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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8795716" data-attributes="member: 6704184">You keep talking about more variety as if I’m arguing for less, when the opposite is true. We disagree on where that variety should live, or how it’s accessed. You often seem to be replying to something completely different from what I’ve said, as is happening in this discussion. As if I were making a point wholly disconnected from the point I’m making. It’s hard to conclude that you understand what point I’m making when you reply to a statement about individualizing choice of Spellcasting type with a unified default as if I were talking about every character having exactly the same casting features. I disagree. I…view this statement as completely false. The wizard is the most defined by thier Spellcasting, to thier detriment, and every other full caster has either another very significant feature and a smattering of others, or just a variety of features. The cleric has nearly as much going on outside of spells as a half-caster, as does the Bard. The warlock is almost more invocations and boons and patron features than spells, and the sorcerer’s spell list is overshadowed IME by sorcery points and meta-magic, and then also has origin features. I struggle to see how you can see the very different spells of the wizard and Druid as “not significantly different”, as someone who does see the different classes powers in 4e as significantly different. and I think that very harmony is disrupted by each and every spellcaster having their own underlying system rather than only the spellcasters who are narratively “weird” having different systems.</blockquote>

Verification