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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OldGreybeard" data-source="post: 4575231" data-attributes="member: 80691">The main reason i asked NerfedWizard for his opinion is that he has designed his own fantasy based game called Omnifray and i know his views on D&D as he mentions it every session or every game type(funny but true, ask him), so i wanted to create a happy medium in which he would want to play. Unfortunately his replies were not in the interest of game balance so when i declined his suggestions he opened this debate, so in my mind he has gone to big brother to garner support for his argument. Hey i have broad shoulders and i am willing to listen(wish he would, 9th level spell and he still resists it)!!! I totally agree, Wizards can wear armour but to maintain a balance, need some penalty in 3e thats ASF(arcane spell failure).  I have e:mailed him a second suggestion for a new campaign with Clerics of Azuth as the prime religion(like 2e cannot wear armour and use wizard weapons, set in a city state ruled by a magocracy, three players would play Wizard, Cleric and Rogue in a plot heavy game, when the party need warriors they hire mercs or henchmen and play them as secondary characters. Now i think thats a fair and interesting scenario with each character bringing some unique skills and abilities to the table. It puts less emphasis on combat and the need to wear heavy armour, still waiting for a response. Here is some light humour to end. For a mili-second i nearly caved in then thought if i let him play a wizard able to wear full armour and suffer no penalties then to maintain a game balance i would have to let every intelligent monster or NPC have a pet Rust Monster just to counter this new threat. Hahahahaha</blockquote>

Verification