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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thewok" data-source="post: 5933272" data-attributes="member: 60907">I don't care if it's magic missile.  I'm totally okay with a spell that requires an attack roll.  But then, I actually liked rolling for magic missile damage in 4E.I just believe that a wizard should be casting spells rather than firing a crossbow.  If a wizard ever has to resort to using a mundane weapon, then the class concept fails to capture the essence of wizard.I'm not sure what you mean here.  All classes need their own schticks.  Otherwise, there's no reason to play them.  In 3E, if a sorcerer and wizard were exactly the same, why bother even having the sorcerer?  And if the Favored One didn't have a different spell list from the sorcerer, why bother with it?  Every class has to have something different about it, whether it be sneak attack, lay hands, spontaneous casting, favored enemies, or whatever.  Without something to differentiate a class from other classes, the class concept fails, and the class in question is unnecessary.I wholeheartedly and without any hesitation disagree with this.  As I stated above, I believe that if the wizard ever has need of using mundane weaponry, then the wizard class fails to do its job.  Wizards should be using magic every round.  That said, I'm fine with wizards needing to make attack rolls.  In fact, I encourage it.  Magic Missile is a boring spell.  It always has been.Rogues in 4E could pick pockets just fine.  It was involved in the Thievery skill.  I disagree with this point, because I believe that everyone should have equal access to skills.  There is no reason why a fighter, a wizard or even a cleric should not be able to pick locks.  There's no reason why a fighter can't learn the activation word for a magic wand.  Restricted skills are an immersion-breaking part of 3E that I hope never returns to see the light of day.  Everyone should be able to learn anything he or she wants.  So, with that in mind, I detest the idea of a "skill class."Those bonuses on the character sheets are coming from places we don't know about because we don't have the entire ruleset.  It's not from random escalation of bonuses, which doesn't seem to be in this edition.Check the DM document.  There are guidelines in there for DCs.  Those DCs don't shift the way that 4E DCs do.  They are set, which tells me that there will be no half-level bonuses to rolls.  The progression seems to be somewhat horizontal rather than vertical.  Most of the situations that are resolved via bonuses and penalties in previous editions seem to be resolved via the advantage system now, which makes for a lot less on-the-fly math.  If you want to improve a skill, you'll need to spend a feat or whatever to do that.Next seems to me to be a game that likes breadth of abilities, rather than extreme specialization.  It looks like specialization still is an option, but at the cost of some utility outside of that specialization.  I think that's a good thing.</blockquote>

Verification