Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5420348" data-attributes="member: 78116">No it's not, it's just a statement of fact and this is really how terribly weak the argument you are making is! Wizards have their own class features that Mages don't get and vice versa. Yet in the end you are changing one thing (implement mastery) for another (School of magic features).Incidentally, before continuing my argument can you justify why a Wand Wizard will take the SAME powers as a Orb Wizard? Because a wand wizard is very accurate but can't make effects last like an orb wizard. So a wand wizard is exceptional at getting a power to stick to a creature with their accuracy boost, but they aren't going to be that interested (or overly interested) in save ends effects compared to an orb wizard. Ironically this situation is very apt in comparison to your so called "different" enchanter mage vs. orbizard. The difference is you claim that the Wand/Orb wizard is the same yet the Enchanter/Orb is different.But okay, let's ask how is this any different to a staff wizard vs. a orb using wizard? It isn't even like many mage builds will be that different from wizards either. A pyromancer and a genasi blaster staff wizard will both want scorching burst. Incidentally, this already disproves your entire argument about Wizards/Mages - they can do the same task because many of their features are pretty similar. It's really - again - what class features you want. Wizards and Mages have great class features, but they aren't exceptionally above/below the other. All of them are great choices for a wide variety of builds and concepts. Any wizard loves hypnotism and beguiling strands - because they are both wizards they can take any of these powers. I completely cannot understand or grasp what you are trying to argue here, because all of the mage at-wills are equally attractive to wizards. For that matter, certain older powers for the the wizard initially are equally attractive to a mage. So let me alter your argument using your own words to prove how your point doesn't have any actual coherent logic to it:So why is it that a mage is exceptional to the ordinary wizard? The mage chooses a school and plays a certain way. The wizard chooses an implement and plays a certain way. You compare an orbizard to a mage to claim they are different, without even considering when you compare a tome/wand/staff wizard to the orbizard they are all going to function differently as well. They are still all going to feel like a wizard though, regardless of implement/school. Incidentally a staff wizard who focuses on close burst powers gets a lot of use out of thunderwave or beguiling strands himself, just as much as the enchanter wizard can.Neither is better than the other and once again they have the same access to the same powers and options.I'm sorry but you need a much better argument than this to convince me a mage is genuinely different to a wizard. Because all of the wizard builds can play really differently. To me a school is no more significant an impact in play than each of the already existing choices wizards already get for different implements. Some schools play very nicely with certain powers in exactly the same way certain implements also play very nicely with certain powers. What exactly is the big difference you are claiming here?Of course, I will concede the argument on one condition. If you claim that the staff wizard is a different class to the orb wizard due to how different their playstyle/power choices will be, then I can see your point.Edit: The entire irony with this argument is the most common complaint you will see about the mage is that they aren't distinctive enough from wizards! I've read numerous people complain that schools do not change how a mage plays enough to make them feel really different to a wizard. This is the first time I think I've heard anyone claim they are entirely different!To be perfectly fair now, he would have a solid argument about the Knight/Slayer. They lack at-wills, they have exclusive powers/features that the fighter genuinely cannot replicate and the slayer is a straight dedicated striker with no inherent defender mechanics. The Knight is just whacky with its aura, stances and similar to accomplish its defender role in a different manner to the typical fighter. You can genuinely notice a difference in play between a standard fighter, a knight and a slayer. This is really due to the fact the Knight/Slayer are going to do the same thing ever round, all session for the rest of their career. While the original standard fighter has vastly more options available to him.The thing here is that various implement mastery/mage schools will play and feel different from one another (for many reasons). In play however, a mage and wizard feel fundamentally identical with schools happily substituting out the wizards implement feature pretty seamlessly. Magic missile is a nice bonus but then again so is free ritual casting! But due to having all the same feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, themes, at-wills, encounters, dailies and similar available the mage doesn't really cry out "I AM TOTALLY DISTINCT AS A CLASS". This is to many a great disappointment with the mage it is worth noting, especially with how whacky the Knight/Slayer actually really are to their parent classes.</blockquote>

Verification