Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RealAlHazred" data-source="post: 6749883" data-attributes="member: 25818">Originally posted by rampant: It's not a matter of too many Spells per day, it's a problem of too many different spells. Having the ability to cherry pick from any spell in the game within the reach of their spell levels offers them too much versatility, especially since if they ever find out there's a spell they really need they can go back and get it without giving up anything valuable unlike a sorcerer who has to devote one of his limited number of spells known. The sorcerer has an upper limit on his personal versatility because while the sorcerer class as a whole has a large spell list any specific sorcerer can only learn so many spells. Wizards and clerics are certainly broken as hell because they don't have that limit but at least they have a limit in the form of a defined class list which creates gaps in their capabilities, wizards have very limited if any ability to heal, and clerics tend to be less efficient blasters, and have less access to certain kinds of magic, especially if it falls outside their domains and the general cleric selection of healy-buffy stuff. Without either of those limitations the artificer, even with the limits imposed by the craft reserve gains the ability to be good at anything and everything as an individual. It's ok for a class to be versatile as long as individuals still have gaps and weaknesses, generally created by forcing the payment of an opportunity cost, or in the case of the broken stuff by having a limited spell list (at least to start). As for the artificer turning everyone into casters, no that's not it at all. I expect him to put a little magic in their tool boxes is all. Furthermore I have a problem with the spell scroll model because it makes him massively more versatile and influential based on party composition. Not significantly more efficient like a rogue who has melee party members, but total paradigm changer. It's unavoidable that some abilities are going to synergise better with some characters than others. What I'm saying is that there is a whole lot of swing here and that steps should be taken to even things out a bit. You have an excellent point when you mention that the weapon buffs work better with weapon classes, however I'm not sure that those are anywhere as useful or versatile as the spell scrolls or the opportunities they create. As for playing a 5e wizard, well that's just not going to happen any time soon, I have no group right now, and 9 time sout of 10 I end up as the DM when I do have one. I admit upfront that 3rd edition was way easier to upgrade a wizard's spells known count in. The problem isn't a matter of ease, it's far more binary than that. If it happens once it's too much. It was a bad idea to begin with and has been grandfathered in since. It's somewhat vaguely tolerable at the start of an edition because there are simply fewer spells, and 5e has done a decent job of controlling the versatility of each class list. You have thrown the gates wide open to any and all spells, including spells originating from gods and demons and nature (cleric and warlock and druid/ranger). Furthermore it's not really the combat spells I get too worried about when dealing with the artificer's over-versatility, although that can cause issues mind it's just not the big concern in my mind. The big issue is the non-combat spells that can still be pretty potent over the long term, find familiar for example. As for 3e non-casting leaders, you may be one of the first people I've met online who doesn't either lump the martial adepts in as casters, or try to pretend they don't exist. Well it's good to know we agree on something at least. </blockquote>

Verification