Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6659700" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right. There's plenty you need to make a check to do, but also plenty that you don't. I think 5e's spell descriptions are undeniably tighter than 2e's, its much more clear what you can and can't do and when maybe there needs to be some checking of some sort. The real problem 2e had was just not having any system spelled out for the checks, unless they fell directly into a specific NWP, and then the problem was, NWP's were all 'trained only' and an open ended list, so it was unclear what you could attempt AT ALL without having a specific NWP. It was all very murky.I think my original point still stands. There are LOTS of situations where the plot likely revolves around something the wizard can do with a spell. Other times its just popping out as the best problem solver. Of course people use skills all the time, but wizards (in particular, other casters too) just seem to have this 'edge' in terms of the most difficult situations. While my 5e wizard often only contributes the same as the other characters, and they certainly do some things that are cool, the time we killed off the owl bears was because of spells. The time we killed the dragon, was a spell. When we defeated the bugbear king it was the wizard that killed him (in single combat no less). I don't think that can be chalked up to &quot;your DM is a wimp&quot;. I mean I can summon her, [MENTION=2093]Gilladian[/MENTION]! and she can give you her impression. The 5e wizard seems to be the most flexible of all D&amp;D wizards on the whole. But there aren't really generally 'broken spells', or as many simple exploits as there were in AD&amp;D. I think you can see it both ways, casters are very strong, they have a better ability to pop out the specific spell that's needed NOW, but the spell's effects are often not so overwhelming (IE you don't charm people into being almost completely dominated, but its easier to have charm person ready when you need it).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 6659700, member: 82106"] Right. There's plenty you need to make a check to do, but also plenty that you don't. I think 5e's spell descriptions are undeniably tighter than 2e's, its much more clear what you can and can't do and when maybe there needs to be some checking of some sort. The real problem 2e had was just not having any system spelled out for the checks, unless they fell directly into a specific NWP, and then the problem was, NWP's were all 'trained only' and an open ended list, so it was unclear what you could attempt AT ALL without having a specific NWP. It was all very murky. I think my original point still stands. There are LOTS of situations where the plot likely revolves around something the wizard can do with a spell. Other times its just popping out as the best problem solver. Of course people use skills all the time, but wizards (in particular, other casters too) just seem to have this 'edge' in terms of the most difficult situations. While my 5e wizard often only contributes the same as the other characters, and they certainly do some things that are cool, the time we killed off the owl bears was because of spells. The time we killed the dragon, was a spell. When we defeated the bugbear king it was the wizard that killed him (in single combat no less). I don't think that can be chalked up to "your DM is a wimp". I mean I can summon her, [MENTION=2093]Gilladian[/MENTION]! and she can give you her impression. The 5e wizard seems to be the most flexible of all D&D wizards on the whole. But there aren't really generally 'broken spells', or as many simple exploits as there were in AD&D. I think you can see it both ways, casters are very strong, they have a better ability to pop out the specific spell that's needed NOW, but the spell's effects are often not so overwhelming (IE you don't charm people into being almost completely dominated, but its easier to have charm person ready when you need it). [/QUOTE]

Verification