Quote from: Exploderwizard;755418Crossbow proficiency was a terrible idea. A wizard out of magic should throw daggers and think about spending power more wisely.

A magic user sucking big donkey cock in a lot of combat means that the game is functioning as intended.

The problem is in believing that a wizard needs to be a consistent combat contributor. That is buttfuck stupid and the design leaning ever more in this direction is the reason we have the poor widdle fighter syndrome.

Of course the fighter sucks if you take away the one area where he rules and give it to the damn wizard.

Thus endeth D&D 101 for morons.

Maybe for you but obviously it's not the one true way. Get this through your skull many people hated that style especially after 3x. It's okay that 5e isn't your deal I lived through 4e just fine and you'll do the same with 5e if the DMG doesn't give you the options to alter the baseline better suited to your playstyle.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755418Crossbow proficiency was a terrible idea. A wizard out of magic should throw daggers and think about spending power more wisely. .

As a nod to history,  I disagree--crossbows outstripped longbows in real world use because the former took way less training to utilize, that to me is exactly what a wizard would want, an easy weapon to learn and not distract him from his spell casting study.

Quote from: Silverlion;755439As a nod to history,  I disagree--crossbows outstripped longbows in real world use because the former took way less training to utilize, that to me is exactly what a wizard would want, an easy weapon to learn and not distract him from his spell casting study.

Crossbows tend to be heavy, and possibly slow.

But most importantly require the one thing a magic user tends to lack...

Strength.

Priming a crossbow, even with a winch is not a easy task. Though with a light crossbow its not so strenuous.

The one I made in woodworking class has a 120lb pull on it.

Back on topic. As stated earlier. Just reduce the Ray o frost, etc to a d6. Assuming it isnt nerfed allready in the final version.

All this speculation could be a moot point depending on what changes and what doesnt.

Quote from: Marleycat;755435Maybe for you but obviously it's not the one true way.

There is no one true way. There is the D&D way and everything else. The D&D way isn't for everyone.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755455There is no one true way. There is the D&D way and everything else. The D&D way isn't for everyone.

 I'm done with you. Dnd way....bullocks, you meant to say there's you're way and  fuck off you moron. You sir, really take the cake. Do you actually expect to be taken seriously after that piece of ignorance and elitist frappery?

Quote from: Marleycat;755460I'm done with you. Dnd way....bullocks, you meant to say there's you're way and  fuck off you moron. You sir, really take the cake. Do you actually expect to be taken seriously after that piece of ignorance and elitist frappery?

How on earth could the D&D be my way? I must say your logic here is severely faulty for one very significant reason: D&D hit the shelves in 1974 when I was just a 4 year old kid.  I assure you that Gary & Dave did not solicit my advice when they designed this game. I would testify to that in court.

Therefore....

The D&D way was established about 6 years before I even picked up the dice.

Some people hate the D&D way and change things in their games. This is natural and intended. Some people abandon the D&D way for other games more to their liking, ain't choice great?

Yet others aren't happy until D&D is changed into the popular trend of the time whatever that happens to be. D&D loses its meaning and any sense of style identity when this happens. That is sad.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755474How on earth could the D&D be my way? I must say your logic here is severely faulty for one very significant reason: D&D hit the shelves in 1974 when I was just a 4 year old kid.  I assure you that Gary & Dave did not solicit my advice when they designed this game. I would testify to that in court.

Therefore....

The D&D way was established about 6 years before I even picked up the dice.

Some people hate the D&D way and change things in their games. This is natural and intended. Some people abandon the D&D way for other games more to their liking, ain't choice great?

Yet others aren't happy until D&D is changed into the popular trend of the time whatever that happens to be. D&D loses its meaning and any sense of style identity when this happens. That is sad.

Damn they fucked up basketball by adding the 3 point shot.

And what the hell with instant replay in college football, the pussies.

Fuckers changing the body styles of cars every year for no reason than to just look different.

What the fuck is up with hairstyles?!  The bob was fine in the 1930s and is still fine today.

The cheese should never fucking move!  Change sucks, stay the same dammit!  :eyeroll:

ExploderWizard, true interpreter of all that is "real" D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755455There is no one true way. There is the D&D way and everything else. The D&D way isn't for everyone.

I'd say five distinct editions of D&D prove otherwise, but if you count Holmes, Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer, Rules Cyclopedia and OD&D it's more like ten.

Edit: In fact, I'm gonna stick with five. Collapse Both AD&Ds, Holmes, and OD&D into one, and all the other Basic D&Ds into another because... well, they might as well be.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755455There is no one true way. There is the D&D way and everything else. The D&D way isn't for everyone.

Six immediately-distinct modes of D&D prove you wrong.

(For the record: OD&D/Holmes, AD&D/2e, B/X/BECMI/Cyclopedia, 3.x, 4e, Next)

Im more concerned with the near total pulling of the Rogues teeth. Its nearly a non-class now. Assuming they keep the thief skills all now free to everyone.

That seems more potentially vexing than an at-will spell.

Of course some will rejoice in the death of the thief at last. Well, not really death. But they feel allmost redundant now.

Quote from: Omega;755538Im more concerned with the near total pulling of the Rogues teeth. Its nearly a non-class now. Assuming they keep the thief skills all now free to everyone.

That seems more potentially vexing than an at-will spell.

Of course some will rejoice in the death of the thief at last. Well, not really death. But they feel allmost redundant now.

From what I see the Rogue is barely behind the Fighter as death on wheels. Can dual wield, can be an elven archer sneak attack assassination machine. Yes I said ranged sneak attacks like a real sniper. Plus a skill monkey just for fun (they are just better at whatever skills they have). And then there's the Bard....Jesus H don't piss her off she might multiclass into Rogue or worse. "Hi, I'm Solandenar...as she's singing a tune buffing the entire party and shooting...moving...and shooting (sneak attacks everytime).

The game seems to be going back to 1/2e movement and action economy for the most part don't you see what that does? Given you can have armored Mages easy enough I say relax because it's going to get gonzo if you really use the options available.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;755418A magic user sucking big donkey cock in a lot of combat means that the game is functioning as intended.

The problem is in believing that a wizard needs to be a consistent combat contributor. That is buttfuck stupid and the design leaning ever more in this direction is the reason we have the poor widdle fighter syndrome.

Of course the fighter sucks if you take away the one area where he rules and give it to the damn wizard.

Thus endeth D&D 101 for morons.

This is worth repeating for it is beautiful. :pundit:

But perhaps we can theory craft how fighters can get weaboo mystical powers to step on the toes of magicians. I posit with enough push-ups a fighter can walk through the ethereal plane. Flexing poses used as Charm spells. Body odor used as abjuration. I think there's real potential in this line of thought. It's such a style I want to play.
:rolleyes:

I like to have the option to use 'classic' wizards (Frail, Vancian, Can't use a sword, etc...)

And, I wan't the option to have Warlocks/Sorceroers that are for example, not scholarly, and not strictly vancian.

I don't think I should only be allowed to like Classic wizards just because they were printed in a book first.

It sounds like 5th edition will have more than enough options to cater to everyone, whether you want  meek frail wizards plinking with a single spell a day or something a little stronger.

Which is a good thing I think.