Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scars Unseen" data-source="post: 9328913" data-attributes="member: 10196">This reasoning strikes me as odd because, for the most part, the changes you're rejecting are just pulling the class closer to how it was before WotC's buffs, back when the class was still one of the most powerful and played classes in the game.&nbsp; It didn't suck to play back then; you just had to be more careful about how you spent your resources.Now I will say that any nerfs to casters that make them more vulnerable (both in general and to spell interruption) should be accompanied by a buff to martials' (specifically fighters and paladins) ability to defend fellow party members with the right setup.&nbsp; That was one of the weak points of older editions: that the success of attempts to keep other party members from being attacked was largely determined by DM fiat.&nbsp; I would say that increasing the number of opportunity attacks and giving a Sentinel-like ability that also allows the character to use movement to intercept would be a decent start.As for my own ideas, most of them have been mentioned already.&nbsp; Go back to Vancian casting, fewer slots, spells as treasure.&nbsp; Basically, scale things back.&nbsp; One thing I would add is that with the universal proficiency scaling (as opposed to the older attack bonus/THAC0 where different classes advanced at different rates), I wouldn't mind seeing a resurgence of save-or-die spells with the stipulations that it would require a successful attack roll using the casting stat first (so as to not unfairly punish high AC targets for having low resistance stats) and that martials would also get some of their own scaling in power to those of casters.&nbsp; If a wizard can kill you with a thought at high level, I have no problem with giving fighters a vorpal attack that does the same with a sword.I don't know if that's a nerf in the strictest sense, but in terms of making wizards less powerful in respect to its fellow classes, I think it achieves the same thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scars Unseen, post: 9328913, member: 10196"] This reasoning strikes me as odd because, for the most part, the changes you're rejecting are just pulling the class closer to how it was before WotC's buffs, back when the class was [I]still[/I] one of the most powerful and played classes in the game. It didn't suck to play back then; you just had to be more careful about how you spent your resources. Now I will say that any nerfs to casters that make them more vulnerable (both in general and to spell interruption) should be accompanied by a [I]buff[/I] to martials' (specifically fighters and paladins) ability to defend fellow party members with the right setup. That was one of the weak points of older editions: that the success of attempts to keep other party members from being attacked was largely determined by DM fiat. I would say that increasing the number of opportunity attacks and giving a Sentinel-like ability that also allows the character to use movement to intercept would be a decent start. As for my own ideas, most of them have been mentioned already. Go back to Vancian casting, fewer slots, spells as treasure. Basically, scale things back. One thing I would add is that with the universal proficiency scaling (as opposed to the older attack bonus/THAC0 where different classes advanced at different rates), I wouldn't mind seeing a resurgence of save-or-die spells with the stipulations that it would require a successful attack roll using the casting stat first (so as to not unfairly punish high AC targets for having low resistance stats) [I]and[/I] that martials would also get some of their own scaling in power to those of casters. If a wizard can kill you with a thought at high level, I have no problem with giving fighters a vorpal attack that does the same with a sword. I don't know if that's a nerf in the strictest sense, but in terms of making wizards less powerful in respect to its fellow classes, I think it achieves the same thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification