Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8928268" data-attributes="member: 4937">Agree with this part.Disagree with this part.&nbsp; Aside from Wish, which often carries a large cost to cast, nothing in the Wizard toolbox really opens up the possibility of reconceptualizing the scene.&nbsp; All of D&amp;D's spells are very specific blocks of narrative force that generally do one thing and one thing only.&nbsp; (The spell says, &quot;In a scene, you can assert the following is true.&quot;)&nbsp; While this eventually gives you a Swiss army spell book of problem-solving tools for almost every occasion, it doesn't let you reconceptualize scenes.&nbsp; You can use a wall of stone to bridge a chasm, but the chasm is still there, and the wall of stone has limitations on size, durability, and so forth.&nbsp; Experienced GMs know what capabilities that spellcasters bring to the table and prepare for it.&nbsp; This is one reason why you have to be very careful of affirming in D&amp;D any sort of flexibility over what a spell can do and make sure that the spell is specifically limited to just what it says that it does and nothing else.&nbsp; Within the context of the narrative force provided by the spell there are already lots of creative solutions that can be applied without allowing that spell to be altered in its effect free form.And in very Trad D&amp;D, wizards in exchange for their awesome power are as squishy as heck and tend to not survive without an adequate meat shield.&nbsp; I'm not really on board with the whole spellcaster angst thing.&nbsp; My only experience with Trad D&amp;D wizards being super broken is in optimization threads where people showed how they could be broken, but my house rules had largely preemptively dealt with that problem and combined with my 1e AD&amp;D background and initial skepticism of where 3e relaxed some restrictions on how spells worked, I never really had a problem with spellcasters taking over at any level of play I regularly engaged in.But if we really want to have a &quot;Wizards are Bad&quot; thread we should fork into a separate thread.UPDATE: Though this line of thought just revealed to me a really strong argument against &quot;flexibility&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8928268, member: 4937"] Agree with this part. Disagree with this part. Aside from Wish, which often carries a large cost to cast, nothing in the Wizard toolbox really opens up the possibility of reconceptualizing the scene. All of D&D's spells are very specific blocks of narrative force that generally do one thing and one thing only. (The spell says, "In a scene, you can assert the following is true.") While this eventually gives you a Swiss army spell book of problem-solving tools for almost every occasion, it doesn't let you reconceptualize scenes. You can use a wall of stone to bridge a chasm, but the chasm is still there, and the wall of stone has limitations on size, durability, and so forth. Experienced GMs know what capabilities that spellcasters bring to the table and prepare for it. This is one reason why you have to be very careful of affirming in D&D any sort of flexibility over what a spell can do and make sure that the spell is specifically limited to just what it says that it does and nothing else. Within the context of the narrative force provided by the spell there are already lots of creative solutions that can be applied without allowing that spell to be altered in its effect free form. And in very Trad D&D, wizards in exchange for their awesome power are as squishy as heck and tend to not survive without an adequate meat shield. I'm not really on board with the whole spellcaster angst thing. My only experience with Trad D&D wizards being super broken is in optimization threads where people showed how they could be broken, but my house rules had largely preemptively dealt with that problem and combined with my 1e AD&D background and initial skepticism of where 3e relaxed some restrictions on how spells worked, I never really had a problem with spellcasters taking over at any level of play I regularly engaged in. But if we really want to have a "Wizards are Bad" thread we should fork into a separate thread. UPDATE: Though this line of thought just revealed to me a really strong argument against "flexibility". [/QUOTE]

Verification