Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9104916" data-attributes="member: 87792">Or people who want to play wizards and find that the pre-4e D&amp;D wizard is an ultra-specific thing that doesn't actually match anything except D&amp;D wizards. At my 4e table we had players who've been playing since the 1970s, and one of the players used to almost alternate between wizards and fighter types. It turned out what he wanted to play and the character who really clicked with him was an Elementalist Pyromancer - simple to play.There's a reason there was cheering when it was announced Vancian Casting was being abolished - and why 5e uses the 3.5 Psionics system as its magic system and I've not seen anyone complain.And for the record the 4e wizard was basically no more generic than the pre-4e wizard. All casters casted alike. And the part that made the oD&amp;D wizard interesting to me (that it was treasure powered) had gone by 3.0 and arguably by 2e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 9104916, member: 87792"] Or people who want to play wizards and find that the pre-4e D&D wizard is an ultra-specific thing that doesn't actually match anything except D&D wizards. At my 4e table we had players who've been playing since the 1970s, and one of the players used to almost alternate between wizards and fighter types. It turned out what he wanted to play and the character who really clicked with him was an Elementalist Pyromancer - simple to play. There's a reason there was cheering when it was announced Vancian Casting was being abolished - and why 5e uses the 3.5 [I]Psionics[/I] system as its magic system and I've not seen anyone complain. And for the record the 4e wizard was basically no more generic than the pre-4e wizard. All casters casted alike. And the part that made the oD&D wizard interesting to me (that it was treasure powered) had gone by 3.0 and arguably by 2e. [/QUOTE]

Verification