Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Walking Dad" data-source="post: 5327620" data-attributes="member: 59043">a) why should be wizard spells cheap?b) why doesn't spellcasters have to list all their individual spell components?the answer: I wouldn't be as fun for most players. Why should the alchemist have this flaw?The alchemist can only buff himself, barring the &quot;infusion&quot; discovery.&nbsp;Why cannot you disarm the spells-component pouch? Because everyone would get the eschew material feat. It is a unnecessary feat tax that destroys the classic feeling of D&amp;D spells use components. And Who says something about glass jars? Mini waterskins would be better and not effected by shatter and similar spells.And this is why I like the 3rd/4th edition way of less realism. Every motley realistic thing (fighters, rogues, every 'martial' class and now alchemists, for our knowledge how chemistry works) gets hosed by application of &quot;that doesn't work in reality...&quot;. And then there are the magic types, overpowering the game since 3rd edition D&amp;D, that are not criticized for being ridiculous, because 'you know, it is magic...&quot;. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad&nbsp; &nbsp; :mad:"&nbsp; data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" />Sorry to fireinthedust for giving my universal critic to his statement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Walking Dad, post: 5327620, member: 59043"] a) why should be wizard spells cheap? b) why doesn't spellcasters have to list all their individual spell components? the answer: I wouldn't be as fun for most players. Why should the alchemist have this flaw? The alchemist can only buff himself, barring the "infusion" discovery. Why cannot you disarm the spells-component pouch? Because everyone would get the eschew material feat. It is a unnecessary feat tax that destroys the classic feeling of D&D spells use components. And Who says something about glass jars? Mini waterskins would be better and not effected by shatter and similar spells. And this is why I like the 3rd/4th edition way of less realism. Every motley realistic thing (fighters, rogues, every 'martial' class and now alchemists, for our knowledge how chemistry works) gets hosed by application of "that doesn't work in reality...". And then there are the magic types, overpowering the game since 3rd edition D&D, that are not criticized for being ridiculous, because 'you know, it is magic...". :mad: Sorry to fireinthedust for giving my universal critic to his statement. [/QUOTE]

Verification