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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="firesnakearies" data-source="post: 5186699" data-attributes="member: 71334">Fair enough.  This was a good and rational post, and I have no counter-arguments for you.  I admit that I was a bit snarky, on purpose, in my last post.  I appreciate you not taking offense.We obviously have different strategies, in general, and perhaps weigh the relative values of different effects as having greater or lesser merit.  That's fine, and with your last post, you've demonstrated to me that your strategies and values are not wrong or ridiculous, but simply another style.  I concede that you have some good points, and that there could very well be a real mechanical reason to take Scorching Burst instead of Winged Horde.  I found your comments about when you'd be likely to use an at-will and the reduced number of targets at that time to be especially persuasive.Thank you for explaining your perspective in more depth.I'll note just two more things in defense of my original post on this topic.First, I did say that I considered Winged Horde to be always better than Scorching Burst for me, personally.  I'm sticking with that.  But it's only because I have a certain playstyle and preferences for how I like to use my resources, and the kind of risks I like to take or not take.  That's entirely a subjective "style" thing though, and I'm not arguing that it's fundamentally "better" or smarter or mathematically superior to yours.  I can see the value of your style as well, now, and I don't disagree with it or consider it "wrong".Also, I did mention that my statement was regarding purely mechanical purposes only, and that I'd still potentially take Scorching Burst for thematic or character concept reasons.  In fact, I only have one Wizard character, a Dwarf with a sort of elementalist theme, and he HAS Scorching Burst, and not Winged Horde.  I have a character with the Linguist feat, too.  So I get where you're coming from there, and not discounting that as being invalid.  I definitely do NOT feel that "the only good design is a combat optimized one", and I never meant to imply otherwise.So, in short, I don't disagree with you.  I just found some of your previous arguments unconvincing, even a bit ridiculous at times (hence the snark).  But you've explained yourself much more fully now, and I now see that we have much less to argue about than I'd supposed.</blockquote>

Verification