Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 3976571" data-attributes="member: 467">I think you are missing an important thing, though: in earlier editions, any time the wizard chooses to &quot;out-X the X&quot; he is using up a resource that could be applied elsewhere.&nbsp; one of the reasons the wizard was always considered an &quot;advanced&quot; class for &quot;advanced&quot; players is that it takes a lot of work to get to know what all the spells do and it takes a lot of skill with the game to decide which of the myriad of options available to take.&nbsp; The sorcerer, I think, was intended to combat this by being a &quot;wizard lite&quot; -- fewer choices, so easier to play.Poor wizard players were the kind to constantly try and fill another party member's adventuring role -- it was a waste of resources to cast &quot;knock&quot; when you had a decent thief/rogue in the party, for example.&nbsp; But good players tried to support the rest of their party (often in the form of artillery, the ultimate form of combat support) and use their very versatile but limited resources for those occassions where magic was really necessary.One thing that I think was lost in 3E was the limited number of spells the wizard could learn and the tendency -- though I don't think it was in the rules anywhere -- for wizards to have whatever spells they wanted, instead of having to find them and/or research them.&nbsp; Assuming that you didn't just give every wizard an 18 Int, the wizard player had to think long term about what spells to learn, what spells would still be useful 3 or 5 or 9 levels down the line.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 3976571, member: 467"] I think you are missing an important thing, though: in earlier editions, any time the wizard chooses to "out-X the X" he is using up a resource that could be applied elsewhere. one of the reasons the wizard was always considered an "advanced" class for "advanced" players is that it takes a lot of work to get to know what all the spells do and it takes a lot of skill with the game to decide which of the myriad of options available to take. The sorcerer, I think, was intended to combat this by being a "wizard lite" -- fewer choices, so easier to play. Poor wizard players were the kind to constantly try and fill another party member's adventuring role -- it was a waste of resources to cast "knock" when you had a decent thief/rogue in the party, for example. But good players tried to support the rest of their party (often in the form of artillery, the ultimate form of combat support) and use their very versatile but limited resources for those occassions where magic was really necessary. One thing that I think was lost in 3E was the limited number of spells the wizard could learn and the tendency -- though I don't think it was in the rules anywhere -- for wizards to have whatever spells they wanted, instead of having to find them and/or research them. Assuming that you didn't just give every wizard an 18 Int, the wizard player had to think long term about what spells to learn, what spells would still be useful 3 or 5 or 9 levels down the line. [/QUOTE]

Verification