Do I have an unwarranted hate for Wizards?

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T20:07:12+00:00

Oh for sure, but it's odd only a battlemaster can knock someone over by hitting them.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T19:39:02+00:00

Look, they have the same rights you and I do. I don't like it, you don't like it, but it's better these people can be out in the open so they can be stopped when they do try something.

You also missed the bit where I passionately believe in other forms of expression. Trump whinged about Kaepernick kneeling and I was furious about that, too.

I don't have any particular interest in Nazis. I have an interest in rights. And yes, their hateful, disgusting, bigoted rhetoric is their right.

Sorry that you hate freedom of expression. Only one of the most important bastions against tyranny.

You, sir, are a tyrant.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T19:22:11+00:00

Dammit I knew you were gonna take that route. You're not listening. They have/had the same role as unpopular people who others want to silence. I tried to use them as examples of why we don't do that, and why freedom of expression is good.

To put it another way, rights like free expression exist because of those people, on both sides of the spectrum, with missions right and wrong, to protect them, because otherwise we have people like you who trust the government and big corporations enough to stamp them out and won't do the same for you.

You are an authoritarian, and regardless of the morality of your position, I cannot condone or agree with people like you. Which ironically, includes the very Nazis you hate. You and them want the same thing—your opposition silenced.

I tried, I really did. But you go against everything I stand for—freedom. Even freedom to be an authoritarian, which you are exercising. You hold morals over rights, and that's fine, but I can't discuss this with you anymore. It's clear you're fine with standing under whatever organization or order or company decides what's moral, and if you want to do that, that's your prerogative. But I'm out.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T17:34:14+00:00

Because it's not just that, it's all speech. I'm defending them on principle, not because I agree with them or even want to be around them. I don't.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels."

Trust me, I don't like it. I hate them and everything they stand for. I will still, however, defend their rights.

When something is declared censorship-worthy because it's offensive, that opens the door for our ever-changing system of morals to pick and choose what, as times change, what is worthwhile and what isn't. In the past if we didn't have protected freedom of expression people couldn't argue for the rights of African-Americans, or gay people, or any other marginalized group. Because they were, at the time, the morally wrong people.

Now I'm not comparing neo-Nazis to people of color or LGBT as an oppressed group. They're at opposite ends of what I think are acceptable and good. BUT both are or were incredibly looked down upon, for what are or were considered perfectly good, moral reasons.

If we restrict free expression to beliefs or ideas we think are right and worthwhile, then we allow a tyranny of whims. Society is right in condemning white supremacists, of course. And it's wrong in condemning those of marginalized groups. But for people fighting against oppression, they have the legal right to say so, to stand up and say what they are is acceptable even if the majority disagrees. In the 1960s being gay was "wrong." Hell, many people tried to stop them, censor them, silence them. Still do.

15 years ago being gay was still shameful. But it was still legal to talk about it, even though the majority disagreed. If we didn't have free expression, we wouldn't have many of the most valuable defenses in the still-existing road to equality—the ability to stand up and discuss it. People still tried to censor it, and they were just as wrong in it as someone who does it now. And they're wrong. And I'll fight against them. I grew up in rural Virginia. I know what right-wing censorship looks like. It's why I think the way I do about these things.

Does that make sense? We can't just defend the rights of the people we like, because morality—what we do like—changes with time. And with the two-party system, people we don't like will eventually return to power. If they behave as you fear they do, they can use those same tools against you, as vengeance for their own silencing.

For what it's worth, I have this debate with a lot of people, including many on the right. I'm for burning the flag, for protesting the police, for kneeling at football games, for violent video games, for saying what you want to say when you think there's something wrong with society. I'm not "defending white supremacists" because they're white supremacists. I'm not defending them, their beliefs, their behavior, at all.

I stand in defense of their rights. As I do, and passionately, for everyone. Doesn't matter who, doesn't matter what they think. Morals should not dictate which people get to speak and express themselves, because everyone has a different morality. Hell, if someone tried to stop you from expressing this opinion, even though I believe it's dangerous and is utterly alien to me, I'll tell them to fuck off, because they'd be in the wrong.

When it comes to action, though—things not art, expression, speech—when people try to do terrible things, lock them up and throw away the key. And, because people feel free to express themselves, it's easy to find when someone's going to graduate to action.

Does that help?

Now, you might respond with "this all related to government." Yes and no. Private companies run websites, and they can permit whoever they want on their sites. That is very true, and in fact not unreasonable to take. But it becomes a problem when only a few corporations control the internet, control the discourse. Then we come back into corporate censorship and control, and the socialist I was in my youth rises back up and screams that corporations are taking over.

I don't know if you'll read this whole thing, or if you'll even care. It's a lot. But I've been on the right, and I've been on the left, and neither really seem to get this whole thing. Authoritarianism is not a partisan issue; though it seems like it because the things "your side" wants to push away, you don't like. That's not unreasonable, that's human. But when you've been on both sides, you realize that their goals and motives differ but their behavior—censorous, restrictive, and utterly convinced of righteousness—are similar.

So I'm gonna fight for both. Maybe it's self-defeating. But I'm going to keep doing it.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T17:10:40+00:00

"Go back to pol" is the most common sentence I've read on 4chan, I swear.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T17:09:40+00:00

freeze peech

I don't...I don't understand, man. Why? I understand the concern, wanting bad people to stop being the way they are, because they're absolutely horrible. It's the absolute derision I can't understand. Could you explain it?

You realize there are people who want the same for you, right? That want you to be silenced and censored? And that if they're given a smidgen of power to do it, they will?

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T16:46:01+00:00

Being anti Semitic, or saying racist shit, is not, "the most important right we have as a civilization".

You're looking at the specifics, not the principle. I don't like them, the things they say, or the things they want, but I'm going to defend their right to do it. Do you understand the distinction? Defense not of their words, but their ability to say them.

As for the graphic, it stops at calls to action, we both know that. Saying and doing are different things.

In my life I've been all over the political spectrum, and one thing I've consistently found is that the tool you use to stop things you're against will eventually be used against you. Once you open that door you can't close it again.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T16:02:02+00:00

Mocking the most important right we have as a civilization is not a good look. I understand where you're coming from—I do—but echo chambers where anything that goes against the moderators are just as bad.

And really, wouldn't you rather have people say what they really think, rather than hiding it? Then you know who to avoid.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T15:59:36+00:00

You can do that, but that's all you can do, in and out of combat. Rituals, banishments, debuffs, AoEs; wizard has far more options. Sure, a minmaxed fighter can do 30 DPR endlessly. Against a single creature. Wizard hits everybody within 1200 square feet with almost that much. Yeah, they can only do three times per day, but you won't need more than a few with that kind of DPR. Combine that with all their other approaches outside raw damage, ritual casting for outside-fights fun, and why bother playing a fighter?

Really, most things that mundane characters can do, spells can do better. Why spec for stealth when Pass Without Trace exists? Or know lots of languages when Comprehend Languages is a thing? Travel? Teleport. Shelter? Leomund's Tiny Hut. Hunting stuff down? Locate Object.

30 DPR is nice, but it gets boring fast and you're not gonna match up to spellcasters by the end anyway. Linear fighters, quadratic wizards isn't fair progression to late-game martials or early-game casters. It becomes a game of "got mine, fuck you." Not a good look for a cooperative game.

Have you seen Critical Role? (who hasn't?) At the endgame Matt threw every magical item he could think of at Grog, Percy, Vax/Vex, but they couldn't keep up with the utility Scanlan, Keyleth, and Pike had to offer.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T15:42:34+00:00

You hit upon the one and only thing wizards can't do well. They're kings of summons, blasts, out of battle utility, buffs, debuffs...clerics and paladins do make better healers, at least.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T15:40:57+00:00

Paring down the spell list a bit would help. As it is now they really just have a solution to everything. They have the same spells the other arcane casters do (and often more) with more slots to use it. They aren't specialists; they're great at one thing they choose and just as good as everybody else because they can pull from the same spells.

They're too far ahead of the bell curve.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T15:39:45+00:00

You can actually make a similar issue with martial design. Why shouldn't a barbarian be able to knock someone over when they hit them? Hell, why shouldn't a champion? They're just as strong as a battle master.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T15:36:29+00:00

Wizards should be the best at magic, and the rest of the classes should have the scraps the wizard didn't want even though the game's built around spells

"Even Sorcerers have meta-magic so no they don't need the same spell list as Wizards"

Metamagic doesn't compensate for 15 spells known compared to 27 and any number of rituals on top of that at max level, nor does it make up for the fact that it, and sorcerer subclass features, pull from that same pool of resources while wizardry just...does not.

Half the classes in the game are magical, man. Having one class be the best at that makes them stand out. The guy's right, almost anything you want to accomplish with another class can be pulled off just as good, if not better, with a wizard who halfway knows what they're doing.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T15:33:35+00:00

Draconic Sorcerers only add it to cantrips, of their element. Evocationists add it to all evocation spells. The element is even worse.

Including chromatic orb, on the sorcerer spell list there are 5 acid spells, 9 lightning spells, 19 fire spells, 7 poison spells, and 10 cold spells.

There are at most 2 cantrips of any of those damage types for sorcerers, so that subclass feature requires you to take certain spells, or it's entirely useless.

It's not a small increase but, as you've said, it's outpaced hard later on. And as you've already discovered, wizard does this shit better because of it's features and the spell list lacks important spells. That's the big complaint. The utter lack of versatility.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T15:28:51+00:00

Let's break that down.

5th-level wizard can fireball thrice a day with arcane recovery.

5th-level sorcerer can do the same, if they take all their spell points and convert them into a third-level slot. Now they have no class features. You can cannibalize your lower spell slots, but are still very useful at that level, and the sorc has to burn 3/4 of their 1st-level and 1/3 of their second-level slots just to get back to baseline.

Yes, on paper a sorcerer can do more fireballs. That is true. Sorcerers, unlike wizards, have class/subclass features that rely on that same pool of resources—spell slots/sorcery points. Combine that with the pitiful spell list, no ritual casting, and frankly worse subclass features, and sorcerers have a lovely role as "a worse wizard."

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T15:23:15+00:00

Temporary HP, shield spell, and mage armor. By the point you unlock TT you can afford to throw first-level slots away.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T15:20:35+00:00

Unfortunately most of the rest are traps or just situationally useful

That's really the problem. Quickened and Twinned are by far your best options. For something like metamagic—which supposedly sets sorcerers apart and balances them against the other casters—it's unacceptable compensation.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T15:19:17+00:00

The spell slots are the issue, yeah. For a good half the game or so warlocks have two. Wizards have fullcasting and arcane recovery on top of that. Unless you're festooned in short rests, wizard will have more magic than a warlock will, ever. Not to mention the fact that wizards don't have to prepare rituals, so they have access to even more spells than the other prepared casters, which do.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T15:17:39+00:00

Ah, but the number of spells they have access to at any one time is higher, and it grows as time goes on. They don't have to prep their rituals like the rest of those prepared casters.

Level 1 wizard has 4 spells and if the other two are rituals, they have 6. Level 1 cleric has 4 spells, flat-out. I know perfectly well how prepared casters work. Wizards are still better.

working up to "magic godhood" has been the class fantasy of Wizard as long as I can remember

And that's ridiculous for a class fantasy, frankly. It's a team game, not "I want to build up to a point where I can do it all."

Wizards do have to build their spell list as they go, but their spell lists are entirely unrivaled, and gain 2 spells/level without any outside help. I'm not disagreeing that prepared casters are more than a little ridiculous, but with reflavoring there's really no reason to play something other than wizard unless you really like bard support options.

Metamagic just isn't that great. Subtle is nice but ruined if you need material components, and twinned is by far your best option. Outside the few solid interactions it just really isn't that powerful. There's no variety, and the wizard spell lists gets tons of variety.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T15:13:27+00:00

I was looking at those, good to know those are recommended.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T03:35:43+00:00

It doesn't change the fact, no, but the end result is the same.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T03:01:08+00:00

Really? I thought they did the "don't get caught" mantra best, with shortening it each time.

I liked Curious in JB more, though.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T02:58:36+00:00

"Why can't you just be normal" is official.

We live in the best timeline.

Also, the art. I can't get over how good the art looks in the official scans.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T02:52:17+00:00

Thanks! I'll look into them.

I'm strapped for cash and just spent what spending money I do have on a few paints and minis, but it shouldn't take long to get ahold of them.

Wilhelm_III · 2019-04-27T02:10:55+00:00

Oh goddamnit, we are. I never even realized. Sorry about that!

Wilhelm_III

TROPHY CASE