Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6362308" data-attributes="member: 15700">Yep.  2 spells.  Not every spell.  I've already pointed this out no fewer than three times now.  At any given scenario, one of the factors a wizard is reliant on is to have learned the right spell for the job.  Your white room scenario is based on the assumption that the perfect spell will always be available.  It simply is not always the case.  Maybe the two spells you chose aren't useful in the scenario you're in.And you know in advance of your particular adventuring day which spells will be perfect for all the scenarios?  Must be nice.  Everyone I've played with guesses which ones might come in handy.  Yet again, you're assuming a white room scenario where the best spells are always available and in actual play that is not the case.  No goal post shifting.  Originally I was talking in general, then the conversation shifted to 5e specific, so I applied 5e's specific rule for the situation.  Either way, doesn't change the fact that a wizard can have some of  his or her spells interrupted.  Which is a factor your white room ignores.  Again.See my answer above.  Your resort to an obvious and week argument of fallacy shows how fragile your argument actually is.  Not only have I been playing the playtests since the beginning, I DM every week at my FLGS for their Encounters.  Additionally, I would rule that any spell that requires an S component can't be cast while restrained.  A wizard can get restrained before their initiative turn.  Thus, interrupting the spell.  And I don't think that's really a house rule, but more of a common sense one.  You can't cast a spell after you've been incapacitated or dead, right?  Same premise.Bolded by me.  Yet again, an important factor for the wizard being able to cast spells that you seem to be handwaving as not a factor.  Spell components are a factor, and the wizard might not have them all of the time.  End, stop.You're missing the point.  That statement was referring to how in your white room comparisons, the wizard always has his or her slots there to cast their spells, every round.  See my fireball example above.  This is not the case.  That powerful spell isn't powerful if the wizard doesn't have that slot available in any particular scenario.Once again, you're making some serious flawed assumptions about my position and experience actually playing the game.  Your personal attacks on my credibility without basis are noted.  And seeing as how there are dozens of monsters that have immunity to spells (sleep, charm, etc), I'm beginning to think it's you who doesn't know what you're talking about.  This is only reinforced by the many times you seem to be handwaving away all of these factors that mitigate caster power in actual play as if they aren't relevant or don't happen.  I.e., it seems to me you're entire argument is based on white room only logic, and not actual play experience.I just gave one.  The fireball example.  I can give you thousands of examples over the past 30+ years where casters were less useful than fighters in combat.  Casters run out of spells.  Often.  Or they don't have a useful one memorized.  Or they don't have the components.  The list goes on.  Wait, what?  No they're not.  Spells, and magic, are very rigidly defined because they don't occur in real life to have as a comparison.  The rules are very clear how, what, when, and what effect various casting of magic does.  Mundane actions are much looser.  It's pretty much, "Come up with a DC value for the action the player wants to do and determine the appropriate ability modifier to use."  If you're PC doesn't have casting ability, they can't cast a spell.  If they aren't a battlemaster fighter, the can still attempt to stun, trip, etc.  Just tell the DM what you want to do.How fast can you run, jump, climb carrying a large rug?  Or your incapacitated buddy?  Where does it spell out exactly how leap on the table and then leap onto the orc trying to bear him to the ground?  There are hundreds of scenarios that can occur that aren't spelled out exactly in the books that can, and do, occur in actual game play.  They don't need to be spelled out exactly.  And you're wrong, there is a framework for these.  It's called the DC system, and is pretty clear on how to come up with your own rulings.What part of "here's a list of reasons why the caster might not have access to cast that spell" is not sinking in?  No one is saying the caster won't cast their spells, I am saying they can't cast the perfect spell for every scenario all the time, which is a key base assumption in these types of comparison.I'm not talking about just combat.  Once again, this "he fact that the wizard is also competitive with the fighter in combat..." is dependent on a white room scenario.  If your wizard preps spells focused on the out of combat scenarios, you can't also say he's as good as the fighter if he doesn't have any combat spells prepped.  And vice versa.  You can't have it both ways.IF the wizard has that spell available.  Seriously, this isn't that hard.  Maybe the wizard never learned that spell.  Maybe they did prep it because they prepp'd another spell.  Maybe they already cast that level slot and don't have any available.  Maybe the wizard doesn't want to put his squishy self on the front line of combat to make that spell effective.  All of these are factors that completely tear down your argument.If you have two ways that mechanically achieve the same thing (bypass hp completely), then the fluff doesn't really matter.  The end result is the same.  And I don't think that just because one class might have a way of doing something it means every other class should.  That's like saying, "if one class can cast healing magic, every class should." Again, niche protection isn't necessarily a bad thing.</blockquote>

Verification