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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 5886544" data-attributes="member: 6688858">It's not about playing a "gimped" class.The attraction of the traditional D&D Wizard (I will agree with those earlier in the thread who said the reason people like "Vancian" wizards isn't really because of its Vancian-ness as such, although *I* love The Dying Earth and do have a fondness for spell memorization for that reason) is that it's "hard mode". If you choose wizard, in exchange for more work and a more fragile character at lower levels, you have the opportunity to have greater relative power later.It's a "hard mode" with benefits.I purchased The Witcher 2 videogame yesterday. The hardest difficulty is called "Dark" and it says that if you play on this difficulty you can get some unique items and quests. Cool!I imagine some people are upset that they'll be missing out on content just because they choose to play on Easy mode. But too bad for you, Easy-moders. Games are supposed to reward greater skill and risk-tolerance.Now if you understand this aspect -- perhaps you will then say "'difficulty' as it were should be divorced from class, and there should be 'easy mode' and 'hard mode's for each."I am not entirely averse to this and it could be space for a compromise...if it at least is recognized that there is a drawback any time you weaken the connection between fluff and mechanics. This should never be done willy-nilly just to offer players maximum aesthetic freedom. Many people want the game to provide a strong aesthetic "out of the box". i strongly feel that "refluffing" is not as popular among the general gaming populace as it is among some 4e players.But if there are compelling archetypes for easy mode Wizards and hard mode Fighters, then OK perhaps.</blockquote>

Verification