Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UltimaGabe" data-source="post: 1944857" data-attributes="member: 16019">Then that, alone, should tell you that it's a good spell for a Wizard to have- if it's good for a Cleric (who already has all sorts of defenses against magic), then why wouldn't it be great for a Wizard (who, apparently, isn't as good at defending against magic)?I agree with you that it can suck, and I see nothing wrong with this line of thinking- but I used to feel like that (when I started playing D&amp;D, until about a year ago, I hated any situation where I didn't help out the overall goal, whether it be a battle, a negotiation, or just a roleplay situation), and I considered it a rut that I had to get out of. In D&amp;D, it's impossible to always be doing something meaningful- Fighters can't kill everything through arms alone, and spellcasters run out of spells. Sometimes, you just HAVE to sit back and do nothing. However, in the same light, I don't view activating an Antimagic field as &quot;not doing anything meaningful&quot;- activating an Antimagic Field is the absolute best protection you (and anyone around you) can possibly have against magic. Unless you haven't been in too many situations where you've been the target of magic, this kind of protection should be priceless to you. Nothing magical can penetrate an Antimagic field- no spell, no spell-like ability, no magic item, and even no supernatural ability (unless it comes directly from a deity or an artifact). I understand what you're feeling, I just think it's horribly misplaced. Absolute protection at the expense of artillery hardly seems like a waste, in my opinion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UltimaGabe, post: 1944857, member: 16019"] Then that, alone, should tell you that it's a good spell for a Wizard to have- if it's good for a Cleric (who already has all sorts of defenses against magic), then why wouldn't it be great for a Wizard (who, apparently, isn't as good at defending against magic)? I agree with you that it can suck, and I see nothing wrong with this line of thinking- but I used to feel like that (when I started playing D&D, until about a year ago, I hated any situation where I didn't help out the overall goal, whether it be a battle, a negotiation, or just a roleplay situation), and I considered it a rut that I had to get out of. In D&D, it's impossible to always be doing something meaningful- Fighters can't kill everything through arms alone, and spellcasters run out of spells. Sometimes, you just HAVE to sit back and do nothing. However, in the same light, I don't view activating an Antimagic field as "not doing anything meaningful"- activating an Antimagic Field is the absolute best protection you (and anyone around you) can possibly have against magic. Unless you haven't been in too many situations where you've been the target of magic, this kind of protection should be priceless to you. Nothing magical can penetrate an Antimagic field- no spell, no spell-like ability, no magic item, and even no supernatural ability (unless it comes directly from a deity or an artifact). I understand what you're feeling, I just think it's horribly misplaced. Absolute protection at the expense of artillery hardly seems like a waste, in my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Verification