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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5970694" data-attributes="member: 19675">I didn't say otherwise.Pre-3Ed, D&D had at least one mechanism to do that- the assassination tables- but those went away.1) in fairness, in the Darkness novels, magic of that scale was what we would term Ritual magic.2) It's hard to use a nuke in a small space- see Pre-3Ed fireball or lightning slingers.3) I never had an issue with it, on either side of the issue, so clearly, "we don't want" is non-universal.My main problem was your closing statement, the part I quoted.The rest of that post?  That doesn't bug me one bit, and I've been on both sides of that equation.No such mechanical reason is implied.  When a legend or myth is told a certain way, the storyteller is not thinking in terms of "mechanics", just the story.When elements from that story- and those like it- are used in game, the mechanics to support them are being created for the purpose of emulating the story.  See Chaosium's original Stormbringer game, in which Melniboneans and Pan Tangians were the baddest spellcasters around, bar none- just like in the books- so the odds of you getting to play one were 1-3%.  (If you think D&D PCs overshadow their warrior compatriots, give that game a shot.)The trick of playing a Vancian caster has always been- Pre-3Ed- having the right spells for the job.  A wizard who preps a bunch of cold spells may find himself using his crossbow more often than he'd like if he's facing foes resistant or immune to the effects of cold.  In that case, where is his system-forced dominance?If the caster is an Illusionist in a warren of Wights, where is his system-forced dominance?Every PC's effectiveness is measured within the context of how the environment provided by the DM interacts with all the little decisions made by players (both meta- PC creation & advancement- and campaign).</blockquote>

Verification