Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5882960" data-attributes="member: 87792">Both of these, I agree, would be good things.&nbsp; If you took the fighter and the thief and merged them into a single class with the abilities of both.&nbsp; The ability to function at their level both in and out of combat.&nbsp; Because Vancian means that if expecting a fight the wizard can prepare for the combat focus of the fighter - and if not expecting one he can prepare for the non-combat focus of a thief.&nbsp; Call him the &quot;professional&quot; or something.&nbsp; As things stand, this flexibility is a way Spellcasters are Special.&nbsp; As if they need more than the ability to warp reality to make them special.I don't dislike those aspects of casting.&nbsp; I dislike them paired with the classic D&amp;D class system that doesn't normally allow this sort of flexibility.&nbsp; Now whether this is a problem with Vancian Magic or one of the D&amp;D class system is open to debate.&nbsp; (I'd say it's a flaw in the classic D&amp;D class system, myself).This isn't true.&nbsp; 3e definitely made the problem more severe.&nbsp; But the 2e mage, with specialisation is hugely more powerful than the 1e mage who doesn't get these bonus spells.&nbsp; And even in 1e, the commonly thought overpowered variant classes like the Cavalier were made, according to Gygax himself, to try to add some balance.&nbsp; Also the AD&amp;D endgame is much, much lower than the 3e one.&nbsp; In AD&amp;D you got castles and towers round level 11 or so - and that's when much of the adventuring stopped - and when the fighters got armies to make up for the wizard's spells continuing to improve.&nbsp; Talking about 20th level wizards - 20th level wizards could easily make reality beg for mercy in 1e.&nbsp; Fighters were men with sharpened bits of metal no matter what level.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5882960, member: 87792"] Both of these, I agree, would be good things. If you took the fighter and the thief and merged them into a single class with the abilities of both. The ability to function at their level both in and out of combat. Because Vancian means that if expecting a fight the wizard can prepare for the combat focus of the fighter - and if not expecting one he can prepare for the non-combat focus of a thief. Call him the "professional" or something. As things stand, this flexibility is a way Spellcasters are Special. As if they need more than the ability to warp reality to make them special. I don't dislike those aspects of casting. I dislike them [I]paired with the classic D&D class system that doesn't normally allow this sort of flexibility[/I]. Now whether this is a problem with Vancian Magic or one of the D&D class system is open to debate. (I'd say it's a flaw in the classic D&D class system, myself). This isn't true. 3e definitely made the problem more severe. But the 2e mage, with specialisation is hugely more powerful than the 1e mage who doesn't get these bonus spells. And even in 1e, the commonly thought overpowered variant classes like the Cavalier were made, according to Gygax himself, to try to add some balance. Also the AD&D endgame is much, much lower than the 3e one. In AD&D you got castles and towers round level 11 or so - and that's when much of the adventuring stopped - and when the fighters got armies to make up for the wizard's spells continuing to improve. Talking about 20th level wizards - 20th level wizards could easily make reality beg for mercy in 1e. Fighters were men with sharpened bits of metal no matter what level. [/QUOTE]

Verification