Critical Hits

Everything tabletop gaming since 2005

The Defense of Laser Clerics and Infinite Wizards

by

We take a short break from our GenCon writeups to bring you some commentary…

ChattyDM likes laser clerics. Tommi does not.

There’s one unaddressed tangent to the issue that I really like in relation to 4e.

In previous editions, magic was a limited resource, and it was restricted. Wizards memorized spells that did specific things, and they could run out of spells. Sorcerers were a bit more flexible, but at some point, they’re going to run out of spells (barring obscure late-game feats and whatnot.) Clerics were the same way, which was always kind of funny to me: “nope, sorry, your god only can give you so much power per day.”

Enter fourth edition. Wizards and Clerics can channel magic energy all day long, as much as they want. They might not always be able to do anything useful with it, but it does imply that they have a steady source of magic/divine power floating around at all times. So why not use it?

I’m playing a Wizard in 4e right now as well as running a game. When the DM attacks my Wizard and misses, I describe how I used a quick magic shield to deflect it. (After all, I get my Int bonus to AC, there are many ways to interpret that.) When I use my Theivery skill, I don’t get out the lock picks, I’m channeling magic through my wand to deactivate the lock. (And if it’s a really complex lock, it may require a ritual, but it’s still the same principle, just different mechanics.)

When I run my game, I’m going to make an effort to emphasize those effects when I attack the Cleric, Warlock, or Wizard in my party. When the Orc’s arrow misses the Cleric of Pelor, it’s a momentary blinding radiant light that caused the Orc to miss.

And then there’s this, which is often what I think about in relation to Wizards:

Actually, DBZ is not where I first saw this kind of energy collision. I know it was all over the place in 80’s cartoons that I grew up watching. I’m tempted to say it made appearances in both the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon and Gargoyles, though I can’t verify. Anyway, that was my conception of wizards all along (especially evil ones)- they can throw energy all day long, and our hapless heroes have to take cover, or blast back at it. And that seems to go nicely with the 4e mechanics. It may not be your style, but I much more enjoy playing a D&D wizard now than in previous editions, purely from a flavor perspective.

Comments

  2. I had always shared similar concerns about the most magical classes in the previous incarnations of D&D. The wizards were the ones that I could (sort of) believe in, and that’s just because when I played one I only memorized what I thought my character would consider “essential things I need to avoid something big and nasty” and then memorized other spells during the day dictated by the character needs.

    …

    It was either that or the fact that I’m a Roger Zelazny’s fanboy and if Merlin has to memorize spells I can justify any wizard that does so too.

    Clerics were a tad iffy. The issue is exactly the same one you point out, but with a twist. Why the heck does the cleric need to memorize things at all or pray for specific boons during breakfast? I mean really, can’t you just pray to your god for whatever is it that you need? Maybe gods are a busy bunch and keep a tight schedule… maybe they don’t give out too much power because they need some to run their godly Xboxes or Playstations. Who knows?

    The ideas you threw around to add depth to your game are very nice although I feel they run into a specific problem with D&D. Since the game has the mechanics right in front of your nose the whole time… it’s easy to start looking at those things as, well, fluff (as in things that are, in the end, irrelevant.)

    the_blunderbuss’s last post: Rooting for Shiny Disco Balls!

  3. I think this idea is full of win, and am going to steal it for my newly starting 43 campaign 🙂

  4. Wow.. /agree the idea is “full of win”. Seems like recasting and ‘shemping’ of both fluff and crunch is all the buzz in the rpg blogosphere this week (that and McCain foolishness). Maybe we should start a Fluff’N Crunch Recasting meme? heh… definitely using your recasting idea at my game table.

  5. “When the DM attacks my Wizard and misses, I describe how I used a quick magic shield to deflect it. (After all, I get my Int bonus to AC, there are many ways to interpret that.) When I use my Theivery skill, I don’t get out the lock picks, I’m channeling magic through my wand to deactivate the lock. (And if it’s a really complex lock, it may require a ritual, but it’s still the same principle, just different mechanics.)”

    And that, sir, is exactly what I find appealing about 4e.

  6. With respect to Rev. Mike, while wizards are pretty badass, and fun, to play in 4E, they are greatly toned down from the previous edition. While a wizard didn’t have access to an unlimited set of powers, at the same time a high level (not low or mid level) wizard didn’t NEED all that extra flash. A single spell or two, or a sick combination of 3 or more lower ones cast previously, would ensure the wizard nearly always (90%+) win whatever conflict he was currently embroiled in. Against other spellcasting types (druid, cleric, etc.) the playing field was fairly even, but against the non-casters there was little hope of winning anything but a sneak attack on the caster (and that was iffy, too).

    However, in 4E the difference in power levels between the classes is dramatically smaller, and each class contributes something meaningful. Within his purview (controlling and damaging mass numbers of foes) the wizard is king. Other classes may get some ability to deal with numbers of opponents, but nothing like the wizard. At the same time, other classes are far better suited to dealing with a single enemy (ranger, rogue, warlock, and even the fighter) than the wizard. This is just fine, as it enhances gameplay.

    The new edition is definately cinematic in nature, and little alterations (such as what was mentioned above about AC and thievery) fit extremely well with the new zeitgeist of 4E.

  8. I only have one comment for this thread…

    OVER NINE THOUSAND?!!!!!?!! *CRUSHES SCANNER*

  12. Broken Class Award:

    2.0 – Wizards
    3.0 – Clerics
    3.5 – Clerics
    4.0 – ????
    5.0 – Profit!

  13. Broken Class Award:

    2.0 Wizards, hands down
    3.0 Clerics, Verdant Lords
    3.5 Clerics, Fatespinners
    4.0 ?

    Any I missed?

  14. One of the coolest things about Wizards in the new edition are the freebie powers. Thus, you can repeatedly mage-hand someone just for the heck of it.

  15. @Sultan: Good call on the Fatespinners! I had forgotten how cheesy they could be with their huge penalty power (“spin”) + forced reroll in the miraculous even of a save.

  17. Ok, while I have to agree that yes, 4e turns the wizard from a limited bookworm into a fully-fledged arcane arsenal, the exploit system is the only enjoyable aspect of 4e. The oversimplified skill system, the lack of in-depth character creation, and the COMPLETE revamp of the system is more than a little letdown for serious Dnd geeks. It’s good for marketing, no doubt, as it resembles nothing so much as a pen-and-paper replica of EVERY MMORPG IN EXISTENCE!! (Leave out the false insults when you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about –Ed)

    The intricacies of character building, widely adjustable rules, and Universe-spanning set of skills, feats and spells are all gone, replaced by a set of ‘Powers’ that look like something from a videogame! The whole POINT of Dnd was that it ISN’T a generic videogame RPG, and now that is gone. Just goes to show how shortening attention spans and the Internet, as fun as it is, have reduced the intelligence of the masses to something 4e appeals to.

    sorry for the rant, but still, the prosecution rests.

  18. While I’m always tempted to argue with drive-by rants such as these, aside from editing out one offensive line that I won’t stand for, I think I can sum it up by saying that I’d rather play with “the masses” than these “serious Dnd geeks.”

  19. Well, he did say “the exploit system is the only enjoyable aspect of 4e” but then said the power system is too much like a videogame. This is a contradiction, so until that’s clarified there’s not really much point in arguing anyway.

  20. I have to agree with Stephen… 4e does have an uncanny MMORPG feel about it, and that’s been a big turn-off for me. It has merit, and I hope it does quite well for those who use that for their D&D experience.

    But I feel 3.5 still does it best for me. Granted, there are some wickedly over-powered classes/prestige classes, but that comes from WotC having to continually release new products to stay afloat. I feel that 4e falls under the same category (to an extent) in that it is geared to try and pull gamers they lost/never had from MMORPGs to the tabletop. While I don’t like the outcome, I can’t argue against bringing more gamers to the fold.

    Too many people have let the 3.5/4e ‘conflict’ get too personal and each side bitterly defends their version, but I think it’s all about gaming, whether it’s 3.5 or 4, we should all have fun in the ways we can. You can like 4e and I can like 3.5 and neither one of us would be wrong.

    Btw, Clerics are definitely the most OP out of the 3.5 PHB…

CC License

All articles and comments posted posted on the site (but not the products for sale) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. References to trademarks and copywritten material are included for review and commentary use only and are not intended as any kind of challenge.
Mastodon

Recent Comments

Contact The Staff

Critical Hits staff can be reached via the contact information on their individual staff pages and in their articles. If you want to reach our senior staff, email staff @ critical-hits.com. We get sent a lot of email, so we can't promise we'll be able to respond to everything.

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages