Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7837670" data-attributes="member: 6750235">Okay, that made me laugh.What did they do when clerics didn't start getting spells until 2nd level?  That's actually funny because it reminds me that the very first character I ever played was a BECMI cleric.  I was young and naïve, and said "they can cast spells and wear armor and fight?" to which 3 people quickly agreed and so I made one.I learned quickly that was not the case.We did still play and didn't just stop if I was out of healing, but I distinctly remember wishing were weren't lost 3 levels deep in a dungeon and low on spells pretty often.  That expectation on clerics is what turned me toward druids, magic-users, and bards in AD&D.See above.  The desire to stop and rest didn't stop us.  We definitely had party members die too.  The first time I played Castle Amber with the resting glow was kind of nice.Except we didn't change to scry/buff/teleport etc shenanigans either.  I did diplomancer an attacking red dragon using an impromptu epic diplomacy check and make him immediately loyal to me with other shenanigans, mind you, and jedi mind trick the crap out of people.3e spell casters were the most powerful I've ever seen them.Not really.  If you can squeeze in 1 hour there's no guarantee you can squeeze in 8, but if you can squeeze in 8 you can always squeeze in at least 1 or more, and going with 8 helps the warlock better than 1 anyway because he gets his arcanum back.Even then arcanum is there.  Throwing in an arcanum, a slotted spell, and high damage cantrip like EB is still pretty solid for multiple encounters.  EB does enough damage it's worthwhile compared to many spells.  The many-encounters-no-rest days definitely impacts there and that's why invocations are needed to be carefully selected.  Either eldritch blast is focused on and more valuable or more abilities are added.Long days with no rests are going to impact a major resource for warlocks.  I wouldn't assume biased treatment.  There's no logic behind willing to rest for one and not the other.I would have a pretty hard time saying wizards suck, lol.  INT isn't a high priority ability score for many aspects of the game but doesn't create a scenario where an INT caster is inferior to a CHA caster specifically because of the ability score.  There's way too many other variables and subjective opinions to jump down that rabbit hole.I think wizards are more powerful offensive spellcasters than bards.  A wider selection of combat spells, class bonuses to casting more spells per day, and tradition benefits enhancing spellcasting do that quite well.  Wizard defensive spells also walk all over the bard spell list.I don't think there's anything the bard can do to catch up to the wizard's better combat potential.I think bards provide better party support because of the variety of spells in the list, available healing, a strong assortment of status effects, bardic inspiration dice, and the ability to cover skill areas.I think wizards have more utility within the spells because bards are restricted by spells known that cover multiple areas and the wizard's ritual caster mechanic is much better than the bard's.  I think bards cover utility outside of spells better because of the skill benefits.  My personal opinion is that bards can cover utility better overall with a combination of spells and skills, especially if they give up some healing and support.Short answer -- it's not that easy to just say "INT sucks, CHA rocks" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification