Ahem: I told you.

[Empath Negative]

Reducing Total Spell Slots: Since wizards now have at-will magic, they need fewer spell slots. The current design places a cap on the total number of spells you can prepare, and it caps the maximum number of spells you can prepare of each level. The reduction of spell slots pushes more reliance on cantrips, and it makes combinations harder to repeat.


Not too terribly long ago I was given a few snot nosed responses for suggesting dramatically cutting a wizards (and really all casters) number of spell slots. This would balance wizards out against other characters but still allow them to be very useful in a pinch.

One snot nosed comment told me to go playtest it.


Well. Turns out somebody already playtested it. WOTC did. And I was right.


Suck a fat one.

 

[Herzog]

Pictures or it didn't happen

But seriously.

I assume you are referring to 4th edition wizards.
Given they made a complete overhaul of the system, how can you compare that playtest with 3rd edition balance between casters and non-casters?

Also, referring to replies to your suggestion as 'snotnosed responses' when they don't even disagree with you, but suggest you playtest it first is not very nice.

Last but not least: If you are referring to something you said and something others replied to, a referrence to the actual discussion might be more helpfull than a summery that seems a bit colored by your own opinion of the discussion.

 

[Nikmal]

Reducing Total Spell Slots: Since wizards now have at-will magic, they need fewer spell slots. The current design places a cap on the total number of spells you can prepare, and it caps the maximum number of spells you can prepare of each level. The reduction of spell slots pushes more reliance on cantrips, and it makes combinations harder to repeat.


Not too terribly long ago I was given a few snot nosed responses for suggesting dramatically cutting a wizards (and really all casters) number of spell slots. This would balance wizards out against other characters but still allow them to be very useful in a pinch.

One snot nosed comment told me to go playtest it.


Well. Turns out somebody already playtested it. WOTC did. And I was right.


Suck a fat one.

You mean snot nosed like your comments?? I guess the term "it takes one to know one" certainly applies here!

 

[Empath Negative]

Pictures or it didn't happen

But seriously.

I assume you are referring to 4th edition wizards.
Given they made a complete overhaul of the system, how can you compare that playtest with 3rd edition balance between casters and non-casters?

Also, referring to replies to your suggestion as 'snotnosed responses' when they don't even disagree with you, but suggest you playtest it first is not very nice.

Last but not least: If you are referring to something you said and something others replied to, a referrence to the actual discussion might be more helpfull than a summery that seems a bit colored by your own opinion of the discussion.

Actually the above is lifted directly from FIFTH editions L&L.

 

[Sekhmet]

While I that cutting spell slots isn't a terrible idea, I disagree with the core of your statement.
You're suggesting that everything that Wizards has ever done has been balanced and good.

A casual stroll through any edition they've been a part of will find things that they really, really failed at - this could be one of them, and we won't know until we try the system for ourselves.

 

[nillic]

*mean things*

You're kind of being a jerk

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

OP reported.

 

[Piratecat]

...Yeah. Not so much.

Klunk.