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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6169290" data-attributes="member: 6681948">600 rounds of combat?  Agreed - an extreme.  Inability to rest after each encounter?  Much more common in the games I've played.  The concept of having a single encounter, blasting off everything, then retreating to rest and coming back tomorrow hasn't been present in any game I've played in.  This forced the spellcasters to be a bit more conservative in spellcasting, not let loose with full power at the outset of each encounter.The bottom line in 2e and prior is that wizards tended to look for spells with  no saves (or that had at least some effect if the enemy saved) since, as time went on, the odds of an opponent failing a save became lower and lower.  Magic Resistance was definitely a thing spellcasters feared.  3e+ has improved that considerably.That said, why would I Fireball that group of CR 7 opponents with 100 hp to do less damage than the fighter can do in a round (a strike if they save) when I can instead Slow them, for example, effectively cutting down the number of "rounds" they get in the time it takes the fighters to cut them down?  All spells are situational to some extent, but when selecting spells, I want the ones that will be useful regularly over the ones that may be handy once in a blue moon.  If the intent is that only evokers will use blast-spells, since only they can make them powerful enough to be meaningful, then I would hope other choices for wizards are equally narrow, and that the Evoker can't get more benefit from other choices than an Enchanter, Illusionist, Summoner or Necromancer gets from evocation spells.  This would make individual Wizards much more specialized than prior editions, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.</blockquote>

Verification