[Rataxes]

I agree. But agreeing with you on these issues doesn't stop me from pointing out the irony that Monks and Paladins (especially Inquisitors) are usually far better at whacking Mages safely and efficiently than Wizard Slayers are.

Better at absorbing magic. That may make them more appropriate for countering mages for someone who prefers tactics based on passive offense against spellcasters (you I assume?) but someone who cannot effectively wield an elemental damage weapon (or even a normal weapon) and is stuck with between 2 and 4 ApR until ToB levels isn't anywhere near as fit for tackling mages as a Wizard Slayer for someone who in general prefers tactics based on more active offense (me, I'm a reckless and aggressive player). What I'm trying to say here is that how you view the power relation between Wizard Slayers and for instance Monks depends on your perspective.

1) If Wizard Slayers were restricted from using any magical items except weapons (with no additional effects other than simple weapon enchantment), they would be so abysmally screwed it wouldn't even be remotely funny.

Dull perhaps, with the full array of PnP WS abilities I think he could hold his own nicely even if restricted entirely to unenchanted equipment. But I wouldn't want that either since not being able to use any enchanted items at all (particularly weapons) would take away a lot of the fun.

2) If Wizard Slayers were restricted from 80% of the magical items that were most useful in slaying Wizards, they wouldn't be worthy of the name.

Oh, really? So Kensais aren't worthy of the title 'master of melee' because they cannot wear armor or use the, beyond weapons, single most important item for improving melee attack power? (GoES) Again, the Wizard Slayer should be a primarily offensively orientated kit. I would be in favour of changes that will give him unique potential to tackle mages in an actively offensive manner (though the anti-magic aura is simply not balanced in the cunning hands of a human player, it barely is in the hands of a computer AI). I’m not in favour of changes that will mold him to fit tactics based on passive offense, both because I think we already have several other classes that fill the role, but also because it’s not in line with the nature of the Wizard Slayer.

I do not hold it as any sort of virtue to adhere to a design that has been proven to be flawed.

Exactly what are you referring to when you say design and mean that it is flawed?

If the RebalWS can overcome the way the original Wizard Slayer was biting his own tail, and yet still fit a sound roleplaying ethos that follows in the footsteps of what the Wizard Slayer was conceived to be, then the RebalWS is even more valid than the WS ever was.

But it does not follow in the footsteps. The current reasoning for the RebalWS seems to be that if you pitch him against a spellcaster, the spellcaster should get his ass handed to him in just about every aspect of the battle imaginable. Is that really how you imagine the Wizard Slayer, as the supreme master of every single aspect there is to fighting spellcasters?

With all due modesty, if I am not capable/worthy of formulating a well-balanced kit, then the bar for who does get to make those suggestions must be set pretty damn high.

As good as I know your judgement is, I don't think anyone can be expected to be able to view his own creation with the same critical eyes. Were Alson and Dundee involved in the design, or just reviewers of the finished creation?

You twice mention that I remove the "most unique aspect" of the Wizard Slayer. Well, it's not his Magic Resistance or his Spell Disruption (as both of these attributes are strengthened in the RebalWS), so you must mean his refusal to wear Cloaks, Boots, Rings, etc., that are most useful against spellcasters. You're damn right I took away that aspect, that's the #1 thing that needed to be corrected.

I don’t get your reasoning at all. The Wizard Slayer refusal to use enchanted items is a basic premise of the kit. You throw this out the window and it’s not the same kit anymore. Your statement is akin to “You’re damned right I allowed the Kensai to wear armor, that’s the #1 thing that needed to be corrected for him to be the master of melee”

Hardly. Mages, Druids, and even most Clerics have crap for AC

Poor dual-wielding and no Grand Mastery means he’ll have considerably fewer attacks per round than a standard fighter, which does hurt his ability to fight mages. Though this problem is negated at the same that his THAC0 penalties cease to be an issue (when he gains Critical Strike that is).

Yes, that would be nice. Unfortunately, while a Human DM would be very understanding, the game engine renders it utterly impossible. A workaround might be found, wherein a Wizard Slayer's fists would be made to strike as of -1 enchantment, all spellcasting creatures would be vulnerable to weapons of that enchantment, and no combat protection spells would give immunity to it. But I'm not sure that would be worth the effort. What might be feasible would be to make the RebalWS's Anti-Magic Aura not strip all spell effects from the immediate area, but just combat protections. But that would sort of conflict with what I'd envisioned the AMA as being (a portable, temporary Anti-Magic Zone), so I'm not sure I'd be a fan of that either.

Pity, though wouldn’t it be possible to create alternate versions of every weapon in the game with an enchantment of -1, that the original weapon turns into in the hands of a Wizard Slayer, similar to how the Sword of Backstabbing has different properties when wielded by a thief? Though that would allow the entire weapon to ignore weapon immunities, and not just the spell disruption.

[ 04-21-2005, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Rataxes ]