might be the warlock.
Still, I share the overall concern over wizard power, tough I have only seen one up to 4th level yet.
I agree with this idea, play a Wizard if you want to be crafty tactical battlefield control-- which is is "controller" role in fairness-- but for me personally who likes blasty magic, the Wizard was not fun at all. I swapped my class from Wizard to Warlock after our first game session (with identical character concept) and am much happier.
What was the magical scheme you used, I'm trying to put together a slightly more varied Wizard option?
I hope I didn't confuse the issue -- it was nothing mechanical. We just cast ancient magic as being, essentially, 3.5. Wizards use to be able to wield varied and sundry magics, but through the ages this grand understanding of the arcane was lost. Now most wizards are only able to tap into the very primal components of ancient magic, namely elemental-themed or supported abilities.
|
|
One interesting side effect of the push/pull/slide thing - persistent area effects cast by the party's wizard can easily become a weapon to be used against the party.
Wizards need to be very very careful with spell placement. Not sure if this makes them less useful but it can definitely be a very big drawback.
In commeration of this thread. ;P
On a more constructive note, one thing that may be of interest for some is this recent low profile release by WOTC. It showcases some oddly familiar aspects of wizardry in a purely flavor form (think Dungeon Survival Guide or the Practical Guide to Monsters); possibly being the basis of what Wizards might have planned down the line in later splatbooks for the wizardly arcane spellcasters.
P.S. Also available here.