Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BookTenTiger" data-source="post: 8854710" data-attributes="member: 6685541">I agree with this, based on my experience of playing a Wizard in a three-year 5e campaign. I chose to play a wizard who specialized in non-damaging spells (since the rest of the group was made up of living weapons). However... There was really no mechanical incentive or limits to guide me in this. My wizard could have been a pacifist for 9 levels and then taken a spell that allows him to hit six people with a magic sword. The only reason I didn't take the spell is because it didn't fit my character concept.If I were designing the wizard class, I'd definitely want to put in a system of trade-off. I choose to be better at casting X spells, but it means I'm worse at casting Y spells. Or I gain access to A B and C spell schools, but lose access to X Y and Z.That would just be more fun for me than every wizard having access to all the spells.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BookTenTiger, post: 8854710, member: 6685541"] I agree with this, based on my experience of playing a Wizard in a three-year 5e campaign. I chose to play a wizard who specialized in non-damaging spells (since the rest of the group was made up of living weapons). However... There was really no mechanical incentive or limits to guide me in this. My wizard could have been a pacifist for 9 levels and then taken a spell that allows him to hit six people with a magic sword. The only reason I didn't take the spell is because it didn't fit my character concept. If I were designing the wizard class, I'd definitely want to put in a system of trade-off. I choose to be better at casting X spells, but it means I'm worse at casting Y spells. Or I gain access to A B and C spell schools, but lose access to X Y and Z. That would just be more fun for me than every wizard having access to all the spells. [/QUOTE]

Verification