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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zaukrie" data-source="post: 3041574" data-attributes="member: 2057">I think Monte has some great concepts, but I gotta ask, why do new ideas always come down to comments from some of you that changes prove that those of us that like them are too stupid to play the right way? Why do some of you always insist on calling people idiots for not playing the way you think the game should be played? Why do some of you insist on continuing to state that there are right and wrong ways to play, and other people are not even yet kindergartners for disagreeing with you? It is a game, and not played for money/rankings. We should all be able to play in such a way that we are having fun, shouldn't we?Here's what I like about Monte's idea (my opinion, not a fact): it makes spellcasters more involved in every encounter if they want to be. This should, imho, make the game more enjoyable. If you like to play a spellcaster that reserves her power for later, you can. If you like to play a spellcaster that participates in every encounter, you can. It seems obvious that a spellcaster should get a power/feat that allows them to have mage armor. Why wouldn't a spellcaster cast that most days?Here's where I'm not sure I agree: I'm not sure how the attacks would work. I'd like them to be no more effective than a fighter - so there ought to be an attack roll or some other mechanic required. Also, the damage should be less than what a fighter/rogue can do, as the spellcaster also gets to cast high damage spells.I like some of your suggestions for mana, this increases the flexibility of the class.</blockquote>

Verification