Community

AdrianLP wrote:

I think your logical process is greatly deficient. You believe there are only two reasons someone could prefer the 3e Wizard. That's absurd, and shows a sign that someone can't see beyond their own opinion. I liked the old mage for several reasons that aren't even in the two you list:

Vancian casting, makes mages feel like they did in the Dragonlance novels.]

Yes, just like the dragonlance novels. EI. uber powerful and could do just about everything. What did I get wrong there?

AdrianLP wrote:

I prefer that in 2e and 3e Wizards (all classes really) did not feel like characters in an arcade style game. 4e, to me, feels more like an arcade game than D&D.]

If you mean that every character is balanced, then yes it's like a video game.

AdrianLP wrote:

I liked the massive spells selection. Even if 20 of the attack spells did essentially the same thing, I liked the feel of variation. You would argue that the spell selection allows you to do other's jobs, but that was NOT the draw to the spell selection. I liked reading through books of spells. I liked seeing interesting affects. I liked the spell selection of the sake of the selection. For all I care, you could remove the spells that you feel do other's jobs.]

You like to have enough spells that you can do anything you want with enough time. Still not seeing what i got wrong. If it was JUST different spells then rituals should fill that gap. Since they do not, I'm thinking you really DO want to do everyone's jobs.

AdrianLP wrote:

They didn't feel like sorcerers to me, in 4e they feel like sorcerers to me.

They feel like sorcerers? Maybe, but I fail to see that as bad.

elecgraystone wrote:

LOL To you the one person is more important than the group?

I don't remember saying that. Again you're lying to support your argument. What if 3 want to role play and only 2 want to treat it like a game of numbers?


> Not at all. I'm saying not making a useful character hurts the team as a whole. Two different things.

Then I don't agree with your definition of useful.


> LOL A spellcaster that can't cast it's spells fully is inferior. It's plainly simple. there is nothing I have to prove, it's visible for all to see.

That's an opinion isn't it? If that spell caster has social skills that outweigh the benefit of spellcasting, then I'd say he's more useful.


> Variations? The line is simple. When you stop keeping up with the rest of the group. The 12 wis cleric stopped keeping up with the rest of the group at 4th level.

Again you're looking at a game mechanics point of view only. I hope a majority of people don't even run games that way anyway.


> Again you are mixing an inferior cleric with an inferior character. You keep lumping them together. It's possible for someone to be either one, both or neither. Please stop doing that.

I don't see a separation. All players play characters (first and foremost). The fact that they can wear heavy armour, or cast spells, is a nice extra, but its not the focus.

And a character has more to offer than just a collection of numbers and game mechanics.

elecgraystone wrote:

They feel like sorcerers? Maybe, but I fail to see that as bad.

If you hate the sorcerer then it's a very BIG bad. I hate the sorcerer...so for me, the wizard becomes an unplayable bad. I played the sorcerer ONCE...then NEVER again...even with a DM who loved sorcerer gave them way WAY more power then wizards.

AdrianLP wrote:

I liked the massive spells selection. Even if 20 of the attack spells did essentially the same thing, I liked the feel of variation. You would argue that the spell selection allows you to do other's jobs, but that was NOT the draw to the spell selection. I liked reading through books of spells. I liked seeing interesting affects. I liked the spell selection of the sake of the selection. For all I care, you could remove the spells that you feel do other's jobs.

If this is really true then why not make up a dozen different descriptions for each spell you get? That fire ball could also be an ash storm, a lava spout and a steam bath. As long as the mechanics stay the same you keep the balance, and you get the feel of a pile of spells. You could research new spells (IE spell descriptions) all day then, and play as much of a bookworm as you want.

elecgraystone wrote:

If this is really true then why not make up a dozen different descriptions for each spell you get? That fire ball could also be an ash storm, a lava spout and a steam bath. As long as the mechanics stay the same you keep the balance, and you get the feel of a pile of spells. You could research new spells (IE spell descriptions) all day then, and play as much of a bookworm as you want.

Worried about making new spells and how well they balance with existing stuff, I suppose. In the case where spells aren't *exactly* like what exists.

But I don't want X many spells with absolutely identical affects. Variation is nice.