Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Garthanos" data-source="post: 8421333" data-attributes="member: 82504">I use more complex language than necessary and apparently over your head or a language issue (I could have just said mental). Oh right sorry you think martial means mindlessly simple and unaffected by something like that obviously.This is not some huge leap except you wanted to single out a type of character because that was how it was done previously &quot;Oh My God they Changed It&quot;Saying that does not make it so...Casters being overwhelmingly more potent than other types in early D&amp;D is the only reason for a &quot;blocks caster ability.&quot;And definitely not because it made martial types cooler for me it just highlights exactly how unimportant they were.When you insist on caster superiority you need things to single them out. Not so much otherwise.The only reason you can call anti-magic terrifying let alone acceptable is because of caster blatant superiority.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Garthanos, post: 8421333, member: 82504"] I use more complex language than necessary and apparently over your head or a language issue (I could have just said mental). Oh right sorry you think martial means mindlessly simple and unaffected by something like that obviously. This is not some huge leap except you wanted to single out a type of character because that was how it was done previously "Oh My God they Changed It" Saying that does not make it so... Casters being overwhelmingly more potent than other types in early D&D is the only reason for a "blocks caster ability." And definitely not because it made martial types cooler for me it just highlights exactly how unimportant they were. When you insist on caster superiority you need things to single them out. Not so much otherwise. The only reason you can call anti-magic terrifying let alone acceptable is because of caster blatant superiority. [/QUOTE]

Verification