Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kae'Yoss" data-source="post: 3439483" data-attributes="member: 4134">Because I want to blow up enemies with fireballs instead of sticking bits of metal into them or sneaking past them.It already is, isn't it. We have spell slots, we can achieve magical effects like enslaving another's mind or frying whole groups of people at once, and so on.Those are differences that make sense. Not just differences for differences' sake. Plus, it makes sense that fighting can be dangerous to you, too. If you don't believe me, pick up nunchucks, or a scythe, or something like that and play around with them a bit. Or bolas. Or try some somersaults if you think tumble shouldn't have any chance to mess things up.Who says we should make them identical? I just say that concepts that apply to all of them shouldn't be exclusive for one type of mechanic.So if the guy who wants to be a spell slinger doesn't like unpredictable stuff, that's too bad for him?No. Dangerous effects with risks involved might be fun for some people, but others don't like it. And the choice of character concept should not be influenced by things like this.So make risky manoeuvres an optional rule. And do it for everyone so once again, the guy who actually likes it doesn't have to play a wimpy magic-hurler if he wants to play a manly barbarian. That's as bad as forcing the guy who wants to play a smart spellcaster to play a brainless stickswinger to avoid risky business.It's actually a disadvantage if you don't want your magic to be creepy and dangerous. Bad flavour can be worse than no flavour, because with no flavour, you can add your own, but it gets harder if you first have to get rid of bad flavour.Another thing I don't like about it: I don't want to have burly battle mages. At least not all the time. Sometimes, I want to play that weakling who couldn't survive without his magic.</blockquote>

Verification