Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279319Check this self-congratulationary quote from the very first post:

"I specifically did not take over character creation from them, like I habitually did twenty years ago, and like GMs typically do up through the present day..."

I don't think I've ever done that.  I help if there's a question, but I've never finished their chargen.  It's their character.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279294That seems likely for a 1st level character. I think an 3.5 wizard is likely to have a higher dex or a feat that will boost his crossbow attack a bit, and he may have a 3rd spell if he's an evoker, or even a feat that does something else with the spell, etc. But yeah, that's pretty close.

Yeah, I'm just looking at the basics for the purposes of the discussion.

[NOTE: My apologies to Silverlion as I, personally, am looking at other portions of the conversation to try to get some clarification on statements people have made.]

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279294Remember the Magic Missile scales: two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, etc. A 7th level caster will do 4d4+4 force damage 100% of the time. The 4e equivalent will still be doing his 2d4+int bonus until he reaches 11th level, and then he can add another d4, and he still has to roll for it.

Yup - I know. This is one of the things to take into account when someone talks about how wizards have so much more USEFUL (his caps!) things to do.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279294All this really shows is that the expectations in 4E are different. In many ways when we try to compare the actual little factual components of the rules we overlook the change in expectations. You can't keep going with the same expectations you had in an earlier edition.

Alright, I'll quit being obtuse. This is, for me, about the idea introduced (not by you) that 4e wizards are somehow more [[insert aspect]] than 3.x wizards. That is, in my opinion, umm...well..I call it hyperbole for sake of politeness. IMHO it's not that it's more or less useful or magical or whatever, but a different set of things - whether one sees them as useful or powerful depends largely on, as you rightly point out, expectations, preferences, etc.
 
So, for example, I played a wizard in my first 4e experience. Someone here said they thought the 4e version was more magical because they could do all the prestidigitation. It felt less magical to me. Why? I had to roll for Magic Missle. Silly, ain't it? But in my long time of playing D&D, when I did play a wizard, the magic missile was a hit. You pulled it out when the going was rough and you absolutely needed to hit. And your magic didn't fail. Now I'm rolling against Reflex?

Now, I see it. I can objectively look at it and see the other side - it's more realistic as you have to aim, the magic is in the conjuring of the missile, not the hitting, etc. And I've got no problem with people who like it or their position. But it's hardly an objective fact that it's more magical.

Then I see things like "more USEFUL" and I wonder "at what?" Admittedly, I only played the 4e wizard once (he died), so I didn't have a lot of exposure - which is one of the reasons I asked about these things in more detail. Because when I look at the lists, I see lots of usefulness in both versions. In our wednesday game, I watched a 1st level Grease spell keep a nasty Iron Golem from doing more damage than killing the one character it did.

ETA: How could I forget watching my 7-year old son using Message and Ghost sound to great effect. Seven. Years. Old.

As I've said before, many times on this site, and to your point about expectations, 4e is, IMHO, a different game - not necessarily in ways that are easy to quantify, but in the underlying assumptions and the design decisions that flow there from.

(I can tell you one thing I definitely backed away from - it's not over-powered heroes wandering around squashing bugs. It's very deadly, that's for sure. I still have my issues with the overall power levels, buts that's totally a taste issue. In every one of the 3 or 4 or 5 sessions I've played to date, we've had one or more character deaths. Nasty)

My apologies, again, for the rant.

Quote from: Zachary The First;279318Here's the start; here's more.

Pretty funny, all told. Every piece of Edwards' writing on traditional games I read reveals yet more misapprehensions and confusion.

Quote from: James J Skach;279325Yeah, I'm just looking at the basics for the purposes of the discussion.


ETA: How could I forget watching my 7-year old son using Message and Ghost sound to great effect. Seven. Years. Old. .

Message and Ghost sound still exist in 4e for what that's worth..!

To Drew: Make SURE you put ON your armor!

Quote from: James J Skach;279325Y
Alright, I'll quit being obtuse. This is, for me, about the idea introduced (not by you) that 4e wizards are somehow more [[insert aspect]] than 3.x wizards. That is, in my opinion, umm...well..I call it hyperbole for sake of politeness. IMHO it's not that it's more or less useful or magical or whatever, but a different set of things - whether one sees them as useful or powerful depends largely on, as you rightly point out, expectations, preferences, etc.
 

A BIG difference is the presence and utility of the ritual system. The ritual system is where most of the non combat spells went. If you look just at the wizard class then rightfully it looks gimped compared to it's 3.X version. However the class+rituals means you gain a lot over the 3.X version.  

You will be able to use all those useful non-combat spell, plus have combat abilities that never go away. The ritual system provides flexibility for people who want to play a X-wizard. (like a rouge-wizard). I had a friend who was down on 4.0 because he liked to play a rouge-wizard in 3.X. The spells he memorized were generally utility spells not direct combat spells. When we grasped the implication of the ritual system he picked up the things he needed to start casting ritual. He became a lot more positive about 4e as the ritual system allowed for more use of magic (because all you need the correct gp amount of components)

The reason why this isn't known more is because of how 4e presented by Wizards. Which I criticized in the past.