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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6076452" data-attributes="member: 2656">I'm not Huzzar, but I agree with the problem he raises and will give my own reasons.The issue, basically, is that spellcasters are rewarded far more for system mastery and exhaustive research than non-spellcasters. For any given problem, the player of a spellcaster is far more likely to find a persuasive point-and-click magical solution  than the player of a non-spellcaster. (non-spellcasters using spellcaster followers just leads back to magic more easily solving problems than anything else).It's not just building castles. Diplomatic problems, disguise, trickery, espionage, information gathering, travel can be carried out more reliably and quicker in many games with magic rather than mundane methods, given some research for the win button. In my experience new spells get approved by the DM individually some time before they are first used, often when the DM seems in a good mood, and typically without any discussion of potential combos or synergy. This raises the chances of a powerful combo working at least once - after all the components were approved beforehand.And because this use of magic often requires research for supporting fluff text and the expenditure of resources, I find DMs are less likely to give a straight "No" to such means, while skill use, being "unlimited" is far more likely to be assigned crippling situational penalties and multiple rolls(and so chances for failure) to accomplish tasks.</blockquote>

Verification