Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 4866792" data-attributes="member: 11300">I think this is the right of it - it is easier to cast spells in 3E because the chance of disruption is/was minimized.This seems a very one-sided view of 3E casters. Those of very high level - sure. But what about all the weak-arsed wizards that died before they got anywhere near this high-a-level? What about all the wizards that needed the other classes to help them do their thing while they were nowhere near throwing out save-or-die spells? This blanket criticism of 3E casters that seems to get wheeled out by the same people as if it is beyond conjecture just does not seem fair to me.A recent thread on fantasy fiction, computer games and D&amp;D provided an interesting landscape of what influenced player's expectations and I think perhaps illuminates the thinking that goes into casters and their place in the game. For those of us who got into D&amp;D through fantasy fiction, of course wizards were powerful - and when they reached this power, who could stand against them? The pay off to play this style is obviously that they started weak and developed in power whereas other classes had a more linear development. However, for those who have gotten into D&amp;D through computer games moreso than fantasy fiction, the lack of &quot;balance&quot; is obvious (be it being weaker at lower levels or more powerful at higher levels).Thus, I wonder if our perceptions of wizards (be they 1E-3E or 4E) is coloured by how we got into D&amp;D and what we expect our games to represent (a piece of fantasy fiction or perhaps a game)?Just some thoughts.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Herremann the Wise, post: 4866792, member: 11300"] I think this is the right of it - it is easier to cast spells in 3E because the chance of disruption is/was minimized. This seems a very one-sided view of 3E casters. Those of very high level - sure. But what about all the weak-arsed wizards that died before they got anywhere near this high-a-level? What about all the wizards that needed the other classes to help them do their thing while they were nowhere near throwing out save-or-die spells? This blanket criticism of 3E casters that seems to get wheeled out by the same people as if it is beyond conjecture just does not seem fair to me. A recent thread on fantasy fiction, computer games and D&D provided an interesting landscape of what influenced player's expectations and I think perhaps illuminates the thinking that goes into casters and their place in the game. For those of us who got into D&D through fantasy fiction, of course wizards were powerful - and when they reached this power, who could stand against them? The pay off to play this style is obviously that they started weak and developed in power whereas other classes had a more linear development. However, for those who have gotten into D&D through computer games moreso than fantasy fiction, the lack of "balance" is obvious (be it being weaker at lower levels or more powerful at higher levels). Thus, I wonder if our perceptions of wizards (be they 1E-3E or 4E) is coloured by how we got into D&D and what we expect our games to represent (a piece of fantasy fiction or perhaps a game)? Just some thoughts. Best Regards Herremann the Wise [/QUOTE]

Verification