Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Porphyrogenitus" data-source="post: 4302424" data-attributes="member: 69738">I like this point from another thread, btw:I've been one of the critics of that tendency in every edition, myself - naturally the spell list grows over time and ultimately wizards (and to a lesser included degree, Clerics) outstrip other classes in powerful options.So looking at my above post again (rather than re-editing it), I've fallen victim to that, myself, because it's an easy crutch to reach for a spell to solve every problem.Reading this thread more closely, btw, I think perhaps there are a range of character design options that weren't available or viable straight-out-of-the-box in previous editions. It's just they're ones we're not all familiar with as D&amp;D.The above said as a possible concession to the edition's virtues over the past's vices, I do hope that at least &quot;Ritual Research&quot; if not &quot;Spell Research&quot; is available, and wonder some at the availability of non-combat arcane (be they spell or ritual) options. Perhaps - dk, I'm asking - those are produced in game mechanics other than the familiar &quot;spell&quot;, by skill or feat with the right &quot;flavour text mindset&quot;?I notice that, like me, a lot of the peeps who are having trouble getting just the right character concept translated are ones with arcane spellcaster builds from previous editions. IMO, that's probably better for the game as a whole but also no doubt will be affected over time, as the D&amp;D designers like producing arcane-spellcaster-oriented-accessories just as much as we like to use them. But hopefully all classes will still shine at all levels. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />I also like this:&quot;Social&quot; is a big deal for the concept I have in mind, but also not sucking. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />_________________________________Am still interested in a 4E Build that as much as possible models the character I described. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Porphyrogenitus, post: 4302424, member: 69738"] I like this point from another thread, btw:I've been one of the critics of that tendency in every edition, myself - naturally the spell list grows over time and ultimately wizards (and to a lesser included degree, Clerics) outstrip other classes in powerful options. So looking at my above post again (rather than re-editing it), I've fallen victim to that, myself, because it's an easy crutch to reach for a spell to solve every problem. Reading this thread more closely, btw, I think perhaps there are a range of character design options that weren't available or viable straight-out-of-the-box in previous editions. It's just they're ones we're not all familiar with as D&D. The above said as a possible concession to the edition's virtues over the past's vices, I do hope that at least "Ritual Research" if not "Spell Research" is available, and wonder some at the availability of non-combat arcane (be they spell or ritual) options. Perhaps - dk, I'm asking - those are produced in game mechanics other than the familiar "spell", by skill or feat with the right "flavour text mindset"? I notice that, like me, a lot of the peeps who are having trouble getting just the right character concept translated are ones with arcane spellcaster builds from previous editions. IMO, that's probably better for the game as a whole but also no doubt will be affected over time, as the D&D designers like producing arcane-spellcaster-oriented-accessories just as much as we like to use them. But hopefully all classes will still shine at all levels. :D :cool: I also like this:"Social" is a big deal for the concept I have in mind, but also not sucking. :p _________________________________ Am still interested in a 4E Build that as much as possible models the character I described. :p [/QUOTE]

Verification