Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mkletch" data-source="post: 500121" data-attributes="member: 3396">Today is a strange day.&nbsp; For the second time, I must agree with hong, and this time fairly strongly.&nbsp; Perhaps the solar radiation on my planet has shifted in wavelength. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />As for all of the &quot;literature&quot; referenced (and I do not consider anything by Weis and Hickman to be elevated to the level of &quot;literature&quot;), there is one basic but profound fault that I fear Celtavian has in converting those stories/concepts to 3E: character level.* Yes, Gandalf is more powerful than Samwise, because Gandalf is effectively a celestial or half-celestial, with many levels of spellcasting and non-spellcasting classes.&nbsp; Samwise is a Commoner 2, at best, at the start of the story.&nbsp; Sauron is not even a spellcaster - frankly there are almost no &quot;spells&quot; except for a couple flashes of light on Gandalf's part, in any of Tolkien's writing, either that he published or his son.*Yes, Allanon is more powerful than Shea Ohmsford, because Allanon is probably close to epic levels, and Shea is a Commoner 2 at best.*Yes, Merlin is more powerful than King Arthur (as an individual), because Merlin is Merlin, the definition of an epic spellcaster, and King Arthur is only a high level fighter or paladin, maybe even low epic.So, if you assume that all of the characters in the book are of the same level (like the typical D&amp;D party), then yes, the spellcasters are more powerful because of their class.&nbsp; But clearly, the balanced party is only a figment of the RPG genre, not the fantasy literature genre.What does this have to do with Haste?&nbsp; Not a dang thing.&nbsp; If the poll about spellcasting archetypes won't work, perhaps we need a new poll about haste to kick things off again?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />-Fletch!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mkletch, post: 500121, member: 3396"] Today is a strange day. For the second time, I must agree with hong, and this time fairly strongly. Perhaps the solar radiation on my planet has shifted in wavelength. :cool: As for all of the "literature" referenced (and I do not consider anything by Weis and Hickman to be elevated to the level of "literature"), there is one basic but profound fault that I fear Celtavian has in converting those stories/concepts to 3E: character level. * Yes, Gandalf is more powerful than Samwise, because Gandalf is effectively a celestial or half-celestial, with many levels of spellcasting and non-spellcasting classes. Samwise is a Commoner 2, at best, at the start of the story. Sauron is not even a spellcaster - frankly there are almost no "spells" except for a couple flashes of light on Gandalf's part, in any of Tolkien's writing, either that he published or his son. *Yes, Allanon is more powerful than Shea Ohmsford, because Allanon is probably close to epic levels, and Shea is a Commoner 2 at best. *Yes, Merlin is more powerful than King Arthur (as an individual), because Merlin is Merlin, the definition of an epic spellcaster, and King Arthur is only a high level fighter or paladin, maybe even low epic. So, if you assume that all of the characters in the book are of the same level (like the typical D&D party), then yes, the spellcasters are more powerful because of their class. But clearly, the balanced party is only a figment of the RPG genre, not the fantasy literature genre. What does this have to do with Haste? Not a dang thing. If the poll about spellcasting archetypes won't work, perhaps we need a new poll about haste to kick things off again? :) -Fletch! [/QUOTE]

Verification