Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6658827" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, obviously things besides spells do have utility, yes. The point is more that one character, the Wizard usually, but it could be one of the other caster types, holds a whole extra special set of cards. Ones that will be crucial at the crux of the matter. Sure, you won't always have exactly the perfect spell at the perfect time, or you might have no opportunity to employ it because you didn't know the situation ahead of time, but all of those are true of other ways to do things as well. And remember, the wizard isn't deprived of a perfectly adequate toolset when it comes to skills, proficiencies, etc. So it tends to be that the plot will incorporate some point where you count on having a spell. You might count on having a skill too, but any particular character might well deliver that, so your party's go-to caster becomes rather pivotal.Well, one response would of course be, "gosh, you no longer have instant pre-packaged problem solvers, plan ahead!" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I thought they were cool for that reason, you had to think ahead, carry enough materials to cast them, find a way to take the time required to do so, etc. It meant there was some substantial value in scouting and prep, although other aspects of the way 4e was packaged tended to obviate the whole ritual thing (IE if you simply create all winnable fights who needs to pay the cost of a ritual unless its going to be VERY specifically useful). Eh, the problem with 'the DM always has consequences for magic use' is it gets pretty forced rather quickly. Beyond that when you really cannot achieve the same effect or quality of effect then consequences be damned. I think the D&D model of the wizard is just too broad. There needs to be a narrowing, such that indeed a given character is going to be amazingly good at using magic in some situations, but otherwise, he's just another joe and has to pull his weight in whatever way. So the diviner can be really amazingly good at ferreting out needed information, but he doesn't have generalist magic on top of that (or very little of it at least). He may well have significant non-magical or 'magic-related' capabilities that are more similar to what non-casters get as well, so he won't be a one-shot wonder, but it puts him much more on a par with the rogue, who's really amazing at sneaking around and ganking someone from surprise, but is otherwise just pretty much baseline competent or a little better. I really advocated for that model when they seemed to be determined to go Vancian in 5e, but the traditionalists were holding sway, Mike wanted AD&D revisited, and he pretty much got it. I'm happy that there's a bit of toning down of individual spells, but in other respects 5e casters made out amazingly well.</blockquote>

Verification