Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 5486983" data-attributes="member: 65637">Then, and I don't mean this rudely, you have not seen a well played wizard.System mastery was an intentional part of 3e's design focus.&nbsp; I think, however, that the developers themselves weren't very good at it.&nbsp; I think 4e is closer to their goal - system mastery makes better characters but not godly ones, and the lack thereof makes not as good characters but not worthless ones.But in 3e, system mastery makes wizards who all but completely ignore SR, and never blast (because blasting is a terrible idea), but instead control the battlefield or throw out don't-get-to-save-just-die spells.&nbsp; They can easily - without spending any feats - skyrocket their DCs to the stratosphere, and they have far more spell slots then they know what to do with.&nbsp; It can become easy to never spend all your spell slots even as early as level 4.It's true that if you haven't seen a wizard who really knows what they're doing, you may not have seen these problems.&nbsp; But in those cases that simply means you haven't seen it, not that it doesn't exist - it means you haven't yet seen someone with the system mastery.&nbsp; And again I stress - this was a desired function of 3e.The bigger problem is how easy it is to accidentally trip and fall into one of the godly characters.&nbsp; See, 3e's balance problems don't lie with Pun Pun or CharOps.&nbsp; Those are strawmen.&nbsp; 3e's balance problems lie with a new player who says &quot;I think I'll make a druid, and natural spell looks cool.&quot;&nbsp; or a new player who makes a wizard and says &quot;Well, I want my intelligence to be as high as it can be, and this color spray spell looks really cool.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ProfessorCirno, post: 5486983, member: 65637"] Then, and I don't mean this rudely, you have not seen a well played wizard. System mastery was an intentional part of 3e's design focus. I think, however, that the developers themselves weren't very good at it. I think 4e is closer to their goal - system mastery makes better characters but not godly ones, and the lack thereof makes not as good characters but not worthless ones. But in 3e, system mastery makes wizards who all but completely ignore SR, and never blast (because blasting is a terrible idea), but instead control the battlefield or throw out don't-get-to-save-just-die spells. They can easily - without spending any feats - skyrocket their DCs to the stratosphere, and they have far more spell slots then they know what to do with. It can become easy to never spend all your spell slots even as early as level 4. It's true that if you haven't seen a wizard who really knows what they're doing, you may not have seen these problems. But in those cases that simply means you haven't seen it, not that it doesn't exist - it means you haven't yet seen someone with the system mastery. And again I stress - this was a [I]desired[/I] function of 3e. The bigger problem is how easy it is to accidentally trip and fall into one of the godly characters. See, 3e's balance problems don't lie with Pun Pun or CharOps. Those are strawmen. 3e's balance problems lie with a new player who says "I think I'll make a druid, and natural spell looks cool." or a new player who makes a wizard and says "Well, I want my intelligence to be as high as it can be, and this color spray spell looks really cool." [/QUOTE]

Verification