Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3918222" data-attributes="member: 2525">Before we get to your reasons, lets deal with your stated exaggeration.&nbsp; 3.0 and 3.5 both had means to make fully armored wizards.&nbsp; It didn't kill the game.&nbsp; Without dealing with that basic issue, it's hard to take the rest of your post at face value.&nbsp; You've started from a false premise.You can only play a fully armored wizard in 4.0 if you take feats to do it, as I understand it.&nbsp; Which means the basic wizard is the same iconic wizard in your mind.&nbsp; In addition, as cited pretty well before your post, there is plenty of classic fantasy that involves armored wizards.&nbsp; In addition, in iconic fantasy most wizards had staves, yet 3.0 and 3.5 did nothing to strongly encourage the use of a staff (and indeed made magic staves so weak as to be unlikely for most wizards).&nbsp; And yet, that somehow didn't &quot;kill D&amp;D&quot;.&nbsp; This edition is doing more to promote the use of iconic objects of power - wands, staves, and orbs.&nbsp; So, isn't it promoting the iconic image of the wizard better?ALL evidence about 4.0 is that it is making the class rolls MORE distinct, not less.&nbsp; Indeed, it's one of the most frequent complaints about what we have heard about 4e that it makes the distinctions between rolls too much and doesn't allow enough blurring.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 3918222, member: 2525"] Before we get to your reasons, lets deal with your stated exaggeration. 3.0 and 3.5 both had means to make fully armored wizards. It didn't kill the game. Without dealing with that basic issue, it's hard to take the rest of your post at face value. You've started from a false premise. You can only play a fully armored wizard in 4.0 if you take feats to do it, as I understand it. Which means the basic wizard is the same iconic wizard in your mind. In addition, as cited pretty well before your post, there is plenty of classic fantasy that involves armored wizards. In addition, in iconic fantasy most wizards had staves, yet 3.0 and 3.5 did nothing to strongly encourage the use of a staff (and indeed made magic staves so weak as to be unlikely for most wizards). And yet, that somehow didn't "kill D&D". This edition is doing more to promote the use of iconic objects of power - wands, staves, and orbs. So, isn't it promoting the iconic image of the wizard better? ALL evidence about 4.0 is that it is making the class rolls MORE distinct, not less. Indeed, it's one of the most frequent complaints about what we have heard about 4e that it makes the distinctions between rolls too much and doesn't allow enough blurring. [/QUOTE]

Verification