So, I was talking to a gaming buddy of mine about 4e, and he expressed the hope that the new per-encounter setup for spells and powers would stop wizards from being "burned on the outside, raw in the middle". I hadn't heard that analogy before, but it's actually a really good one for describing the state of wizards in 3.X and previous editions of D&D.

The idea is this: at low levels, wizards in D&D are horribly underpowered. You can cast a handful of spells per day, at which point... you're done. You can whip out your crossbow and shoot at things, like a lame thief with less hit points and worse combat abilities, perhaps, but that's about it. At high levels, conversely, wizards are wildly overpowered. Pit a 20th level fighter against a 20th level wizard in combat and pretty soon you have a flying, gloating wizard inside a chromatic sphere and a dead, polymorphed, cursed fighter in a completely different plane from the one he started from.

It's often suggested, by people defending Vancian magic, that this actually provides a kind of game balance - that the wizard being very underpowered at low levels makes up for the wizard being very overpowered at high levels, but as my pal pointed out this is total bunk: you just swapping one kind of bad balance (the wizard being weak) for another kind of imbalance (the wizard being uber), with perhaps, if you're lucky, a brief "sweet spot" in the middle where things are balanced - whereas what you really want is to have the wizard be more-or-less balanced all the time, otherwise it's lame for the wizard in the early game and lame for the other characters later on. You wouldn't want a steak which was burned to a crisp on the outside and completely raw in the middle, and if the waiter claimed that the burning on the outside made up for the rawness in the middle you'd laugh in his face.

If 4e manages to fix it, that will go a long way towards selling me on it.

You know, I never had this problem with magic-users in my games.  At 1st level, all PCs were pretty much good for an encounter or two before they had to regroup, heal, and replenish their supplies.  The "one-shot wonder" wizard was pretty much on par with the rest of the party at that point.

But this might point up a shift in playstyles since I've been playing RPGs.  I mostly game with the same people I've gamed with for years, or with folks who've been gaming as long as I have (early '80s on).  So there's obviously something to the argument I'm not aware of.

Warthur, what you describe as a bug was originally a feature, I think.

This all revolves around the concept that all the characters classes should be balanced. I dont necessarily think this is needed. A character is what you get out of it. I've seen a wizard be more useful and effective over the long haul at first level than a fighter at first level. Just the opposite as you have experienced. Why? Because of the players involved.

Newer versions seem to be moving toward every character being balanced and self-sufficient.

In oldschool D&D it was more group based.  Based on tabletop wargames, the party functioned like a military unit (of sorts).  It's important to remember that all first level characters are vulnerable.  Fighters with 4 or 5 hp.  Swords doing 1-8 damage.  10 foot pits doing 1-6 damage.  Traps with save vs. poison or die. The fighter and dwarf (infantry) rush forward and hope they'll roll luckily. The cleric (medic) gets in there and maybe tries to help the wounded.  The magic-user (bazooka) hangs back and uses their special abilities when needed.  The thief and halfling (techs) have their own special abilities too.

Unless the magic-user is charging into melee, they're not really any more vulnerable than any other 1st level character.

Oldschool D&D seemed to have much larger parties too.

Quote from: StuartOldschool D&D seemed to have much larger parties too.

I think that might be an upshot of people tending to play multiple characters more often - certainly, in the old D&D manuals I've read, the hobby-wide "1 player, 1 character assumption" seems absent.

We always played in 1-person 1-character games and we often had 10-12 person parties.  Remember that in the 1st ed. DMG Gary talks about the role of the Party Leader / Caller.  You don't need that if there's only 3-4 people in the party.  If you've got a full table, it might be a bit more helpful.

Quote from: Warthur... that the wizard being very underpowered at low levels makes up for the wizard being very overpowered at high levels

The real question to me is whether or not this fits my concept of what Wizards are like in the fantasy universe.  In mine, I have it that top level Wizards *are* more powerful than top notch fighters.   That's how it should be.  I think of things like the Arabian Nights with the Grand Vizier... indeed, he IS powerful.   It is also a correllary that such top notch Wizards are rare.  Why?  Because they frequently do not survive through the lower levels to get there... because at low levels they are indeed, weaklings.  

Somehow, from my story world perspective, that works for me.   Regardless of the mechanics of the system in detail, I do have an expectation that things *should* be this way.

Combat monkeys! :eek:

It's a joke people.

Could it be that it was supposed to be the Magic User who did a whole bunch of stuff outside the combat that couldn't be done by fighters or thieves? So in this way there was balance in the force....

Quote from: StuartOldschool D&D seemed to have much larger parties too.

Nailed on the head.

That, right there, is one of the HUGE fundamental differences between now and then.  When I read my early 80s modules I see a built-in assumption in many of them that the party isn't just the PCs either, rather that the PCs supplement their weaknesses by hiring mercs and the players running multiple characters.  Parties are asumed to be much larger, in the 6-8 character range at least.

It's sort of like reading the Black Company.  When they split off into tactical squads and do their own things.  You've got two wizards, multiple fighters, a medic, and a rogue or 'face'.  It didn't matter so much to a player if their 1st level wizard shot his wad last encounter, his other 1st level wizard still has flaming hands at the ready.

There's even more proof when you look at early CRPGs by SSI where the party has 8 (or more) characters.  And this count got steadily reduced over time until you typically had a main PC and maybe a few hirelings.  Large-party based games just aren't the thing they used to be.

I'm not sure when it all changed.  Probably too gradual to pinpoint and now here we are.  The landscape is very different and thus... 4e.

Quote from: architect.zeroI'm not sure when it all changed.  Probably too gradual to pinpoint and now here we are.  The landscape is very different and thus... 4e.

D&D still shows it's wargaming roots, it's just that the emphasis has shifted from the skirmish level to single character play.

Quote from: DrewI'm not sure when it all changed. Probably too gradual to pinpoint and now here we are. The landscape is very different and thus... 4e.

Ironically, the weekly Living Greyhawk game I'm joining in the fall often gets 10 to 20 people a session and usually has to be split into 2 tables.

Quote from: StuartIronically, the weekly Living Greyhawk game I'm joining in the fall often gets 10 to 20 people a session and usually has to be split into 2 tables.

Your quote is misattributed. That's architect.zero, not me.

Quote from: RoninThis all revolves around the concept that all the characters classes should be balanced. I don't necessarily think this is needed.

I agree. I don't think enforcing some sort of contrived balance is what we, as a group, want. I don't know-maybe everyone else wants something different.

QuoteA character is what you get out of it. I've seen a wizard be more useful and effective over the long haul at first level than a fighter at first level. Just the opposite as you have experienced. Why? Because of the players involved.

Agreed. We have had a sorcerer in most of our groups, and the player is what makes the difference, not the rules.

Quote from: StuartIronically, the weekly Living Greyhawk game I'm joining in the fall often gets 10 to 20 people a session and usually has to be split into 2 tables.

By rules, a LG table can't have more than 6 players (nor less than 4). so you're look at 4-5-6 tables if 20 people show up.