Please don't turn me into a strawman. And, please don't completely take me out of context.
Hmm... that irritating.
Some miscommunication occur'd. Still as long as you understand that its wrong to have a "Htc phone that can grant you 3 wishes one of them can be for the Iphone-X" is better than having Iphone-X we're good.
A brief not on the "gish": I don't want people to malign the existance of "The Gish" the gish is supposed to exist.
Here's what its NOT supposed to be in a 'well made' game.
1. Not supposed to be someone who is stictly better than pure melee, because of magic, but worse than a pure mage because of using melee.
2. Not supposed to be someone who's worse than both the Melee class, AND the Caster class.
That only occurs in poorly balanced games where magic is just better than melee or where multiclassing is punished but we have prcs.
I think it was sunic that said it last before he was removed but Gish=Buffs, and really thats what that guy is doing overall.
He might take the 1st round to cast "arbitrary spell to stop combat for a second" followed by a round of "buffing", or he might be buffed all day long. Thats what thats about though. Nothing wrong with having a mage who's whole thing is I use magic to beat people up. . . like at all. Its just an example of hyperspecialization.
I like this thread because it takes the time to discuss the problems inherent with the very concept of magic in the game. Ramirez! Do everything, is a meme, so it's weird to see it in acutal effect.
I thought about the "magic punishes you:somehow" bit... and why I don't like it. Story effects to punish mechanical concepts is trite, and annoying, and there are a million pages of paladin discussion, to show why power for story sucks. (even if they're not powerful, the pricipal is a hold over from earlier edition X where they were supposed to be). Also, it one of those things where either A. Its too bad to use (in which case it might as well not exist). B. We'll just find away around the restictions (as well this the min-max boards.com) or C. The restrictions won't matter in game at all, like... any race with immortality for example. In actual play you being having the immortal trait(won't die of old age) has about .5% chance of ever being mechanically relavant, similar to "Lost my soul" etc...
So thats not a good approach, no having a soul can be good because, it makes you immune to things that effect souls. LOL
That doesn't detract from the fact that the school is still fundamentally saying, "Well, wizards are broken, let's break everything else!" It also doesn't detract from the fact that it all could have been prevented by simply having casters work within established standard game mechanics, for better or for worse. This seems to be what they were after, anyways; the CR system certainly sheds light on that.
"Lets break everyting else..."
Now I feel I'm being made a strawman of, I apologize to unbeliever formally.
Thats NOT what anybody is saying.
What's being said is: "At high levels the standard of game play mechanically is "9", therefore let us make all the classes play at a "9" and not just Wizards, and Monsters."
Thats acutally NOT broke. Thats actually works.
At that point we have to decide what is a broken effect. This is the second pillar of wrongness beyond concepts that mundanes are bob your neighbor but with a sword.
I played magic the gathering so, I remember when that term rose to popularity, and sometimes we'd say "Play solitaire" for certain combo decks.
Some of it is bad dm'ing some of it is improper monster design, but everything is broke... is a problem.
I have a question about this but I need a second to formulate it just right... brb...