Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sonofapreacherman" data-source="post: 1375364" data-attributes="member: 2315">Then by all means, hang your hopes on flavor text. I hope that works out for you.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />All you have done here is provide yet another example of your continued inability to read a statement in context.Whether "in" so many words, or "not" in so many words, I still haven't said that "flavor text means nothing". On the other hand, I have said (in so many words) that "flavor text cannot be used to justify game mechanics". The two statements are not the same. If you cannot differentiate them, that is not my problem. I use flavor text as a guide, but the fact that you treat flavor text as "sacred gospel" seems to have sensitized you to anything that might question it. Again, an issue that you should be dealing with on your own.Remember what this was really about? No? It was about game balance and spell-like abilities. Character's don't have them. Monsters do. Does game balance text take a back seat to flavor text when it comes to granting player-chosen spell-like abilities at 1st-level? Hell no. Have I implied that "flavor text means nothing" here? Not even a little. Sorry but you're still guilty of putting words in my mouth when it suits your argument to do so.Am I selective with the flavor text I use as my guide? Hell yes. Have I implied that "flavor text means nothing" here. No. Try again.Actually, what I did was "suggest" that sorcerers are capable of learned knowledge, and that 1 such skill could "represent" that learned knowledge. That is all. In the mean time, however, you have convinced yourself that I repeatedly argued that Knowledge Arcana is required for the sorcerer. Again, take issue with yourself. Not me.You actually showed me nothing. While I may agree that the printed sorcerer mimics the wizard far too much, you have no proof that this was intentionally so. It is simply an arbitrary opinion. At least my weakest piece of evidence, that the sorcerer flavor text was written for an earlier build of the sorcerer that never saw print, is based on something I either heard or read from Wizards of the Coast.Never ignored it. But I did imply that in order to take prestige classes into account, you needed to be "far-sighted". About 5 levels far-sighted. If you wish to redesign the sorcerer in a bubble devoid of prestige classes, be my guest. I am not so "short-sighted" to think that the "option" of prestige classes won't be universally desired by players. I would never design a core character class specifically with prestige classes in mind, but among the many little details that float around inside of my head when I am making sweeping changes to a core class, prestige classes are one of them.Anybody who is not prepared to encounter somebody else will do badly against them. That is irrelevant. When the two combatants are aware of each other (you know, a controlled example) the wizard fairs much better than the sorcerer more times than not.Let me put this to you with actual game mechanics rather than an arbitrary % (based on what exactly?) you decided to spit out. Two 3rd+ level characters. One wizard. One sorcerer.Assuming the wizard hasn't already seen the sorcerer use their highest-level one trick spell in a previous round, the wizard readies an action to cast a spell just before the sorcerer starts casting. What kind of spell is that sorcerer casting? One free action Spellcraft check later, the wizard casts resist energy against the energy type of that spell. At later levels resist energy is replaced by protection from energy, which is replaced by a globe of invulnerability; you know, because there is no limit on the number of spells a wizard can learn.That is how to use a wizard at suboptimal capacity.No, the wizard does not need to be changed. The sorcerer needs new abilities, but once again, only abilities that augment their spells and spellcasting talents. They don't need bonus abilities that mimic what their spells should be doing.You = pot. Me = kettle. Pot says to kettle: You're black.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />No. I argue that arcane spells are more powerful and have more utility than divine spells.What I have also said is that the restriction I placed on sorcerers (spell trigger items based on their spells known rather than their spell list) logically extends both from the ceiling of spells that sorcerers can learn and their lack of foreknowledge regarding spells. This is then complimented with skill access to Use Magic Device, compensating for their spell trigger loss (a magically intuitive skill based on Charisma, but dodgy at best until higher levels).There is nothing trashy about backing up what you say with good old fashioned logical rationality. Putting your foot down on a something simply because it's your opinion and that's enough (as you have done repeatedly) is trashy.I never called you stupid.As for not understanding concepts, being short sighted, inexperienced, and rude, I am well aware now, after who knows how many words have been exchanged between us, that you are incapable of dialoguing ideas unless those ideas match the ones in your head. The biggest mistake I made was in thinking that you were past the egotistical stage of game designing, whereby the creator believes that their ideas are the best ideas (rather than actually going with the best idea, regardless of origins). Basically, I have realized that instead of leading with objectivity, you lead with your ego. And there it is.Thank you, I will have a nice day.-----Hey there Cyberzombie. Ah yes, fireballs. If only they could be more like balls of fire...No. That time is behind me.</blockquote>

Verification