Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 5968061" data-attributes="member: 8461">...you do realize that I've posted the answer to that question across many different posts, right? based on my actual gaming experiences (italics included for your pleasure).Just because you play the game one way does not mean you can objectively state that someone doing it another way is doing it wrong.You state this like it's some sort of objective. If the spellcaster doesn't have those spells, they don't happen. If the spells are countered or dispelled, they don't happen. If the enemy follows them, then the above situation won't happen, etc.Presuming none of the above happens to stop that.The issue at hand is if you've lost all of your gear, then how quickly can you recover. Gear includes spellbooks.Right...because demons are well-known for being immune to electricity. I mean, c'mon, they're demons, that just screams "can't be zapped."You're very stuck on "one or two spells end an encounter." What do you do when that doesn't happen and/or you have more encounters than you expected?If you think saving throws aren't an issue, then you need to use more actual dice in your dice-based RPGs. You can have a good save and still fail saves enough that it isn't something that happens only once in a blue moon. Likewise, most spells have specific effects, so "versatility" is a loaded term.Presuming the caster even makes the save, or has a metamagic wand, or can walk away...actually, those are all some pretty big presumptions, which shows how weak your post is.Not particularly, no. Mostly since the fighter doesn't need to be in melee; it's called ranged attacks. Likewise, the fact that plenty of enemies can teleport also is just one way of showing the flaw in this assumption.Again, you're stating this like an objective truth. I've had characters expend all of their spells in the same day (mostly because they don't always face same-CR encounters). That you think you can flat-out state "a variety of CR encounters means using 3 spells per encounter" is laughable. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />That's true of a wizard that has no spells. The difference is that the fighter is able to at least attack effectively by disarming a foe.The idea that scenarios are predictable with divination is, quite simply, wrong. You can't scry on the encounters you don't know are going to happen, you may not have scrying spells or items, the enemies might make their saves, they might notice the scry, they might have counter-measures, etc. See above for why summons can quickly fold under even a single spell.Likewise, the fact that magic items are created by NPC spellcasters is irrelevant in the debate over how "god-modded" spellcasters are (unless your wizards are crafting in the middle of a fight; do they do that in your game?).Re: BatmanGiven a day, Batman is crying about how is parents were killed.Given a day, a fighter has killed a lot of monsters while a wizard failed his check at independent spell research.The simple fact of the matter is that all of your posts have been easily dismissed as wrong (because they are), attempts to change the subject (which failed), or simply repeating the same thing over and over while ignoring the flaws I pointed out (because you can't handle being proven wrong in public).Trolling isn't in the spirit of these forums. Stop doing so.</blockquote>

Verification