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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5910863" data-attributes="member: 92511">Ok...I see that. I get that. That makes sense. The magic-user/wizard/mage SHOULD have magic available all (or most) of the time...but for a variety of situations.At the same time, I think maybe it's a matter of preferred flavor and playstyle. In other words, how specific can or should the system be that working "minor magics"[0 level/cantrips], that may not be effective in combat, is still flavorful and "doing magic", and should appeal to the player as such, while not being "as powerful as" 1st level spells that actually do damage? You were casting Sleep you got interrupted. No worries, you didn't lose the spell...AND you can throw fire in his face anyway? Is the ability to do "less damage" than a 1st level spell, at will/all the time, really all that wizards need to be/do...is that what/all playing a D&D mage has come to?...in a game that claims it is taking the focus off "combat only" and including exploration and interaction, as well?I am inclined to say no. Being able to Detect Magic, provide Light, fool a foe or enhance an interactive encounter with some minor illusions...or Detect same...maybe Detect Poison or Cure Minor Wounds [for the non-arcane caster] can make one just as "magical", more flavorful (to my mind), and allow one to "contribute" just as much as (if not moreso) being able to throw "acid splashes" or "rays of frost" all day.I get the "I'm a magic-user. If I can't use magic then I'm not contributing" mentality. But being able to/needing to use "attack magic" every round in any combat all day does not strike me as necessary for one to be a colorful/flavorful/interesting or mysterious magical/magic-using character.Somehow, it seems to a large number of folks it has become/is synonymous with it...if not "necessary."My knowledge/language/history skills should be able to make me useful. My -whatever feats- from my Theme should make me useful. And, push comes to shove, a stab of my dagger or thwap of my staff [gods save me from the "crossbow-wizard" <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />] makes me useful also...though potentially quite dangerous to my person.Shouting "Take cover! She's casting a fireball" [assuming Spellcraft exists in some fashion] allowing my companions to attempt to protect themselves from the "incoming!", or make a last ditch attempt to interrupt it with a bow or charge or something, is useful. It didn't require my using magic...but a rogue or fighter in the party wouldn't have known that. That's "Arcana". That's my [the wizard's] shtick.Seems I've floated over to the character contribution thread...lol. But I think the topics/debates occurring here (at least in the at-will/cantrip arena) are somewhat connected.As JamesonCourage is so fond of saying, play what/as/how you like...I just think that the arguments for allowing...no, necessitating...damage-dealing cantrips (that do all of 1 or 2 hp less than first level spells) all day are not the end all be all of making a "good/flavorful" magic-user...and "duh rulz" ought not to mandate or even encourage that.--SD</blockquote>

Verification