Your Spellcasting Wish For 3.5 ?

[Gez]

Several of those options are the same thing with slightly different phrasing.

Are you sure ? Oh...

 

[Gez]

Excuse me, but the poll is broken.

Nah, it works very well. I have voted on it without problems.

Your poll should include:

- I like spellcasters and magic, and the two concepts should remain as they are.

It's there. It's the last answer.

- I really like spellcasters and magic, and their roles should be expanded.
- I love spellcasters and magic, and their roles should be greatly expanded.
- I think spellcasters and magic should be shifted to be the preeminent force in D&D.
- I think the fighter class should be eliminated or merged with the spellcaster, and the spellcaster and magic should be the preeminent force in D&D.

If you had done that, your poll would be balanced.
Your anti-mage and anti-magic bias, is well noted.

Since I am pro-mage and pro-magic, I cannot vote in your broken poll.

Ah, I think you have not understood.

As I said, I had noticed a trend in several threads these last few weeks, beginning with the first rumors and guesses on 3.5. Every people seemed to want to bash spellcasters (i.e., wizards), and nerf all there spells. Remember the huge polemics on haste ?And shield, and the others ? Recently, with both the "How do you have a tightly controlled-world ?" and the "Will they fix the other H spell ?" threads, I had more than enough of people complaining about magic (that is, wizards, because when talking about how magic imbalance things, people always forgot the clerics, druids, bards, etc., except when speaking about the resurrection spells).

Beside, I should say that I saw these kinds of debate (magic is naughty because it's magic, I don't want magic in my fantasy world because it's not real, etc.) on other messageboards.

So I decided to make this poll, to find out if it was a vocal minority or a deeper movement.

Wanna know my real opinion ? Well, here it is nevertheless: I'm fine with magic, would not mind if it was even more powerful, and favor playing characters with at least some amount of spellcasting. (Haven't you noticed my gnome bias ? Do you know that if I fell in love with gnomes as soon as I discovered D&D, it was because of their cantrips ?)

 

[Ravellion]

One option I would have liked is:

"Technically fine, but low magic option should be available."

Or

"Though not too powerful, adjusting the rules could enhance the flavour of the game greatly."

That's what I meant with slanted: Your poll is either "I hate wizards, they are too powerful" or "Wizards are perfect, I like them to be powerful"... there is no "there is this one tiny thing in rules and/or flavour that I would like to see adjusted, for other reasons than power"

Rav

 

[Kesh]

Well, considering the obvious slant, those of us who like D&D magic had only one choice. And I think you can see the results.

 

[applenerd]

Anything a mage character can do, a dm can do in triplicate! And even the triplicate can be done in triplicate I've heard! And then there's Rule 0, the most powerful spell of all! It's good to be the dm...

 

[Blood Jester]

I like the magic system too but i would like an optional low magic system for well, uh, low magic games

I may be blind, but I don't see the need for additional specific rules covering this, DM's can easily alter their game to suit their tastes.

I voted the last option, just fine thanks.

 

[Tsyr]

Having was^H^H^Hspent lots of time on these boards these last month, and especially on these last few days, I've noticed a trend. I wonder if that trend is an illusion coming from a vocal minority, or something more serious.

What is your opinion about magic-users (arcane, divine, and psionics alike) in D&D ? What would you want to see made for them in 3.5 ? Or 4, barring that.

None of those options fit my choice, though. I don't want them to do anything with the current system, I just wish they would provide an alternative or two... Say, a point-based magic system, maybe the rules for the Cthullu magic system, and possibly tools to make a low-magic world work.

 

[Tsyr]

I may be blind, but I don't see the need for additional specific rules covering this, DM's can easily alter their game to suit their tastes.

I voted the last option, just fine thanks.

Some DM's really aren't comfortable creating new rules from scratch... Being a game designer is not the same thing as being a DM. Not to mention, a lot of people have the attitude "If it's not official, it doesn't exist"... even to their own games.

 

[Tonguez]

I say nerf all utility belt spells (like Knock) and get a lockpick skill instead

My I consider anything over Level 10 'Epic' so of course I'm not keen on high level spells either. Fireball should be higher level

 

[hong]

I say nerf all utility belt spells (like Knock) and get a lockpick skill instead

My I consider anything over Level 10 'Epic' so of course I'm not keen on high level spells either. Fireball should be higher level

So you want to 1) nerf all utility spells; and 2) nerf all combat spells. I suppose the spellcasters can spend those spell slots on gust of wind or gentle repose, or something equally useful.

D00d, why not just go all the way and ban wizards? It'll save an awful lot of beating round the bush.


Hong "ALWAYS beats his bush" Ooi