Read it Here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080922
- Elf High Mage
- Harper of Legend
- Mythic Sovereign
Elf High Mage:
Very good in terms of flavor. The idea of being a practitioner of the elvish high magics is a great idea and a ton of fun. However, the mechanics are straining on broken. The ability to get three rolls that you KNOW is bad enough, but dealable. however, the half cost to all rituals makes the class far too powerful.
Harper of Legend:
This is probably my favorite of the three. First of all, it brings the Harpers back into the game nicely. There was some information in the books, but very little. With this you not only can play a Harper, but can become a Master Harper. The mechanics don't seem to be hurting at all. An extra encounter power of your level-6, starting the day with an extra Action Point and getting to spend more a day (albeit under certain circumstances) and a non-death ability (like many other classes) don't look like they will hurt the game.
Mythic Sovereign:
I like this class a lot. However, I am annoyed by the prerequisites. Why exactly does on need to be a Fighter, Ranger, Paladin or Warlord to become a Sovereign? So there are no wizards governing anything? Swordmages, even though they are as much defenders as Fighters and Paladins, also got locked out. All in all the prerequisites upset me. The flavor and mechanics are nice though and I like the idea of being a hero of my land and having my own place of the residence.
All in all, it was a pretty good article, but I dislike the some of the mechanics. The flavor is perfect though.
Why exactly does on need to be a Fighter, Ranger, Paladin or Warlord to become a Sovereign?
Does anyone feel this would be broken if any class could become this epic destiny? If its a "flavour" prerequisite I'll remove it homerule it out. However if its somehow a balancing prerequisite I'll keep it in (Although I'm unsure how arcane classes all somehow break this epic destiny).
Does anyone feel this would be broken if any class could become this epic destiny? If its a "flavour" prerequisite I'll remove it homerule it out. However if its somehow a balancing prerequisite I'll keep it in (Although I'm unsure how arcane classes all somehow break this epic destiny).
Looking over it here is a list of the powers and what would be effected in the change:
And can half-elves qualify? Hmmmmm. Must ask DM.
And can half-elves qualify? Hmmmmm. Must ask DM.
-Nope. Half-Elves cannot be Selu'Taar.
-Let's see...Points about the article.
-I wish they'd get the spelling correct. Ar'Selu'Tel'Quessir. Selu'Taar. Not that hard. That, and 'Elf High Mage' sounds very...awkward. 'Elven' is the proper...conjugation? Adjective? Whatever it would be. It's interesting that it specifically said that there aren't going to be Elven High Magic Rituals that get mechanical write-ups.
It's interesting that it specifically said that there aren't going to be Elven High Magic Rituals that get mechanical write-ups.
This is something I am very happy about. One of the reasons people were able to break the higher level play of 3rd edition was that the developers tried to put high level stuff in the game like this and gave mechanical rules for it.
Personally, I think the the DM should be the one who comes up with what can or can't be done with the Elven High Rituals and how much it will take.
-Even after having the Epic Level Handbook, I can't claim to fully understand the rules anyway, so...
I kind of feel the same way myself, but I have seen what others can supposedly do. Honestly, I could never come up with how to do it myself, but my friend made me outright ban certain of his epic spells because they were too powerful.
Also: Long live the Harpers!
-Even after having the Epic Level Handbook, I can't claim to fully understand the rules anyway, so...
Anything specific? When it came to Mythals in 3.5 was just using the Mythal seed and adding powers, then add some factors to make it castable...
Really no big deal once you get an understanding of the rules.
However, Mythal creation can be ported over for the new ritual rules, maybe we could try to create a subsystem for mythal creation..... it not really that much work I guess.
This is something I am very happy about. One of the reasons people were able to break the higher level play of 3rd edition was that the developers tried to put high level stuff in the game like this and gave mechanical rules for it.
And I'm not at all happy about it. While the features are nice and all, a few rituals wouldn't have done any harm.
Also, regarding future rules and releases, because we didn't get any high magic rituals it could likely be that we won't get any epic+ rules.
Anything specific?
-No, nothing specific. Just the whole general thing.
is Elf High Mage Utility 2
Huh
Level 26 Maybe?
The Article for Epic Destinies in Forgotten Realms is up.
Read it Here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080922
I rather liked the Mythic Sovereign.
A nice article, overall.Mythic Sovereign:
I like this class a lot. However, I am annoyed by the prerequisites. Why exactly does on need to be a Fighter, Ranger, Paladin or Warlord to become a Sovereign?
I agree--the one thing I didn't like about that ED were the class restrictions. A Mythic Sovereign need not be a warrior, at least in my opinion. I'll ask Rich about it.
The mythic sovereign destiny as written would also be available to any character who had the appropriate multi-class feat for the pre-req classes, which is pretty light. But yeah, it doesn't seem like there would be any significant fallout from opening it to everybody.
Actually as written right now multi-class feats only qualify you for feats and Paragon Paths. However, I would say that it would not be an over-powered houserule to allow Epic Destinies as well.
-Personally, I never understood why Selu'Taar were an available PrC to begin with. Were it up to me, they'd be an NPC-only thing.
Same here. My heart actually sank a tiny bit when i first read it on the pdf.
Larloch the most powerful of Faerûn’s mighty wizards'
Larloch was never the most powerful in the past, but nowadays he might be, or is for that matter. So it's likely that we'll see actual stats for him.
Although any Elf High Mage is a potent arcane spellcaster by definition,
an Elf High Mage's true power does not lie in mastery of battle magic.
Elven high magic consists of a set of rare and powerful rituals, mostly
dealing with the creation of mythals,...
They're outside the scope of the typical D&D game mechanics and are best
handled as story events in the campaign.
These two could indicate, that this article is all we get for Elven High Mages, including Araevin
I agree with not putting them in an article. High Magic are events in and of themselves, so to put them in rules is imo like statting out the gods.
...so to put them in rules is imo like statting out the gods.
...whose stats I can't wait to see.
...whose stats I can't wait to see.
-Orcus is in the Monster Manual, so I hear.
Personally, I do not see the point in creating a High Elf Mage if there are no high magic rituals. There are rituals that sheer off and levitate mountains but creating even 3-4 high magic rituals would be too difficult or too powerful? A nice way to remove another unique aspect of the setting.
Well, currently there are no rituals to sheer of mountains. There used to all you needed in 3.5 in the ELH and LEoF. If you want rituals to create/alter/control Mythals grow cities from living trees and crystals, create your own islands, summon acid storms.... it´s certainly possible with the current ritual rules.....the rituals will take a longtime to cast and could cost millions, but it´s doable. However its outside the scope of the article.
-Personally, I never understood why Selu'Taar were an available PrC to begin with. Were it up to me, they'd be an NPC-only thing. That there aren't any specific Elven High Magic spells helps this, but at the same time, hurts it. If they want it to be a PP, provide the spells. If they don't want to provide spells, don't make it a PP.
The way I understand it, is that in Faerun it´s a really tough for an elven mage to become a member of the club, ok thats mostly what I gathered from the Last Mythal triology. I guess players really want their elven mage to have a shot at it while they adventure, most just don´t have the time to wait 100 years until they are deemed ready to be allowed to start.
When it comes to giving out spells/rituals limited to the high mages, the question is really if it´s worth the time to develop them if only a small number of players will ever access/fight against it.
In older editions it was possible that out elven high mages would develop new spells and keep them behind lock and key in their towers, so only those they deemed worthy would access them.
The new destiny makes them better with all rituals, so it´s pretty nice. Mages not even the high ones have magical power that makes them better than other classes - that is gone (at least in this edition). The current design goal is not to give casters powers that let them overshadow other classes and skills, but rituals are fair game (since everyone can access them).
-Orcus is in the Monster Manual, so I hear.
Orcus will be hardly comparable to a deity, I fear.
Hopefully he will though, otherwise not only cosmic entities but also primordials got stats that are too low.
The new destiny makes them better with all rituals, so it´s pretty nice. Mages not even the high ones have magical power that makes them better than other classes - that is gone (at least in this edition). The current design goal is not to give casters powers that let them overshadow other classes and skills, but rituals are fair game (since everyone can access them).
And this is one of the major flaws of 4e. Of course, it's balanced and fun to play and all classes are equal powerful/weak, but the 'realism' is left behind, apparently. Hell, an epic guy who can channel fundamental arcane energies or who can throw mountaintops of whatever IS more powerful than an epic brutish guy who wields a greatsword.
Also, wonder why there are no animals in the Monster Manual as there were in 3e? Firstly, because according to the Rule of Cool simple animals are not cool and secondly, because there's no longer hit dice. So you can't place them at the appropriate level in comparison to mere humans. Instead you can 'only' increase/decrease their level in order to have a balanced encounter - which has nothing to do with being realistic.
Just by the way, of course ;)
Hell, an epic guy who can channel fundamental arcane energies or who can throw mountaintops of whatever IS more powerful than an epic brutish guy who wields a greatsword.
Not any more, sucker!! And that's how it should be. I never understood why in previous editions it was deemed that I should not be allowed to have any fun with the character types I like to play, that I should have to contort the rules and outright cheat to have any sort of enjoyment from D&D at all.
Not any more, sucker!! And that's how it should be. I never understood why in previous editions it was deemed that I should not be allowed to have any fun with the character types I like to play, that I should have to contort the rules and outright cheat to have any sort of enjoyment from D&D at all.
So if you're not the most powerful guy around you can't have fun? Now I can see.
Fun and a balanced game is nice and all, but imo a little bit of realism should not be left behind. Feel free not to argue with me.
I wonder if warlocks can become High Mages as well. There is nothing in the features and powers that imply it is only for wizards, besides the 21st level wizard prereq.
And can half-elves qualify? Hmmmmm. Must ask DM.
Your DM would haveto make that call. The rules for half-elves do say they can take feats that are human or elf-centric. Perhaps your half-elf could be the first one ever to actually attain that title. That would make for some interesting times for the half-evles of Faerun. :D
On a side note anytime I see the word realism in a world of magic, dragons and giants I chuckle. None of it is real. So an epic warrior that can stand toe to toe with an epic caster is really no problem IMO and Stogoe is right because it is about time.
P.S Some animals show up in MM and many more show up in the new item book. I am certain we shall see others in other places as well.
On a side note anytime I see the word realism in a world of magic, dragons and giants I chuckle. None of it is real. So an epic warrior that can stand toe to toe with an epic caster is really no problem IMO and Stogoe is right because it is about time.
And yet there is some realism behind the hit dice system of 3e. And the animal example is even a good one, 'cause most of them are real and got HD which represent their real world power (in comparison to humans, at least).
P.S Some animals show up in MM and many more show up in the new item book. I am certain we shall see others in other places as well.
Some is hardly enough. Here, some is the same thing as 'some parts of the 3e Elven High Mage got converted to 4e, but only some, not all' (rituals). Show me the chapter where exclusively animals are presented in the MM.
And yet there is some realism behind the hit dice system of 3e. And the animal example is even a good one, 'cause most of them are real and got HD which represent their real world power (in comparison to humans, at least).
Realism in HD? Ever? You aren't being serious there, are you? They're an abstraction, nothing else.
Some is hardly enough. Here, some is the same thing as 'some parts of the 3e Elven High Mage got converted to 4e, but only some, not all' (rituals). Show me the chapter where exclusively animals are presented in the MM.
There are thousands of species, so you might be waiting for the multi-volume set for a while.
Realism in HD? Ever? You aren't being serious there, are you? They're an abstraction, nothing else.
Yes, at least more realism than in some 4e concepts *cough*Healing Surges*cough* If you look into the MM 3.5 in chapter 2 you can see that most stats of animals make sense. And they not just got some cool shining 4e powers, but rather things they're able to do.
There are thousands of species, so you might be waiting for the multi-volume set for a while.
Nonetheless, in the MM 3.5 there were more than in the 4e MM.
Yes, at least more realism than in some 4e concepts *cough*Healing Surges*cough* If you look into the MM 3.5 in chapter 2 you can see that most stats of animals make sense. And they not just got some cool shining 4e powers, but rather things they're able to do.
Frankly Healing Surges seem to be a more "realistic" element than anything we had previously. They can be seen as a mechanism to represent people gradually becoming worn out through the course of the day, rather than the 3E mechanic where you carried on as long as your wand of Cure Light Wounds still had charges. And as for the difference between "things they're able to do" and "cool shining 4e powers they're able to do", I don't see one that matters.
I'll have to drag my 1E MM out and see how many appeared in there, though I think there were a lot of dinosaurs so probably more than either 3E or 4E.
Frankly Healing Surges seem to be a more "realistic" element than anything we had previously. They can be seen as a mechanism to represent people gradually becoming worn out through the course of the day, rather than the 3E mechanic where you carried on as long as your wand of Cure Light Wounds still had charges.
Or they can be regarded as purely cinematic, thus as unrealistic.
And just because it is a fantasy setting where dragons exist and so on doens't mean that realism has nothing to say here. Of course, the laws of nature don't necessarily apply, but otherwise, why not let's multiply all Jump checks by 10 or more in order for characters to be able to jump like anime characters?
So (all of) you who like 4e because it's balanced and fun to play, ok, I respect that. But don't claim that the concepts in 4e are anywhere near 'realistic', because they simply are not (though this was never the intent, apparently)
And as for the difference between "things they're able to do" and "cool shining 4e powers they're able to do", I don't see one that matters.
The most obvious one? Again, Healing Surges. Not only PCs can use them, but monsters, too. Which hyena in 3e had a wand of cure light wounds?
You're right, let me edit my last statement by saying the ritual in question "Raise Land" does not specifically state that it sheers off mountaintops and inverts them anymore. Instead, it is much more generic in scope as it can raise up to a 10 mile radius of land into the air. It clearly is the updated 3.5 version of the Netheril spell used to create their flying enclaves. If you wanted to use it on a mountaintop, you certainly could.
I also have to disagree with you that there are rules in place for the creation of any damaging ritual. The 4e ruleset is very clear that no ritual is to be used for combat purposes. Any damaging ritual would need to be houseruled.
-Back on topic.
And a good thing too.
Did anyone else get the impression from the Mythic Sovereign that this was based on King Arthur/Barbarossa? I was waiting for the epic power to be taken away in a boat by a group of women when you die.
Did anyone else get the impression from the Mythic Sovereign that this was based on King Arthur/Barbarossa? I was waiting for the epic power to be taken away in a boat by a group of women when you die.
-Rich Baker said that it was.
And a good thing too.
Did anyone else get the impression from the Mythic Sovereign that this was based on King Arthur/Barbarossa? I was waiting for the epic power to be taken away in a boat by a group of women when you die.
Well, Rich did answer my question in his thread--he mentioned that he was thinking about warrior-kings when he wrote the class.
-Orcus is in the Monster Manual, so I hear.
Yeah, and I wish they had't.
So if you're not the most powerful guy around you can't have fun? Now I can see.
Thanks for building a strawman, there. Harvest season is coming, and the crows are going to get into the crop if I don't stick it up in the field tonight. You can't imagine the time you've saved me.
Back on topic, no I don't need to be the most powerful. But I'd rather not have my fighter be completely unnecessary to the outcome of every battle, as it was throughout 3.x.
Some is hardly enough. Here, some is the same thing as 'some parts of the 3e Elven High Mage got converted to 4e, but only some, not all' (rituals). Show me the chapter where exclusively animals are presented in the MM.
The animals presented are enough for my PCs to take a whack at ;) . Seriously I only need a few specimins that my players may encounter here and there. The MM has rats, canines/wolves/hyenas , and I believe a few other standard normal animals that adventuerers come across. They are spread out abit and not in one location. I think horses are in the item quide.
I can forsee more High Mage Spells and powers being shown in future DDI articles.
I can forsee more High Mage Spells and powers being shown in future DDI articles.
It seems that we'll get everything in future DDI articles.
How often have I heard this now? Why is god XY not in the CG? Uhm, you'll get an Insider article (if you pay for it, of course). Why is Drizzt/Entreri/XY not mentioned in the CG? Well, you'll get an Insider article (if you pay for it). Why are there no High Magic rituals? Uh, you'll get an Insider article (if you only pay).
So my question is, why not put it in one complete article, instead of minimizing and seperating everything? Of course, this doesn't mean that I won't be glad if they finally release such articles, though why they don't do it all at once I don't know.
Yeah, and I wish they had't.
-So do a lot of people, so I hear.
Do we need stats for deer or baleen whales and such?
-Yes, because you can then add templates to them, to make them evil. Fiendish deer, Fiendish baleen whales...Well, at least in 3e, anyway.
Hmmm, forgot about that.:P
-So do a lot of people, so I hear.
And this I might never understand. Maybe because I wasn't around prior to 3e.
Hmmm, forgot about that.:P
-Gotta watch out for those Fiendish deer. They'll jump right into your car...
And this I might never understand. Maybe because I wasn't around prior to 3e.
-What, not wanting deities with stats and such? I wasn't around prior to 2e, and I don't like them having detailed stats, so it's not just a pre-3e thing. I'd rather my deities, while not omnipotent, to have a ceiling of power that is not defined, and is completely up to the reader.
I'm still waiting on Rich Baker to answer whether or not there was a reason for leaving swordmages out of the Mythic Sovereign ED before I am done with the article.
And this is one of the major flaws of 4e. Of course, it's balanced and fun to play and all classes are equal powerful/weak, but the 'realism' is left behind, apparently. Hell, an epic guy who can channel fundamental arcane energies or who can throw mountaintops of whatever IS more powerful than an epic brutish guy who wields a greatsword.
Also, wonder why there are no animals in the Monster Manual as there were in 3e? Firstly, because according to the Rule of Cool simple animals are not cool and secondly, because there's no longer hit dice. So you can't place them at the appropriate level in comparison to mere humans. Instead you can 'only' increase/decrease their level in order to have a balanced encounter - which has nothing to do with being realistic.
Just by the way, of course ;)
Well, I understand you point about "realism" or as I recently read in order of the stick "...magic is supremely powerfull and has no weaknesses whatsoever" or something like that. In the old realms or indeed 3.5 it was just plain better to be a wizard than a fighter in later levels, and in epic the wizards could summon tougher stuff than the party fighter.
In Faerun Mages created flying cities, teleport from one end of Faerun to the other and have all the fun. All that isn´t gone for good, they just changed some game rules to make the game more playable (and help DMs a bit).
I guess the Scry/Teleport and repeat tactic must have been very troublesome, so you can´t pull of that trick all that easy today.
It´s still possible for arcane character to fullfill the role of mage allmighty, they just use more ritualistic magic today.
And an epic brutish guy with a greatsword isn´t just that, once you are epic you are special, and I guess with that comes some knowledge. And actually the all classes are equal was supposed to exist in old editions too, it was jsut that wizards could use up their daily resources in minutes while fighters could do it all day long, but were much less effective.
Not any more, sucker!! And that's how it should be. I never understood why in previous editions it was deemed that I should not be allowed to have any fun with the character types I like to play, that I should have to contort the rules and outright cheat to have any sort of enjoyment from D&D at all.
I came to the understanding that many long time players have accepted the fact that when they play the warrior they aren´t the strongest party member, and some party wizards actually used to buff their allies so they could shine. So I guess with the new edition it´s easier for everone to have fun, no matter what sort of character they chose to play.
@Banpai,
You're right, let me edit my last statement by saying the ritual in question "Raise Land" does not specifically state that it sheers off mountaintops and inverts them anymore. Instead, it is much more generic in scope as it can raise up to a 10 mile radius of land into the air. It clearly is the updated 3.5 version of the Netheril spell used to create their flying enclaves. If you wanted to use it on a mountaintop, you certainly could.
I also have to disagree with you that there are rules in place for the creation of any damaging ritual. The 4e ruleset is very clear that no ritual is to be used for combat purposes. Any damaging ritual would need to be houseruled.
Raise land and Shift mote are very usefull rituals if you want to live on a flying island, and while they are generic , I agree that they are the current way to create flying cities - unless you have access to a Mythalar :D
About summoning acid storms, well you could use a variant of the ritual battle magic describes in the FRCG to creat such a storm. Simpe weather manipulation like creating a normal storm should definitely be dooable with a ritual.
About the no combat purposes, yes the intend is quite clear, but a ritual has an effect over several days could be ok ( I don´t remember how long casting the orginal storm took, or how long it lasted). I guess rituals could create traps (Burning runes or something like sephia snake sigil come to mind) but yes not intended for combat.
If you are interrested in creating some high magic rituals let´s make a thread for it.
-Gotta watch out for those Fiendish deer. They'll jump right into your car...
Nah, of course they wouldn't.:P
I'm still waiting on Rich Baker to answer whether or not there was a reason for leaving swordmages out of the Mythic Sovereign ED before I am done with the article.
I wonder about that, myself.
Don't have much else to say about the article--I just liked it. *shrug*
Nice artwork too.-What, not wanting deities with stats and such? I wasn't around prior to 2e, and I don't like them having detailed stats, so it's not just a pre-3e thing. I'd rather my deities, while not omnipotent, to have a ceiling of power that is not defined, and is completely up to the reader.
Well, I personally would like to see some clearly defined stats for deities and so on, but to each his own, I suppose.
While a discussion on whether gods and demon princes should have stats is a great one, it belongs in another thread really. If no one else has anything to say about the Dragon Article then it would be best to just let this thread go down.
Agreed.
. Oh well I'll keep waiting to see if he just plans on not answering it (maybe he can't or maybe he doesn't want to) or just didn't get to it today.I would think swordmage would fit very well into the mythic warrior type, but maybe he disagrees. *shrugs*
I came to the understanding that many long time players have accepted the fact that when they play the warrior they aren´t the strongest party member,
Well that's dumb. Who made up that rule, and why don't we change it so everyone can have fun? Oh, wait. 4e already did that.
Well that's dumb. Who made up that rule, and why don't we change it so everyone can have fun? Oh, wait. 4e already did that.
It´s not nice to call other players or their playing style dumb. I agree that Rangers, Fighters and Rogues now lead a more interresting live - but Wizards are no longer the class cannons they used to be so everyone should have something to be happy about :D
On a side note anytime I see the word realism in a world of magic, dragons and giants I chuckle. None of it is real. So an epic warrior that can stand toe to toe with an epic caster is really no problem IMO and Stogoe is right because it is about time.
It is because it doesn't matters how good you are with a piece of metal you can't defeat the power to shape reality. It's stupid that a high level idiot with a stick can defeat a mastermind that can literally polymorph the idiot into a frog.
Well of course an epic warrior can't beat an epic wizard with a stick. You have to understand that spells are a wizards arsenal of weapons and equip a warrior with a similar arsenal of armor, swords, shields, etc. An epic warrior (or any decently equipped warrior) can defeat a wizard, epic or otherwise.
Until, of course, the wizard uses spells improved by various metamagic feats. Then the warrior can already choose a nice place where to be buried.
Sorry for misusing this thread again.
This is underestimating the brain power a warrior could have when equipping themselves. There are items that render a person immune to forms of energy, turn spells back upon the casters, and generate moving antimagic fields. Weapons themselves can be vorpal, vampiric, hasted, etc. Make whatever wizard you want but a properly prepared warrior swinging multiple times a round with heavily enchanted weapons can easily take on the most powerful of wizards. Just like any encounter, there are plenty of spells and enchanted items to stop wizards.
This is underestimating the brain power a warrior could have when equipping themselves.
Indeed. Fighters aren't necessarily idiots, and I don't think I've ever played a warrior who could be said to be an idiot.
It looks like 3e helped create some form of Caster Elitism among some people ;) . (just saying that because most of the casters in 3E trumped every other class)
There are items that render a person immune to forms of energy
Mastery of Elements (Archmage class ability ;))
turn spells back upon the casters
Spells improved by metamagic feats (intensify spell) aren't that simple to reflect back upon their caster, due to their high spell level.
and generate moving antimagic fields.
Antimagic Fields are not impossible to bypass (e.g. by Mordenkainen's Disjunction). And the more epic the level of the wizard is the more likely it is that he is able to destroy the antimagic field.
Anyway, fighters aren't necessarily stupid, actually they can be very intelligent, though the aren't that tremendously brilliant as wizards are.
And what makes me defining my position isn't elitism, but common sense.
Plus I am not saying you or everyone that liked 3E rules for casters are elitist. I think it did breed an elitist attitude among some gamers who preferred casters. Some would say it makes sense because they are "masters of magic" or some other nonsense but this isn't necessarily so, it is just previous rules have led people to believe that this was the case amd should be that way.
IMO.
Anyway, personally, I prefer 4e as a player, but 3e as a designer. But that would be another topic.
And what makes me defining my position isn't elitism, but common sense.
For the record, I didn't think your position was merely about simple elitism.
On the other hand, I heavily dislike the 'everyone should be equals' attitude, simply because that's not the way it is.
I'd like to point out that I don't think the argument in question is "everyone should be equals" so much as "every class in itself should be equally effective in gameplay."
I'd like to point out that I don't think the argument in question is "everyone should be equals" so much as "every class in itself should be equally effective in gameplay."
Yes, this is definitely better phrased than my statement, which could easily be misunderstood. And that was not my intention.
-Article? Anything else? Article?
Ok, which article are you refering to? No one talks about the article anymore, ever since post #33, which incidentally was my post
Ok, which article are you refering to? No one talks about the article anymore, ever since post #33, which incidentally was my post
Hey I said something on post #57. Let's derail the thread and argue about it ;) :P