Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 8100480" data-attributes="member: 6689464">If it wasn't the official intent, how did wizards lose anything they were intended to have?Edit: to make clear, the arguments here are: 1.- Wizards are meant to be the most versatile casters2.- Ergo versatility is the wizards sole (or main) schtick3.- Spell Versatility makes sorcerers and bards more versatile than wizards. 4.- Thus Spell Versatility infringes in the wizard identity5.- So Wizards need to be compensated for it existingHowever, this constructs falls appart if turns out 1 is not true. And by this I mean, there is no evidence that 1 is true or was ever true. There hasn't been any official expression of designer intent to claim that wizards are indeed meant to be the most (if not sole) versatile caster. So Spell versatility existing takes nothing away from wizards even if we conceded that it makes sorcerers more versatile and optimal than wizards. (And that is yet to be proven to begin with).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 8100480, member: 6689464"] If it wasn't the official intent, how did wizards lose anything they were intended to have? Edit: to make clear, the arguments here are: 1.- Wizards are meant to be the most versatile casters 2.- Ergo versatility is the wizards sole (or main) schtick 3.- Spell Versatility makes sorcerers and bards more versatile than wizards. 4.- Thus Spell Versatility infringes in the wizard identity 5.- So Wizards need to be compensated for it existing However, this constructs falls appart if turns out 1 is not true. And by this I mean, there is no evidence that 1 is true or was ever true. There hasn't been any official expression of designer intent to claim that wizards are indeed meant to be the most (if not sole) versatile caster. So Spell versatility existing takes nothing away from wizards even if we conceded that it makes sorcerers more versatile and optimal than wizards. (And that is yet to be proven to begin with). [/QUOTE]

Verification