Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6433902" data-attributes="member: 4937">This is another variation of &quot;You are right KD, but it doesn't matter.&quot;&nbsp; It doesn't really matter whether 3e or 2e were different.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is 5e.&nbsp;&nbsp; We don't need to accept the limitations of prior editions or the failures of their design.&nbsp; The question that matters right now is, &quot;Are low level Wizards getting their full share of spot light?&quot;&nbsp; KD takes the position, &quot;No.&quot;&nbsp; And you are basically arguing it for him.&nbsp;&nbsp; If I might suggest, I can even see the argument that suggests why this is new.&nbsp; In earlier editions, low level wizards had reliable save or suck.&nbsp; Now with neither reliable save or suck nor reliable damage, it's much less obvious how they take a fair share of spotlight.&nbsp;&nbsp; Again, it doesn't matter that low level wizards are relatively better off in damage capacity compared to prior editions.&nbsp; The point is that in this edition they are disadvantaged in damage and have fewer 'game changing' spells.&nbsp;&nbsp; One take on KD is he's saying, &quot;Heh, wait a minute... what happened to my game changing spells?!?!?&nbsp; If you are going to take those away, why can't I at least go boom occasionally?&quot;Maybe, but Sleep and Grease were both good too.&nbsp; Charm Person remained basically broken without DM heavy fiat.&nbsp; True Strike could awesome with the right build, and even a Ray of Enfeeblement could utterly change a combat.&nbsp; Second level spells would bring you the brokenness of Glitterdust, Invisibility and Web, the hilarity of Summon Swarm, and game changers like Hideous Laughter, Alter Self and False Life.&nbsp; It's not hard for me to believe people see this as a downgrade they aren't being compensated for.&nbsp; Granted, I also believe that the brokenness had to go, as we've just mentioned at least 5 spells that I had to nerf for my 3.X game in order to maintain balance. You seem to me to be arguing KD's part.&nbsp; If you don't want to agree with him, you'll need to focus on how despite the fact that the Wizard is gimped with respect to damage and lacks the game changers of 1e or 3e, the advantages he has in battlefield shaping and controlling the action economy at least make up for the loss in raw damage.&nbsp; So far very few people have attempted that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6433902, member: 4937"] This is another variation of "You are right KD, but it doesn't matter." It doesn't really matter whether 3e or 2e were different. This is 5e. We don't need to accept the limitations of prior editions or the failures of their design. The question that matters right now is, "Are low level Wizards getting their full share of spot light?" KD takes the position, "No." And you are basically arguing it for him. If I might suggest, I can even see the argument that suggests why this is new. In earlier editions, low level wizards had reliable save or suck. Now with neither reliable save or suck nor reliable damage, it's much less obvious how they take a fair share of spotlight. Again, it doesn't matter that low level wizards are relatively better off in damage capacity compared to prior editions. The point is that in this edition they are disadvantaged in damage and have fewer 'game changing' spells. One take on KD is he's saying, "Heh, wait a minute... what happened to my game changing spells?!?!? If you are going to take those away, why can't I at least go boom occasionally?" Maybe, but Sleep and Grease were both good too. Charm Person remained basically broken without DM heavy fiat. True Strike could awesome with the right build, and even a Ray of Enfeeblement could utterly change a combat. Second level spells would bring you the brokenness of Glitterdust, Invisibility and Web, the hilarity of Summon Swarm, and game changers like Hideous Laughter, Alter Self and False Life. It's not hard for me to believe people see this as a downgrade they aren't being compensated for. Granted, I also believe that the brokenness had to go, as we've just mentioned at least 5 spells that I had to nerf for my 3.X game in order to maintain balance. You seem to me to be arguing KD's part. If you don't want to agree with him, you'll need to focus on how despite the fact that the Wizard is gimped with respect to damage and lacks the game changers of 1e or 3e, the advantages he has in battlefield shaping and controlling the action economy at least make up for the loss in raw damage. So far very few people have attempted that. [/QUOTE]

Verification