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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmu1" data-source="post: 412112" data-attributes="member: 319">Actually, your argument is extremely weak, and irrelevant. You're misrepresenting what the previous poster said.  I don't recall anyone asking the mage to fight in melee, or pick locks - he just said that a mage refusing to cast spells is the same as a fighter refusing to go into melee or a rogue refusing to look for traps. "Oh, but if the mage wasn't there, they'd have to pay for spells." Well, if the rogue wasn't there, and someone else did the checking for traps, or if the fighter wasn't there to soak up melee damage, they'd probably have to pay quite a bit for healing and ressurections, no?As for the whole "Mage on the front lines = suicide" argument, it's complete nonsense in any remotely normal party. Most mages, provided they're played with a minimum of intelligence, are at considerably less risk in the thick of things than at least two other classes - rogue and bards - who are expected to engage in melee on a regular basis at much greater risk. It's about little things like being able to make CON your second most important stat, Mage Armor, Shield, Mirror Image, Stoneskin...Personally, I think that in this edition, mages have it very soft, and refusing to cast spells to help any of the people taking the hits so you can safely waggle your fingers is not acceptable... Making items is, of course, a different case altogether, but refusing to cast spells on someone is bad enough in and of itself.</blockquote>

Verification