Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ptolemy18" data-source="post: 3935841" data-attributes="member: 24970">Well, then obviously we're back to square one and everything should stay the same, because I'm totally against the idea of taking weird and spectacular magic out of core D&amp;D, even though I may like a low-magic side-campaign once in awhile.Also, it's not like wizards *totally* don't need items; you can strip a 9th level wizard of his spellbook, if you really want to play dirty. (But not a 9th level sorcerer, I guess...) And&nbsp; while we're altering things, the class could be altered to make material components more expensive and necessary.Actually, it sounds like the whole &quot;+3 wand&quot;, &quot;+4 orb&quot; thing in D&amp;D4e is going to sort of level the playing field with regards to wizards needing a &quot;weapon&quot; in the same way that fighters do. Although I don't think there's anything wrong with having &quot;this class needs a lot of expensive, potentially vulnerable equipment/this class doesn't need a lot of expensive, potentially vulnerable equipment&quot; being a factor in overall class balance. Really, the whole fact that a sorcerer *can* be buck naked and shoot fireballs with their bare hands, or that a monk *can* be buck naked and beat everybody up, in the existing rules, is one of the many factors that makes them awesomer than fighters of a corresponding level... I'll admit that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ptolemy18, post: 3935841, member: 24970"] Well, then obviously we're back to square one and everything should stay the same, because I'm totally against the idea of taking weird and spectacular magic out of core D&D, even though I may like a low-magic side-campaign once in awhile. Also, it's not like wizards *totally* don't need items; you can strip a 9th level wizard of his spellbook, if you really want to play dirty. (But not a 9th level sorcerer, I guess...) And while we're altering things, the class could be altered to make material components more expensive and necessary. Actually, it sounds like the whole "+3 wand", "+4 orb" thing in D&D4e is going to sort of level the playing field with regards to wizards needing a "weapon" in the same way that fighters do. Although I don't think there's anything wrong with having "this class needs a lot of expensive, potentially vulnerable equipment/this class doesn't need a lot of expensive, potentially vulnerable equipment" being a factor in overall class balance. Really, the whole fact that a sorcerer *can* be buck naked and shoot fireballs with their bare hands, or that a monk *can* be buck naked and beat everybody up, in the existing rules, is one of the many factors that makes them awesomer than fighters of a corresponding level... I'll admit that. [/QUOTE]

Verification