Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Delandel" data-source="post: 6640602" data-attributes="member: 81364">Alright. One last time. This is important, for me, that you and Jester understand this.To imply that Wizards having more spells known/prepared is actually detrimental is dishonest. That is what we are saying.Lets make a foil to your Goldilocks, a Wizard called Sir Bearington.Sir Bearington, 6th level abjuration wizardSPELLS PREPAREDCantrips: true strike, fire bolt, ray of frost, shocking grasp (-1 no light)1st level: burning hands, charm person, chromatic orb, mage armor2nd level: enhance ability, scorching ray, levitate3rd Level: fireball, counterspell, hasteOther spells known but not prepared: find familiar (always on), alarm, shield, detect magic, mirror image, leomund's tiny hutSir Bearington has THE EXACT SAME SPELLS prepared as Goldilocks, PLUS MORE. He swaps out the bolded spells for other spells depending on what he feels like -- but since he has THE EXACT SAME SPELLS as Goldilocks AT ALL TIMES, he is NEVER in any way, shape, or form, "stuck" with "worse" spells. The fact that he CAN swap out the majority of his spells prepared is a BOON, not a detriment.To say otherwise is dishonest. It's like me saying that a gun is a better long range weapon than a spoon, but you saying "but you can shoot yourself in the foot with a gun!"There is no downside here, so stop trying to portray it as such.Ah, I misunderstood then. Sorry for that, I understand what you mean now.I will say, however, in my ten years of playing I've only seen a spellbook being stolen a single time. You have to be a really sadistic DM to rob a PC of its core features. It's akin to cutting off the arm of a martial character that was using a two-handed weapon -- you could, and they can still use a one-handed weapon, but that's a low blow. It's such an outlier that I don't consider it a valid concern at a normal table.Yes, that's the whole point of this thread. Thank you.The latter part though: that implies that those classes are also poor single class. Barbarians and Rogues are definitely great single class, and while I'm sure you could MC them well, I can give you plenty of reasons (especially rogue) for staying single. Rangers perhaps, I'm not an expert on them, but I know that many consider beastmaster to be one of the worst options in the book so it's not a stretch to say that MC'ing them is better than pure.>0 is still more than 0. You're arguing for the sake of arguing."You can shoot yourself in the foot with your gun, making throwing spoons a more effective long range weapon." Please.Ah, there it is. "This class requires more skill therefore it's justified in being more powerful." Such a false statement.The wizard DOES NOT have to choose spells "more carefully" than the sorcerer. The sorcerer learns one spell per level, and can retrain up to one spell per level. The wizard learns TWO spells per level -- his one "retrain" is just keeping that spell forever.A sorcerer needs a deep understanding of his Sorcerer Points to be anything more than a crap wizard. You need to have a firm grasp of your metamagics (Quicken/Twin, or you're SOL) and must choose spells accordingly to get value out of them. You need to manage a tight resource that controls both your metamagics and your spell recharge system, and you need to know when to inefficiently melt down spells for SP. A wizard deals with none of that. The wizard needs only to manage what his bonus spells will be during the day.I'm NOT saying the sorcerer is more difficult to play well than a wizard. I AM saying that wizards are not more difficult than a sorcerer. Yes, I've played both. You clearly haven't played a sorcerer.</blockquote>

Verification