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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6058768" data-attributes="member: 22779">Quote please?  I never, ever said that.  If you're going to start attributing things, at least take the time to read what's being written.What I actually did say was that I didn't think WOTC should be the one to tell all D&D players that "This is the way you should play".  Meh, I like to take ownership of my game.-------I look at it like this.  Player comes to you (generic you, no one specific, just the DM) and says, "I want to play a wizard like Harry Potter".  Not an unreasonable thing.  Harry Potter's been around for more than 15 years.  There's people in their late 20's now who grew up on the Potter books.  And, to be fair, the flavor of a Harry Potter caster is D&D wizard.  He belongs to a collegiate tradition, learned his magic from some form of master, studies magic and experiments, spends lots of time around dusty books.  Sounds a lot like a traditional D&D wizard to me.  Certainly doesn't sound like a Sorcerer (no innate magic) or a Warlock (no patron).  But, mechanically, it doesn't fit at all.  The Harry Potterverse wizards are not Vancian casters.  Closest fit would likely be an AEDU wizard, or a mana-point wizard.  Either one would work fairly well.Now according to TimASW, the player should shut up and not play the character he wants to play.  By even bringing it to the table, he's a whiney, self-entitled git who just wants to munchkin his way through the game.  I strongly disagree with this POV, obviously.  But, just as strongly, others are saying that the default wizard MUST be Vancian.  WOTC should also be telling this player that his concept is wrong.  You cannot be, under default rules, what you want to be.What I don't understand is why people want WOTC to do that.  Hey, if the DM has a reason for this?  Fine, no worries.  The DM and the player can hash it out and come to some sort of understanding.  No problems.  But, why is having WOTC tell you what your game should look like a good thing?  Why not break flavor (wizard=arcane researcher/sage/book guy in robes) from mechanics (Vancian/Spell Point/Whatever) and let the DM in conjunction with the player pick and choose.I'd point something out here.  This is exactly how clerics were done in 2e.  Specialty priests were presented in EXACTLY this way.  And generally, people point to 2e priests as the best version of clerics in D&D.  Why not learn from the best?</blockquote>

Verification