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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AlioTheFool" data-source="post: 5945892" data-attributes="member: 82767">Whether it's as hard as some would have you believe I am certain it isn't easy, or even reasonable to do the kinds of maneuvers a D&D fighter would do in large/heavy suits of armor.Sure, like you said, in your opinion. In my opinion, fantasy needs no reality. That's why I watch "Game of Thrones" not "Jersey Shore."Any example that doesn't work ruins the argument. So while you might be able to justify Whirlwind Attack, as soon as you admit Spring Attack wouldn't be feasible, it means that we are willing to accept, in some form, a break from reality.Drawing lines after that is based solely on personal preference. Hence my arguments that people are warring against magic users.I would add in Themes but otherwise I agree. That's the thing, I'm not saying a Wizard should be a Fighter too. I'm simply saying that given that a Fighter could take a Theme that would allow him or her to cast some magic, a Wizard should be able to take a Theme that allows him or her to protect him/herself.Beyond that, part of my argument is based on something written in one of the D&D website articles earlier this week. According to Mike Mearls, people are feeding back that it's too easy for a Wizard to evade melee combat and want them to be unable to do so.So the class with the least hit points, who can't wear armor, should also be unable to run away from an attack, even though if he or she gets hit, it then not only risks their life, but also makes them less apt to be effective on their next turn to act.And people still want to reduce a Wizard's overall power on top of all of that!Again, it's a war on magic. The far more simple answer is to build balance into all classes, raising "lesser" classes up to the assumed level of Wizards, then saying "Hey, if you don't like magic, ban it from your game, but don't demand that those who want to play with it be unable to enjoy doing so."(FTR: This entire "answer" isn't necessarily directed at you specifically. It just lead me to my specific point.)Very good point.There does need to be a good reason if someone was telling me I was being crippled physically. If I were playing a Wizard I'd want a darned good reason for someone to tell me it wasn't in my best interest to wear as much protection as possible.(FTR: I don't see myself ever playing a Wizard in plate or chain. I envision my Wizard, like he was in 4E, wearing leather armor. I'd still want that mobility, I'd just also want to protect myself. Or let my Mage Armor give me an AC effectively the same as plate, in which case it's a bit silly to say I can't wear armor, it simply means I need to waste a spell every day which just seems ridiculous when the alternative is much cleaner.)--------------Something else to keep in mind is that WotC has already said that they are going to support multi-classing. How do we reconcile a Fighter who later takes the Wizard class? Does he lose his ability to wear his armor while being effective? That breaks multi-classing. Perhaps you don't like multi-classing (which I've seen enough of) but not everyone does. So again, why should everyone who wants to play these things be unable to when you can simply say "that option is impermissible at my table"?I think this is the intended point of modularity. You don't want that option? Don't include it. But if it isn't there you have no choice but to not include it.</blockquote>

Verification