Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6275055" data-attributes="member: 2525">You keep repeating this as if it is true, and when people correct you on it you ignore it and then repeat it again.These classes ALWAYS HAD SPELLS in prior editions.&nbsp; There is nothing new in the Bard having spells.&nbsp; Nobody ever thought of them the way you're describing it - as if it is powers.&nbsp; Powers implies something different than spells. Everyone knows what a spell is, but power is a far broader and vaguer category, and more common to super-hero games than fantasy games.So, if you disagree (and you appear to disagree), then SHOW ME WHICH CLASS NOW HAS SPELLS, THAT DID NOT HAVE SPELLS BEFORE.&nbsp; Until you can do that, your objection doesn't seem to have any substance.&nbsp; It's like you complaining that the glass of orange juice has orange juice in it.&nbsp; Yes, the bard has spells in it.&nbsp; And? While I don't like the bard being a full caster myself, the answer to this is pretty obvious: multiclass.&nbsp; Same thing you do if you want a wizard that has fewer spells and fights really well.You seem to be attempting to use a general objection to bards being full spellcasters, and attempting to warp it (repeatedly) into some comparison to 4e powers.&nbsp; It's a vacuous claim that you have yet to even attempt to support aside from simply asserting it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 6275055, member: 2525"] You keep repeating this as if it is true, and when people correct you on it you ignore it and then repeat it again. These classes ALWAYS HAD SPELLS in prior editions. There is nothing new in the Bard having spells. Nobody ever thought of them the way you're describing it - as if it is powers. Powers implies something different than spells. Everyone knows what a spell is, but power is a far broader and vaguer category, and more common to super-hero games than fantasy games. So, if you disagree (and you appear to disagree), then SHOW ME WHICH CLASS NOW HAS SPELLS, THAT DID NOT HAVE SPELLS BEFORE. Until you can do that, your objection doesn't seem to have any substance. It's like you complaining that the glass of orange juice has orange juice in it. Yes, the bard has spells in it. And? While I don't like the bard being a full caster myself, the answer to this is pretty obvious: multiclass. Same thing you do if you want a wizard that has fewer spells and fights really well. You seem to be attempting to use a general objection to bards being full spellcasters, and attempting to warp it (repeatedly) into some comparison to 4e powers. It's a vacuous claim that you have yet to even attempt to support aside from simply asserting it. [/QUOTE]

Verification