Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mort" data-source="post: 5053847" data-attributes="member: 762">I think that's a bit of a misconstruction, at least of the argument I made upthread. I was simply saying that 3e offered so many options for the mage (extreme versatility) that creativity was rarely required (why be creative if you have the proper tool e.g water breathing for a drowing person). In addition to having the proper tools allowing for creative spell use makes the mage even more versatile, so much so that the other classes get less opportunity to be creative - because they don't have to be (why should the rogue waste his time ferreting out a lead when the mage can scry, or use prying eyes, or legend lore, or a multitude of other options - for just one example).Well it might require more creativity, but whether that's a good thing is a different question.That's it exactly. When 1 or a few characters has so many options that it limits the creativity of the group (because the 1 or  2 characters always have the proper answer/spell/response etc. and the rest of the group has no need to be creative) IMO this crosses a bad line. Where that line is, is a very interesting question.I suppose I'm simply saying that the longer casting time of rituals (and the mechanic in general) is an overall positive. The potential loss of creativity is well worth the (IMO of course) necessary reduction in the mages versatility.</blockquote>