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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheLoneRanger1979" data-source="post: 6832862" data-attributes="member: 6804148">Finally done with 22 pages of reading...... and already forgot most of the people i wanted to quote or give XP...... as well as the half a dozen points i was willing to address <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />But, alas..... i'll gave to try and make a coherent block of text from the start....The way i see it, the OP's predicament can be seen from two separate points of view. The first one is the nature and role of the major spell caster (AKA the wizard) and second, the "magification" of the classes.The first point is highly arbitrary. As pointed out by several posters already, the main archetypes that we draw inspiration (or used to back when we were kids) from, namely Merlin and Gandalf, aren't really all that well suited to be PC in a RPG. And not just those two. Nearly every witch, sorcerer, warlock or what have you from any Grimm tale or general European mythology will fall into this case. All those "mages" from the past did little or no actual "casting" of spells in "real time" or while under direct conflict. Even when actually doing it in "combat" it was usually and exclusively to stop or counter other "mages" or supernatural beings (if LOTR is taken as an example, then think of Gandalf VS the Balrog, the Ring Wraiths or Saruman). Most of he casting in legend and story would probably fall under what 5E would consider ritual casting (the poisoning of the apple by Snow White's stepmother, the curse of the spinning wheel, even Gandalf's wards on the gate). But can and/or should casting of rituals  by used as a primary defining trait of a RPG  class? And do note, that despite their casting abilities these fictional characters where not in any way restricted of doing anything any other character in the story would..... so they could load a catapult, swing a sword or wash the dishes.....The second point, the magification of the classes is what bothers me more though. Yes, i know there are people that consider the paladins and the rangers "magicals" because they used to gain some magical powers/spells at high levels (8-9+). But consider the level of magic they used to get back then and compare it with what they get now..... and you can't help but notice the magical prowess of a high level 1E ranger is now matched by a lvl 5-6 ranger. And my the class' mid levels, they are already half casters. While i can swallow the paladin's use of casting slots for smite attacks (even though i still thing there are more elegant solutions to the mechanics), there is nothing in the ranger's repertoire to justify all those casting slots except for the "we want it to be magical". Now, i may be an old and inflexible nay sayer, but to me paladins and ranger never were or were supposed to be casters. Yes, sure, by choice of spells and imaginative role playing i can pretend their abilities are not magic but acquired skills....... but that pretend verb will always stick like a thorn in my brain....... especially when someone decides to dispel my "skills" with a dispel magic. I am yet to roll a druid or cleric, but if half the stuff i just read here is true, then if rangers and paladins when 1/2 casters, then these people went from 1/2 casters to at least 3/4 casters if not more. Suddenly, the entire edition roster seams "magified". Yeah, there is no need to play those classes, sure..... but then again, what's the point of putting them in in the first place, especially if they are word for word substitutes for the existing classes of the previous editions?</blockquote>

Verification