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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="reapersaurus" data-source="post: 1095813" data-attributes="member: 1194">I agree - it should be fixed by the core rules, IMO, but it isn't.So a feat (chain?) is the only rational substitute, even tho it sucks.Your comments are noted, but I think you missed how radical my opinion of mages is.I don't believe they SHOULD do much damage.They should very rarely be the character that does the most damage. In fact, if I had my druthers Evocation would probably not exist as a core school. If a mage wanted to do physical damage, he'd have to specialize something fierce.The reason someone would play 'my' restricted mages would be for flavor, not for power. They still would have all the information-gathering etc spells, plus Charm and Hold, etc - they simply would not be the ones you'd look for to bash down the gates of a town, or blow up the horde or orcs.IMO, it's absolutely absurd for a specialist class such as the wizard to be able to be so flexible in his spell choices, and what he can do. He should NEVER be able to get the special features of other classes and races (Darkvision, Blindsight, unblockable damage, etc). With every spell that co-opts an ability of something/someone else, D&D marginalizes that other class (an example: R&R's Smite spell for clerics pisses all over the Paladin).So I'd actually rather that mages have their damage-dealing spells taken away from them, than fighter-types get Feats that co-opt the mages' schtick, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /></blockquote>

Verification