Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5911777" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's not necessary, mechanically, to lift up the lower level one, either.It's entirely reasonable to chafe under the restrictions of a limited number of spells per day and somewhere out there, you should absolutely have the option of having common, easy magic that you can apply, maybe to ANY character, from the Wizard to the Fighter to the Barbarian. As a series of feats, it seems to make a great theme. Even if not a theme, it's exactly what the Warlock was originally designed to do in 3e, so it seems like a great fit for that class. As [MENTION=6678082]DMKastmaria[/MENTION] said above: &quot;It's ok that it was your problem. I only take issue with your claiming it was mine.&quot;It's not something you need to hard-code into the Wizard class.Need? No.Might want? Sure. That's why the option should be there, just not hard-coded into the Wizard's DNA. Flatter math helps this problem immeasurably. Everyone's got some basic contribution to make. What does your ranger contribute to a fancy court dinner to impress the king that your druid or barbarian does not?That is, the class need not be a crutch you lean on at all times. Someone who wants this play experience is looking to have the wizard they play occasionally be no more than a clever normal person. Which is why modularity solves the problem...if it's implemented. If all wizards have at-will cantrips, that's not modular, and it doesn't address the needs of that first group of players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5911777, member: 2067"] It's not necessary, mechanically, to lift up the lower level one, either. It's entirely reasonable to chafe under the restrictions of a limited number of spells per day and somewhere out there, you should absolutely have the option of having common, easy magic that you can apply, maybe to ANY character, from the Wizard to the Fighter to the Barbarian. As a series of feats, it seems to make a great theme. Even if not a theme, it's exactly what the Warlock was originally designed to do in 3e, so it seems like a great fit for that class. As [MENTION=6678082]DMKastmaria[/MENTION] said above: "It's ok that it was your problem. I only take issue with your claiming it was mine." It's not something you need to hard-code into the Wizard class. Need? No. Might want? Sure. That's why the option should be there, just not hard-coded into the Wizard's DNA. Flatter math helps this problem immeasurably. Everyone's got some basic contribution to make. What does your ranger contribute to a fancy court dinner to impress the king that your druid or barbarian does not? That is, the class need not be a crutch you lean on at all times. Someone who wants this play experience is [I]looking[/I] to have the wizard they play occasionally be no more than a clever normal person. Which is why modularity solves the problem...if it's implemented. If all wizards have at-will cantrips, that's not modular, and it doesn't address the needs of that first group of players. [/QUOTE]

Verification