Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sonofapreacherman" data-source="post: 1374404" data-attributes="member: 2315">Yes, it's called a rebuttal. So try as you might to hit and run, I do have something to say in return. So if you'll excuse me for resisting my censors...Hold on for a moment here. Let me get back to this in a second.I challenge you again, rather than talking trash, to find it. Let me make it easy. You won't. You have quoted me saying that "flavor text cannot be used to justify game mechanics". I have never said that "flavor text" means *nothing*. I have even said that flavor text should be used a *guide* for game mechanics. However, the difference between the word "justify" and "guide" seems to be lost on you.For somebody who just discarded a logical argument because it contained (oh my gosh) semantics (see above), you sure don't understand what semantics are in the first place. Foreknowledge of spells (in the case of wizards, clerics, and druids) is a logical game mechanic of heroic spellcasting. In the case of bards, that foreknowledge extends from their bardic knowledge. In the case of sorcerers, it does not exist.I understand that you have chosen to ignore an argument based on logic (I.E. evidenced by simply stating your opinion again rather than actually looking at the game mechanics for sorcerers, bards, and every other spellcasting class). But more anything, I understand that you avoid such arguments because they do not fit into your personal perception of what it means to be a sorcerer.Do you seriously think that other races are not curious about themselves? Moreover, why would a character class, that is not inherently magical, need to be anything more than introspective to learn about themselves? Unless you have a skill called Knowledge (self-analysis) in your game, this argument is downright silly.You have taken a quote completely out of context and applied it to an unrelated statement. This is an ongoing problem. As a civilized request now, please make a greater effort to avoid doing this. This quote and follow up you refer to here came from an argument about Knowledge (arcana). It had very little to do with the sorcerer being a duplicate of the wizard.Spoken like a player who does little very play-testing before making sweeping changes.It relates to how utterly ridiculous your threadbare arguments can be. To claim that any prestige based on race should discarded was a huge leap, even for you.Are you kidding? Of course they do. They choose their spells every day when they meditate.What the hell do you think I was talking about when I said "there are mechanics already in place for this"?Whoa there horsy! I said nothing about the cost of wands being marginal. I was talking about scrolls at the time and you know it.Moreover, when it comes to casting higher levels spells at the same time as wizards (and clerics and druids), the strongest argument here is the one you avoided. It's beginning to feel like clockwork."Let the sorcerer spontaneously cast the same spell over and over again at the wizard. The basic utility of any properly play-tested wizard will have a host of spell defenses to negate the (count them) 1 spell that a sorcerer would know at the same level as the wizard. Spell repetition means nothing if you only know one trick. Giving sorcerers access to higher-level spells at the same time as wizards unbalances nothing."That much is obvious. Which leads me to believe, and this is just my opinion of course, that you understand very little about the greatest strength of the sorcerer (I.E. their spells).No, I most certainly did not. I said that whatever abilities sorcerers "do" get, should be based on augmenting or modifying their existing spells (I.E. their greatest strength). Those spells constitute what should be their *primary* abilities.Because those classes are casting divine spells.You're grasping at straws. Reverse discrimination? You bring political correctness into a debate about sorcerer game mechanics? I genuinely hope you realize how ridiculous that sounds. There's nothing even remotely discriminatory about the fact that arcane spells offer more combat power and non-combat utility than divine spells. They were designed that way on purpose to achieve a sense of balance; something you all too carelessly overlook.-----Reading on now, watching you underline Logic Proof over and over again, I wanted to thank you for making your true colors so easy to see.If you take away nothing else that I have added to this thread, then I am glad you have taken this. (Now watch, you'll change your mind completely again.)Those of us who don't use rule 0 as an excuse to "do anything" with the rules, will continue making highly scrutinized changes accordingly.</blockquote>

Verification