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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3759607" data-attributes="member: 4937">I can agree without harming my point in any way.  For example, I could claim that there is no need for a wizard to be balanced and playable to contribute enjoyment to his/her group, and be done with this discussion if I so choose.  Why worry about the mechanics if whether something is fun doesn't depend on the mechanics?  Obviously, because we generally agree that certain mechanical factors contribute to the fun of RPGs.  Wizards are what wizards do.  Very few wizards of even fantasy literature where issues like play balance and equal oppurtunity to be the focus of attention don't matter in the slightest, Wizards - and most certainly novice ones - rarely go around slinging spells continually.  Rather, it is assumed that there is some sort of limitation on thier ability of some sort.  The notion that to 'contribute as a wizard' I must never run out of spells to fire off is a rather strange one to me.And even while I'm sympathetic to the argument that low level wizards aren't 'fun to play' and aren't balanced against barbarians, fighters, rogues and other non-spell casting classes at low levels of play, such sympathy doesn't necessarily translate to agreement with 4e's approach to solving this problem.It certainly can.  In 3rd edition, even at low levels, Wizards tend to be 'knowledge-guy', as in, 'Help! Wizard!! Please make a 'saving throw vs. ignorance' (ei knowledge check) and get the DM to tell us what is going on!!!'  Certainly not.  These are all different ways of 'going nova' (using limited use powerful abilities/resources that greatly reduce the difficulty of an encounter).It's funny that you should mention that though, because its MUCH easier to balance the Wizard for at will and per encounter abilities if you strongly limit those abilities to 'blast' type magic, and from our play testing reports that's exactly what we are seeing. So, if your problem is that you don't want to see the role of a wizard defined too narrowly, then I suggest you are griping at the wrong person.</blockquote>

Verification