|
Darwinism posted:So the guy avoiding the fight and not wearing much armor must know how to defend himself and end a fight because... he's in the back not wearing armor. Here, let me help, S.J. posted:But regardless, the point is that the argument is stupid either way - and the argument only exists because of how hosed D&D's rules are in contrast with what it wants to do with its various settings.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
Darwinism posted:There's some weird stuff going on here - they know the wizard's dangerous because they know wizards are dangerous, but you admit that not all wizards are dangerous? How would they know the difference at first? If you think in any way like an actual human being, you don't need a loving comprehensive wizard census to come to the conclusion that the wizard over there might be physically fragile but scary and dangerous if not murdered first; you need literally one story about one physically-fragile wizard who had once used a scary and dangerous spell or who had once mentioned having the capability to use a scary and dangerous spell. Iny fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Here, let me help, I agree entirely with this point Iny posted:If you think in any way like an actual human being, you don't need a loving wizard census to come to the conclusion that the wizard over there might be physically fragile but scary and dangerous if not murdered first; you need literally one story about one physically-fragile wizard who had once used a scary and dangerous spell or who had once mentioned having the capability to use a scary and dangerous spell. If we're continuing with this, though, why do you think that that dude is definitely more scary than the people engaging on the frontlines? What makes you willing to not attack them and attack this guy because you heard a story once, woops there goes Ugluk's head better kill the dude in regular clothes and not the metal-covered man who ganked your friend. Darwinism fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Of course, this leaves out all of the plate wearing wizards and all of the wizards currently shapechanged into monsters with hundreds of hit points. Truly the Wizard is a mysterious and ever-changing beast. Wizard wizard wizard wizard, what is D&D if not a game of Wizards? A dragon is just a wizard-lizard and a dungeon is just a wizard-den.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Iny posted:If you think in any way like an actual human being, you don't need a loving wizard census to come to the conclusion that the wizard over there might be physically fragile but scary and dangerous if not murdered first; you need literally one story about one physically-fragile wizard who had once used a scary and dangerous spell or who had once mentioned having the capability to use a scary and dangerous spell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
S.J. posted:I wasn't ignoring it, I was explaining that I was talking about more than just that. Come on, dude. People don't need to be intricately aware of the details of their world's history in order to have fables and stories passed down, and considering how most of those worlds still tend to live in and around metropolitan areas it isn't like getting info passed around is uncommon. People in D&D settings know what wizards are, even if they haven't met one. Wizard academies are a thing. Druid covens are a thing. Sorcerers are a thing. Witches are a thing. Shaman are a thing. This isn't a stretch of imagination here. Wizards, etc, tend to be also have important places in government and current events in D&D settings. Entire races are sometimes considered magical. Eh, we were talking about adventurers and how they shape the worlds, but that's really just an aside. People might "know" a lot about wizards and still not recognize or know how to deal with one. Look at WoT, every bumfuck in town knows about the awesome and scary wizard ladies and their awesome and scary bodyguards, but no one recognizes them as such until they are going ape-poo poo on the beastmen dudes to save the town. Anyway, you're right that this is a dumb rear end argument that could be solved by decent tanking mechanics like those in 4E. Without those, it really does come down to how the DM roleplays the enemies, which depends on the setting, enemies in question, and the players involved, and as such is really dumb to argue about. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:If we're continuing with this, though, why do you think that that dude is definitely more scary than the people engaging on the frontlines? What makes you willing to not attack them and attack this guy because you heard a story once, woops there goes Ugluk's head better kill the dude in regular clothes and not the metal-covered man who ganked your friend. If we're arguing from the perspective of someone inside the setting we can come up with any number of equally viable reasons that the fighter or the wizard in this scenario is the more immediate threat depending on circumstance, at least until we start looking at how the wizards place in the setting is further reinforced with the mechanics of the game and the fighters is not  D&D would be pretty great if it wasn't for D&D PeterWeller posted:really dumb to argue about. If anything, the conclusions of the discussion should be 'Why the gently caress can't we get a good version of this loving game'
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Okay, I'll concede that you guys have a point and also that the argument is incredibly stupid in any case and very definitely shouldn't be any sort of balancing factor, but hold on a second:Waador posted:This entire argument doesn't make sense because nearly every wizard is wearing splint mail or full plate and has a variable armor class of somewhere between 20 and 26 after casting shield. Basically monsters should be going after the people in heavy armor because those are most likely to be the wizards who are good at their job. Nearly every wizard is wearing splint mail or full plate? Are you talking about 5e specifically, and if so, hey guys, is this even remotely true in 5e? Because I've never heard anyone else claim anything like this for any other edition, and I can tell you that it's certainly not true in 4e or 3.x.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
at the very least he's wearing the illusion of plate mail right? gotta blend your artillery into the crowd
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
S.J. posted:If we're arguing from the perspective of someone inside the setting we can come up with any number of equally viable reasons that the fighter or the wizard in this scenario is the more immediate threat depending on circumstance, at least until we start looking at how the wizards place in the setting is further reinforced with the mechanics of the game and the fighters is not Because grogs/Paizo/etc. We had one and apparently never will again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
S.J. posted:D&D would be pretty great if it wasn't for D&D Truer words, etc. Though I feel 4E made the best steps in the right direction, but unfortunately it did so in a way that terrified/angered a bunch of vocal nerds so it must never be spoken of again. Also it's very worthwhile for wizards in 5E to start as Fighters or Clerics IIRC for those sweet sweet armor profs. I haven't messed with the multiclassing at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Warhammer Fantasy or (insert whatever here) is a pretty great version of D&D without all the bad stuff!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Iny posted:Nearly every wizard is wearing splint mail or full plate? Are you talking about 5e specifically, and if so, hey guys, is this even remotely true in 5e? Because I've never heard anyone else claim anything like this for any other edition, and I can tell you that it's certainly not true in 4e or 3.x. It's very definitely not true in 2e, AD&D, or BECMI. I don't recall it in 4e either. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that it's a thing in 3.x, probably requiring some kind of convoluted multiclass arrangement that uses 6 different books. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:It's very definitely not true in 2e, AD&D, or BECMI. I don't recall it in 4e either. It's definitely possible in 4E but the feats, and stats required for the feats, required mean that you can either be a wizard who specializes in wearing plate or you can be a wizard with a bunch of feats that're actually good for your class.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Iny posted:Okay, I'll concede that you guys have a point and also that the argument is incredibly stupid in any case and very definitely shouldn't be any sort of balancing factor, but hold on a second: in 4E Wizard AC is not bad; it scales with INT and wizards have really good utility defensive interrupts that are encounter based. you don't wear plate, but you can have AC that is comparable to plate wearers. In general, wearing plate doesn't mean high AC in 4E. In 5E, a single level of cleric makes you lose almost nothing and gives you full plate and a shield.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Iny posted:Okay, I'll concede that you guys have a point and also that the argument is incredibly stupid in any case and very definitely shouldn't be any sort of balancing factor, but hold on a second: I am specifically talking about 5E, as they did away with arcane spell failure chance and a host of other things that previously prevented this. Basically if you're playing a wizard, you are either taking your first level in fighter or a sub-type of cleric that grants heavy armor proficiency, because you are presented with a choice of a) I want to be the guy with 20+ armor class, a significant amount of self-healing per day, proficiency with every weapon in the game, and also saving throws relevant to spellcasting, and also otherwise full-progression spellcasting or b) I want to have an armor class of about 12, no self-healing, proficiency with nothing, and saving throws that don't help my class, and otherwise full-progression spellcasting. The real issue is that if you start as either fighter or cleric for your first level, you get everything you would want from those classes: great abilities at level one, great proficiencies, and a lot of options otherwise unavailable to a wizard. And it only costs you one level of spellcasting progression (or in the case of clerics, no levels). There is basically no reason for a wizard to not be in heavy armor and using a shield because his life would be terrible if he wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Why would you go after the good wizards? That's utter suicide! At least with the scrub wizards, you have a chance of...I don't know, beating their initiative or critting or something. e: wait I forgot that crits suck now, never mind them Hwurmp fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
S.J. posted:If anything, the conclusions of the discussion should be 'Why the gently caress can't we get a good version of this loving game' We did back in like '07.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Warhammer Fantasy or (insert whatever here) is a pretty great version of D&D without all the bad stuff! WHF/WH40K arcane characters have some degree of agency that goes somewhat above (divination and what not) the other, non arcane characters. They pay for it for growing tentacles/exploding and generating a breach in reality through which endless demons get into the material realm. I think that's a fair trade. Meanwhile, in Warmachine/Hordes at the very most your "conventional" wizard can light a house on fire or move something around with telekinesis, because hey we have steam power and we kind of need all magic individuals in the army killing poo poo anyways. Also I just tried to heal someone and oh no his arm's joint goes the wrong way. It's really funny to me how non-creative D&D is, in contrast to the role it occupies as THE most popularly known fantasy RPG. I mean, I can't think of a single videogame that uses Vancian casting and it's not a D&D-based game already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Azran posted:WHF/WH40K arcane characters have some degree of agency that goes somewhat above (divination and what not) the other, non arcane characters. They pay for it for growing tentacles/exploding and generating a breach in reality through which endless demons get into the material realm. I think that's a fair trade. They can't even ape Vancian casting in an interesting way. Warhammer settings at least manage to merge setting consistency and mechanics in a way that don't invalidate other options. PeterWeller posted:We did back in like '07. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:We did back in like '07. Eh, lot of room for improvement, though. Combat length, feats, and magic items would be good places to start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
My friends still don't believe me that the math is important and combats will take longer and longer if they don't max out their primary ability scores at character creation. I don't even see the reason as for why EVERYTHING had to scale constantly - Next's bounded accuracy seems to be more reasonable at the very least, and Advantage/Disadvantage removes some of the swingy nature of the d20. Shame about everything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Azran posted:I can't think of a single videogame that uses Vancian casting and it's not a D&D-based game already. Final Fantasy 1?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Doesn't advantage kind of put more of an emphasis on crits though, which just makes the swinginess better in some ways and worse in others?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Gort posted:Eh, lot of room for improvement, though. Combat length, feats, and magic items would be good places to start. Yeah, it was by no means perfect, but it was a great move in the right direction. And so as not to sound like I'm an edition warrior, I do really like 5E a whole lot. It does a good job of scratching my 2E itch while incorporating a lot of sound advances from the last 2 decades of D&D and its clones. But like 2E, I would discourage anyone from playing a single class fighter unless they had some gimmick in mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I'm wondering if a lot of the problem with casters is that the DMs aren't being told enough in DMGs to make sure to have a lot of combats between each rest, to interrupt rests, and to make time integral to the plot. Here are a list of campaigns that fit this description. 1) Dungeon crawl That's it. That's the only one. The reason wizard supremacy has grown bigger and bigger is because D&D is still balanced around being a dungeon crawl, but has steadily tried to pretend it's more then that. If D&D is just a dungeon crawl then sure, go for it. If D&D wants to be more then a dungeon crawl then it has to change it's balancing techniques.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:It's definitely possible in 4E but the feats, and stats required for the feats, required mean that you can either be a wizard who specializes in wearing plate or you can be a wizard with a bunch of feats that're actually good for your class. In 4e the dude in the robe is a: not guaranteed to be a Wizard, there are at least 3 classes who only get cloth armour by default, and even in only the PHB, the Rogue and Warlock both only get leather by default so dropping a point of AC to use cloth is not out of the question, and b: likely to have comparable AC with everyone but dudes in Scale armour or carrying shields anyway. Wearing anything other than cloth or just maybe leather on a Wizard is pretty pointless. But of the other cloth classes, you also have Avenger, Swordmage, Psion, and latterly Berserker and *shudder* Vampire, plus anyone who wears leather might want cloth instead. But then, as previously noted, only a lot later on in 4e is 'gank the loving wizard' a vital tactic, because everyone else actually contributes on a similar level. And as noted above, both of the two highest-AC options in the entire game (absent interrupts) are cloth wearers - Swordmage and Berserker. Really though the whole bitch about whether or not it makes sense in-setting to gank the loving wizard is a personal preference thing, and there aren't really modern analogies to it, to be honest. To me, the 'but what about the heavily armoured dude who just charged us' argument doesn't hold water, for any of several reasons; firstly, in-setting knowledge, I've not played in a setting where wizards aren't... well not 10 a penny, but certainly common enough to be well known among intelligent creatures; secondly, the dude in the armour is charging us and trying to tie us up for a reason, I wonder why; thirdly, I'm hungry and that food is both not canned and not currently trying to stab me, etc etc etc etc. If you want to justify it, it's easy to justify. if you want to justify against it, that's easy too. The problem is that the argument is happening at all, because letting the fighter act might result in one or two dudes getting splatted, letting the wizard act results in the entire battlefield (or possibly at later levels the entire dungeon, castle or town) getting hosed over. Because they have such radically different contributions, you have to get in these 'well I think' arguments in order to justify your positions, rather than having it be equally tactically viable to do *either*. And that's entirely discounting out of combat utility. The argument that fighters can do it all day every day is meaningless to me, too. So what, the fighter can keep swinging as long as he has HP. The Wizard can loving teleport across the world once a day, or wish poo poo into existence, or turn into a dragon, or or or or... these things are not and cannot be easily made equivalent. The difference between them is just too extreme. Overall, I've said it before - it really, really bugs me that 4e was made before 5e. If 5e had come first and made a little incremental improvement on 3e, then I'd now be in on the ground floor of an edition I want to play, rather than one I will play if someone in my area is willing to run it, but won't go out of my way to find. It's a shame because it means I probably lose touch with a bunch of people I only otherwise know through D&D.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
In Glen Cook's books you can be watching your buddies get slaughtered by guys with swords, and when you see the weirdo in the robes waving his hands half a kilometer away, you absolutely poo poo yourself. The argument is silly, and if a wizard player tried it on me when I was DMing, it would become a running joke of "the Wizard in the land of skeptics." Wizard: Where's the magic item shop? Villagers: lololol this guy believes in magic. Who ever heard of that? A dragon lands in the town square Villager: Oi, what's that? I never seen nothin like that before! Wonder if it's friendly? HEY! HEY! Polly wanna cracker?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:In Glen Cook's books you can be watching your buddies get slaughtered by guys with swords, and when you see the weirdo in the robes waving his hands half a kilometer away, you absolutely poo poo yourself. Glen Cook's wizards, at least in the Black Company series, are also a gaggle of freaks that wear whatever their little black hearts desire. Though, amusingly, their power level in relation to martials is similar to 3E's...
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
S.J. posted:If we're arguing from the perspective of someone inside the setting we can come up with any number of equally viable reasons that the fighter or the wizard in this scenario is the more immediate threat depending on circumstance, at least until we start looking at how the wizards place in the setting is further reinforced with the mechanics of the game and the fighters is not Seriously? This entire discussion about why monsters attack wizards first was painful enough then this. 5E/Next is drat fun. So was 4E, Pathfinder, 3E, and all the rest. Fighters and other melee characters in D&D tank mostly by being convenient targets. It seems that everyone keeps framing these hypothetical situations around a flat open area with no cover where everyone is going to immediately see the arcane character throwing pretty lights around that hurt really bad. That's almost never the case, at least when you have a DM that knows how to setup good combats! In our games the casters stand behind the wall of meat, take cover behind poo poo, cast defensive spells, fire from down the hall while the melee advance, etc. There are a ton of cool spells and abilities that let you teleport, fly, push monsters around or trap them, turn invisible, negate damage, etc! If you are playing a caster you should never leave yourself out in the open with a big "put an ax through my forehead" sign around your neck. If you make yourself easier to kill than the fighter you shouldn't be a caster. If you are doing everything reasonable to by a pain in the rear end to get to and the DM is still ignoring the melee to kill your character then you have a lovely DM and need to find a new game to play in. Seriously, the game is not flawed because of a lack of hard tanking mechanics to force monsters to hit the character with the highest AC and HP. Those kinds of mechanics are lazy, letting players and DMs off the hook for actually knowing how to play wisely. SwitchbladeKult fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Seriously, the game is not flawed because of a lack of hard tanking mechanics to force monsters to hit the character with the highest AC and HP. Those kinds of mechanics are lazy, letting players and DMs off the hook for actually knowing how to play wisely. Why are mechanics that provide incentives (or disincentives, for defender mechanics) 'lazy,' exactly? Like, 4E has defender marks, but they don't force any action to be taken except in the sense that you have to deal with the consequences of violating those marks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Why are mechanics that provide incentives (or disincentives, for defender mechanics) 'lazy,' exactly? Like, 4E has defender marks, but they don't force any action to be taken except in the sense that you have to deal with the consequences of violating those marks. They are lazy. Instead of coming up with a clever plan to prevent the monsters from murdering your wizard you just walk up and poke it your stick. You don't have to worry about positioning, cover, etc. Basically, you shouldn't need them because you already have all the tools you need in order to control the flow of battle if you just stop being a bum and use them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Fighters and other melee characters in D&D tank mostly by being convenient targets. It seems that everyone keeps framing these hypothetical situations around a flat open area with no cover where everyone is going to immediately see the arcane character throwing pretty lights around that hurt really bad. That's almost never the case, at least when you have a DM that knows how to setup good combats! In our games the casters stand behind the wall of meat, take cover behind poo poo, cast defensive spells, fire from down the hall while the melee advance, etc. There are a ton of cool spells and abilities that let you teleport, fly, push monsters around or trap them, turn invisible, negate damage, etc! If you are playing a caster you should never leave yourself out in the open with a big "put an ax through my forehead" sign around your neck. If you make yourself easier to kill than the fighter you shouldn't be a caster. If you are doing everything reasonable to by a pain in the rear end to get to and the DM is still ignoring the melee to kill your character then you have a lovely DM and need to find a new game to play in. So casters get even more advantages outside of the hypothetical worst case of a flat, featureless battlefield?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Why are mechanics that provide incentives (or disincentives, for defender mechanics) 'lazy,' exactly? Because if those exist then casuals, children, and even rear end in a top hat fuckers who are new to the game will be able to understand things (or even, horror of horrors, be able to run a game) without having to listen to you explain the right way and you will no longer be alpha nerd. e: That's generic you, not you specifically. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:They are lazy. Instead of coming up with a clever plan to prevent the monsters from murdering your wizard you just walk up and poke it your stick. You don't have to worry about positioning, cover, etc. Basically, you shouldn't need them because you already have all the tools you need in order to control the flow of battle if you just stop being a bum and use them. This is the part where you explain how the defender going up to the bad guy and engaging him with the games mechanics isn't positioning. Be specific! Because the layout of the fight can greatly change how different mechanics get utilized with different classes. But I'm sure you already thought of that. And holy hell, a clever plan? So basically, your alternative is to play mother may I with the DM? Because if your clever plan involves using the mechanics of the game, you'll need to explain how using whatever mechanics you've imagined using in your head is a better alternative than marking (marking is dependent on positioning, btw). It's pretty obvious you don't know how 4e works though, so instead of responding to this you should probably just... not. quote:you already have all the tools you need in order to control the flow of battle if you just stop being a bum and use them. Please cite your sources, then. S.J. fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:They are lazy. Instead of coming up with a clever plan to prevent the monsters from murdering your wizard you just walk up and poke it your stick. You don't have to worry about positioning, cover, etc. Basically, you shouldn't need them because you already have all the tools you need in order to control the flow of battle if you just stop being a bum and use them. Proper positioning is a massive part of good 4E play and combats that take place on a flat plane with zero terrain to use are both dull and difficult for 4E characters to succeed in. In general the 4E wizard should still stand in back and not be moving, it's just that the fighter is empowered to make it more costly for the monster to go around him than it would be for other characters in the same position. The unspoken gentleman's agreement of D&D, attack the fighter first, is actually enforced in play.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:They are lazy. Instead of coming up with a clever plan to prevent the monsters from murdering your wizard you just walk up and poke it your stick. You don't have to worry about positioning, cover, etc. Basically, you shouldn't need them because you already have all the tools you need in order to control the flow of battle if you just stop being a bum and use them. 5e has no effective tools for controlling the flow of battle that aren't spells.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Because if those exist then casuals, children, and even rear end in a top hat fuckers who are new to the game will be able to understand things instead of having to listen to you explain the right way and you will no longer be alpha nerd. Goons in a flame war about tanking mechanics calling other Goons alpha nerds.  New players and casuals shouldn't need mechanics that force monsters to focus the tank nor do thet need extensive game knowledge. Make it difficult for monsters to mover over to the caster through the tools you have. You don't need to be the alpha nerd who has been playing D&D for years to know standings behind cover is probably the best course of action for a caster and being the easiest thing to target in the area is the best thing for the melee guy to do. That just requires you using your brain to think about your actions and not relying 100% on game mechanics. Get creative! S.J. posted:This is the part where you explain how the defender going up to the bad guy and engaging him with the games mechanics isn't positioning. If your BBEG is a single monsters in a big round chamber and the defender runs up and gets in his face while the wazard stands in the back cloaked in a mirror image spell and stone skin you shouldn't need a mechanic to force the BBEG to attack the defender. The obvious choice for the monster should be to just attack the fighter that's in his face. SwitchbladeKult fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:5e has no effective tools for controlling the flow of battle that aren't spells. Not true! You simply use your superior knowledge of tactics and the fact that bandits don't know what a wizard is to easily outwit and defeat them! No Brian, bandits wouldn't know what a wizard is! They couldn't! Wizards are super rare and bandits are dumb enough to not realise that the unarmoured guy with the magic staff might be dangerous or might be carrying valuable loot! Now can we just get to town so I can spend 200 years of laborers' wages on wizard stuff in the magic shop? SwitchbladeKult posted:Goons in a flame war about tanking mechanics calling other Goons alpha nerds. :ironcat: Yeah, gently caress mechanics, am I right? Be creative! <Peruses 200 page spell list for the most SwitchbladeKult posted:Make it difficult for monsters to mover over to the caster through the tools you have But, you know, gently caress getting any actual tools. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:They are lazy. Instead of coming up with a clever plan to prevent the monsters from murdering your wizard you just walk up and poke it your stick. You don't have to worry about positioning, cover, etc. Basically, you shouldn't need them because you already have all the tools you need in order to control the flow of battle if you just stop being a bum and use them. Ignoring all the other responses, why should a fighter (or defender of any sort really) rely solely on position, clever tactics, etc when the wizard, by your own admission, has this bevy of powers that influence the battlefield so immensely?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:47
|
|