Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5523760" data-attributes="member: 61155">Well, I've only been in the conversation here briefly, but I'm not sure I see the two arguments as being actually at odds. Wasn't the usual criticism specifically that balancing a class by making it inferior at level 1, but superior at level 15, being a poor form of design? (At least in the opinion of some gamers). &nbsp;Hence... yes, the wizard was too strong and too weak, but not at the same time, but instead at different points over the course of the game. No one was complaining that a 15th level wizard was reduced to flinging darts, as far as I know. &nbsp;Now, there has been mention of low-level spells like Color Spray that do quite potent things. But I think that is an issue more of the spells themselves - is it really appropriate that if I take the right Level 1 spell, I might trivialize an encounter... but if I took Magic Missile instead, I instead get one round of being almost as good as the archer is every round?&nbsp;And, even with the 'best spells', a style of play that involves trivializing one or two encounters a day, but spending the rest of the day firing a crossbow, is not one that some players enjoy. &nbsp;Now, much of the above remains personal preference and involves issues that have been no doubt debated to death in many other threads before now. I'm not trying to start up those entire discussions again!&nbsp;But I do think it a bit simplistic to reduce all of that to simply saying, &quot;Wizards are too weak&quot; or &quot;Wizards are too strong&quot;, and then to point at this very different sorts of criticisms without the context to make clear that, yes, both of these are valid concerns for one personto have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MrMyth, post: 5523760, member: 61155"] Well, I've only been in the conversation here briefly, but I'm not sure I see the two arguments as being actually at odds. Wasn't the usual criticism specifically that balancing a class by making it inferior at level 1, but superior at level 15, being a poor form of design? (At least in the opinion of some gamers). Hence... yes, the wizard was too strong and too weak, but not at the same time, but instead at different points over the course of the game. No one was complaining that a 15th level wizard was reduced to flinging darts, as far as I know. Now, there has been mention of low-level spells like Color Spray that do quite potent things. But I think that is an issue more of the spells themselves - is it really appropriate that if I take the right Level 1 spell, I might trivialize an encounter... but if I took Magic Missile instead, I instead get one round of being almost as good as the archer is every round? And, even with the 'best spells', a style of play that involves trivializing one or two encounters a day, but spending the rest of the day firing a crossbow, is not one that some players enjoy. Now, much of the above remains personal preference and involves issues that have been no doubt debated to death in many other threads before now. I'm not trying to start up those entire discussions again! But I do think it a bit simplistic to reduce all of that to simply saying, "Wizards are too weak" or "Wizards are too strong", and then to point at this very different sorts of criticisms without the context to make clear that, yes, both of these are valid concerns for one personto have. [/QUOTE]

Verification