It’s not written down anywhere that they “should”, so this question. Is regarded.

>>98593567
*is regarded as pointless

>>98593544
A wizard's capabilities are completely arbitrary. Magic isn't real, so the most powerful spell in the game can be a 1 hour ritual to turn the flame of a candle a different color, and you still technically have a wizard.

There's no "should" or "shouldn't" because the magic is all made up. So then it instead becomes a question of what makes for an enjoyable game.

>>98593544
just play good games like d&d 3.5 and they can do just that

>>98593582
>A wizard's capabilities are completely arbitrary
Magic is arbitrarily powerful and as such it is arbitrarily balanced. The alien gods responsible for the balance are under no obligation to make it fair or unfair. It’s all their choice. Some games are fair while some games are unfair. Some wizards in games throw avoidable fireballs. In other games the wizards are spontaneously combusting or exploding people without any way to avoid it.

>>98593544
>Why does balance feel forced in tabletop?
Balance IS forced in tabletop, because some retards think their extra special idea of cool should be crowbarred into everything. Look at the number of threads about keeping melee relevant in sci-fi, balancing wizards with martials in D&D, putting guns into D&D (in ways other than they already were), putting psychics into any game where they don't already exist, etc etc etc.
It's not worth getting worked up about. Set the expectations for YOUR game and don't change them unless you want to.
>Shouldn’t a wizard just one shot your ass?
It's exactly as realistic for them to be cowardly charlatans murdered by hard-bitten mercenaries, because wizards are imaginary.

A fireball to your face should instakill you the same way a shotgun blast to the face would instakill you

>>98593544
'Balance' is the single most retarded concept ever devised by protoredditors. Nothing has ever been balanced. Nature is not and never has been a balance. Planetary orbits are not balanced, they just change on such huge timescales its imperceptible to us. Games cannot and should not be balanced either. It is no more than a vain attempt by midwits at injecting their biases where they don't belong to force outcomes. They just want to win but their enormous egos force them to do so in the most convoluted way imaginable, changing the game rather than how they play.

The most extreme examples of this are 40k tournament players, who have a certain kinship with gaymers. All of them, in their own minds know that if just one little change is made to the rules then finally their hidden potential as the worlds greatest player ever will finally be realized. So they pursue making that change happen like their lives depend on it. Then when they still lose, well obviously more just needs to be changed right? The absolute delusion of balance fags is basically psychosis far as I'm concerned. They're probably socialists too because of course their mental illness would permeate every aspect of their miserable lives as well. I can't wait for the permanent serfdom balance revision.

>>98593739
>devised by protoredditors
Not even redditors should be lumped in with CCG designers.

>>98593544
>Shouldn’t a wizard just one shot your ass?
Historically? No

File: IMG_1652.jpg (39 KB, 678x452)

39 KB JPG

This is what balance looks like

File: Tactical.png (5.74 MB, 2500x1400)

5.74 MB PNG

>>98593544
You're doubling up on your bait.
Balance in most tabletop was never meant to be perfect. Points values and levels are rough measures to keep things on a similar enough playing field to be entertaining. Points values can be adjusted to suit the scenario for wargames and player character power can be easily mixed by a competent gm. Anyone who can't do these basic things is a nogames.

Everyone can oneshot your ass OP. You're a fag.

>>98593761
Roger Bacon throws a proto-grenade at you and you die.

>>98593739
>protoredditors
>>98593783
>proto-grenade
This is getting out of hand: now there's going to be two of them!

>>98593544
I do think the pursuit of balance ruins the immersion in class-base tabletop RPGs, but if you abandon balance, you're always going to have players complaining when someone plays a suboptimal class and "holds the party back".

>>98593963
The solution there for people who dislike balance that heavily is to simply make it more clear to the players that something is suboptimal.
If the game has a dozen different magical classes, but then has a Warrior class in the NPCs chapter, but that class is limited to just 1 level, then nobody playing the game is going to make the mistake that the warrior is meant to be on par with any of the mages.

The complaints only occur when the designer tries to pretend that high-level warriors and mages are on par with each other when they really aren't. Simply being honest and upfront about what the game is about is the best way to sidestep the entire issue.

>>98593544
Because of the "G" it "RPG"

>>98593544
Balance is important in a game. But the mistake made is that people don't understand TTRPG balance isn't video game balance. You want every option available to the players to be good. No trap options, no bad options, if you pick something that lets you do something it should do that thing well.

Now niches are important, especially in class-based games, but it's a cooperative game (all TTRPGs are), so you want everyone to have a niche that the other players cover with their characters, and you want the options to be good so that nobody is useless within the party.

Ultimately, "balance" in TTRPGs is "Players have to make a real choice when creating their characters because every option is viable and good at what it does". Basically, every playstyle should have appeal and viability in what it does, except a jack of all trades. Jack of all trades options that are consistent and powerful ruin TTRPGs as a whole, because why does one guy who can do everything need 2-4 other guys around?

File: Blade Cascade.png (94 KB, 884x472)

94 KB PNG

>>98593544
Depends. There are two forms of balance:
1. Let's give martials cool powers. (D&D 4E)
2. This is Fighter on level X. No other class on level X can be better than Fighter on level X. (Pathfinder 2E)
If you don't mind I'll stick with the first one.

>>98593582
magic is real anon.

>>98593739
>It is no more than a vain attempt by midwits at injecting their biases where they don't belong to force outcomes.
so you are saying its unbalanced?

>>98593739
This might just be the dumbest post on /tg/ right now.

>>98593544
the problem with OP is that it portrays balance is inherently bad because of bad solutions without addressing the core complaint that if a tank shows up in a squad-based game in the first place, then having no counters to it is valid
making the very fair assumption that having to fight a tank is a regular occurrence and not a deliberately overpowered event that is meant to make you run away from it
if you played counter-strike, and the CTs could buy an armored car, then the Ts would be entirely within their rights to ask for a way to deal with it because the alternative is having to face it down every match

while OP is being deliberately hyperbolic about needing a handgun to be able to fight a tank
the idea of granting the other squadmembers an RPG to realistically fight a tank would have been an equally valid way to balance the encounter
as would being able to plant satchel charges on the tank

>>98593544
>Shouldn’t a wizard just one shot your ass?
No..?
...Why do people feel that easy and powerful magic is balanced?

Magic should be relatively weak/low power, not be cast instantaneously, draw immensely from the wizard.

>>98593582
>Magic isn't real, so the most powerful spell in the game can be a 1 hour ritual to turn the flame of a candle a different color, and you still technically have a wizard.
That would be sick.

>>98593544
Combat balanced is only forced in tabletop games that treat combat as a tactical puzzle or some sort of skill expression during the encounter. Combat as sport. If you want wizards that can one shot everything you should play games that treat combat as a thing you enter into only when you have assured yourself victory. Combat as war. OSR games like becmi or more modern interpretations like ACKS have wizards that will blow up entire rooms of orcs at level 5 because combat in those games isn't about some weird form of tactical skill expression.

why would you spend page space on options that no one will pick?

>>98595878
So the role of fighters after level 5 is still the cuck chair when it comes to having fun but now it's ok because that's intended?

>>98595889
well?

>>98593544
Because it's Arthurian myth, not Merlinian myth.
Because it's the Odyssey, not the Circesey.
Because it's the Hobbit, not the Wizard.
For all their power magicians are but support characters and foes for the true heroes, with spell-spamming anime super wizards being a more modern invention. Heck, being half god, demon or fey was often a requirement too, and just whether you got to be a cool hero or get prophetic visions.

>>98593739
Rule Zero: Have fun!*

*Especially in games like Paranoia. Now anything can be tossed to the wayside if the GM thought it would be funny.

>>98593544
What OP thinks would happen if "balance" was not "enforced" by "shadow RPG government":
>Wow everyone in this game decided to play Peasants, but I, an intellectual intellectualist with intellect the size of an intellect would pick overpowered class, like my Idol, John Sungjinwoo!
What is going to happen:
>Hello, I am Overpowered Class Guy #1, here's Overpowered Class Guy #2 and #3, wait, OP, why are you crying?
>I... fwas fuppowed... *sniff* to bwe *bawl* fwe onwy oferpofered wun... *fart* fwyuo weve... *wail* fuppowed to bwe impweffed... by my intewwect... *kills himself*

>>98593544
Balance is retarded in RPGs because you are supposed to have a party playing off each other's strengths. You should have a balanced PARTY not every CHARACTER being balanced.

>>98596835
a party is made of characters, and if one character is categorically better at everything and anything than everyone else, then you really should balance that character specifically

>>98595878
>because combat in those games isn't about some weird form of tactical skill expression.
do you just want combat to be an I-win button?

>>98596846
Agreed. If you played RPGs, especially D&D, you would find that wizards are decidedly not better at everything. /tg/ seems to believe that a wizard in D&D knows all spells, has unlimited spell slots, and can have dozens of self-sustaining buffs active at one time and other outlandish shit.

>>98594271
>The complaints only occur when the designer tries to pretend that high-level warriors and mages are on par with each other when they really aren't.
If the designer’s intention is that they should be on par with each other, however, then the complaints are legitimate criticism.

>>98593582
>A wizard's capabilities are completely arbitrary.
they're not completely arbitrary
they're informed by culture and expectations and yes, those matter if you want to call something a wizard, or any other fantasy concept for that matter

>>98597312
To be fair, a decked out max level fighter vs a decked out max level mage fight is basically going to be decided by the initiative roll.

>>98593544
Sure. And he should be one shot by an arrow or a sword stab in turn, just like everyone else.
But that's not how the game goes.

Thure. And he thould be one thot by an arrow or a thword thtab in turn, jutht like everyone elthe.
But that’th not how the game goeth.

>>98597655
Also funny mage slayer feat

>>98593544
There's no "should". A wizard one-shotting your ass is a game design decision, just like everything else. You choose to put it in the game, or not. Fucking moron.

>>98597381
In a GAME, they are arbitrary. They are informed by the RULES OF THE GAME, and NOTHING ELSE.

>>98595889
>>98596775
illusion of choice, dumbass. to make the choices you look SEEM cooler, to make you feel like you made a smart guy move by not picking them

>>98601019
Retard.

>>98593544
>Why does balance feel forced in tabletop?
Why are you asking us about YOUR feelings?

>>98593582
4pbp

>>98600838
in a game, everything is arbitrary
you're missing the point of what I said
why is tg nowadays so harebrained as to deliberately miss any subtlety and invariably argue in bad faith
I know you know what I mean, you're just being stupidly literal to be an ass

>>98601888
>why is tg nowadays so harebrained as to deliberately miss any subtlety and invariably argue in bad faith
Colonized by leftists

File: R.jpg (368 KB, 1800x1291)

368 KB JPG

>>98601888
>>98597381
Because you're wrong. The standards of fiction is so loose that you can include very little elements of a concept and still get away with calling it whatever you want, like calling a wizard a knight for instance just because they use a sword even though they have no land, no mounts, rarely use armor, and are more based on samurai than anything.

I could write a section where a wizard was just someone who pisses really hard if I just included one or two barely wizard-related tropes like putting stars on their beanies and making them wear bath robes over their clothes.

>>98602036
and then people would tell you the guys in your setting are "not really wizards"
there are still limits to what people will accept, so it's not completely arbitrary

File: spits.png (252 KB, 719x719)

252 KB PNG

>>98602047
And those people would be wrong, just like the moron who tried to argue Jedi Knights aren't knights would be wrong.

>>98602047
>there are still limits to what people will accept, so it's not completely arbitrary
no two people even have the exact same definition of wizard, so it would be silly to expect some kind of platonic idea of a wizard against which all fictional wizards should be judged against

theres only a broad consensus that a wizard uses magic in some capacity, but thats just definition by consensus and can easily change at a moments notice

>>98602068
so you agree with me
you need to take general consensus into account, therefore it's not completely arbitrary, game or no game

>>98602076
>you need to take general consensus into account
except that if i got an old dude who throws fireballs and wears a pointy hat and robes, but claims he got all of his powers from nanomachines
we would have a character who most people would categorize as a wizard despite not even having on the one agreed upon trait that wizards should have by general consensus
it really is all just arbitrary and a wizard can be whatever this particular setting wants it to be

>>98602085
just because there's no dictionary definition doesn't mean it's completely arbitrary
not when we're talking about culture and perceptions
like it or not, there is a general expectation of what "feels like a wizard"

>>98602091
>doesn't mean it's completely arbitrary
its entirely arbitrary what the writer decides makes a wizard a wizard in their particular setting
they can decide that wizards are powered by nanomachines instead of magic for no reason other than that they wanted to and the audience will just accept that at face value in this particular setting

so wizards dont need to follow the visual tropes usually associated with wizards, even DnD stopped giving them pointy hats
they dont need to be wizened old men, since quite a lot of settings, DnD included, have had young or at least middle-aged characters be wizards
harry potter famously has wizard apply to children
you dont even need to make them use magic

so we are left with wizard just being whatever the writer wants them to be at this particular setting
if X says Y is wizard, then Y is wizard

File: 1543622235291.jpg (225 KB, 800x1132)

225 KB JPG

>>98602091
>>98602076
No, there's a hundred different mutually exclusive expectations that overlap into a handful of common tropes, possessing even 1 (one) of which is usually sufficient to be called a thing. If we list wizard tropes as
>Beards
>Big/Wide hats
>Star iconography
>Old
>Familiars (Owls/rats especially)
>Dragon association
>Wisdom
>Knowledge of the world
>Wands/Staffs/Staves
>Orbs
>Hermetic imagery
>Speaks magic words
>Foreign language experts
>Celestial or demonic associations
>Inhuman origins/allies
>Divination powers
>Alchemy/potion brewing
>Levitates or flies
>Draconic associations
>Paranormal abilities

We'd have broadly covered the conceptual base of the Wizard as it exists in the western mind. Most wizards in fiction do not possess half these traits. Possessing even one or two is usually enough to get called a wizard.

>>98602111
maybe the only universally agreed upon ability a wizard has is supernatural ability
but then we reach the conclusion that superman is a wizard going by that one trait alone

>>98602115
Exactly. Its mostly just a matter of an author calling something a wizard and including a few tropes associated with the concept. Jedi Knights is a great example since they possess almost none of the characteristics of a knight beyond using swords and engaging in occassional errantry.

>>98601019
It certainly add something. PF2e has plenty of options to build a character but since your options are all streamlined there's no build or that your build is already made for you. You want to play a dual wield fighter? Just pick the dual wield fighter feats as they become available in order.

>>98601019
>>98596820

>>98602111
This is genuinely the best post on tis issue I have ever seen. The problem with 'wizards'. I've had similar thoughts, but couldn't articulate it well like this. The ambiguity makes every discussion on what to do about wizards insufferable. Everyone treats the word like it's got a real definition when it's just vibe.

If we put a gun in a wooden staff and vibed enough, we could still call it a wizard. I'm sure.

>>98597381
and also because magic is real .

magic is real anon.

>>98602164
>Pf2e
>Streamlined
PF2e is a bloated mess that wants to be classless SO BAD but is stuck with the PF name so it has to have shitty barebones classes.

File: Emiya Kiritsugu.jpg (53 KB, 512x446)

53 KB JPG

>>98602219
Here's your wizard, bro

File: 2024.04.03-23.30.35.975.jpg (116 KB, 704x576)

116 KB JPG

>>98593544
The dishonesty inherent in this OP...

The image is legitimate, but the context is a team based PVP game. Things aren't supposed to be perfectly balanced. The tank has a legitimate role to play and has cost to it. Yeah, it's terrible if the guy with a starter pistol can oneshot the tank because he complained too much.

TTRPGs are a purely cooperative PVE experience, and typically everyone gets the same XP and the same character sheet and the same- You see the point here? You pay the same but the other guy gets to be 10x as powerful in all situations? That's wack.

That said, the OP unintentionally highlights that having separate roles is legitimate. So long as those roles are indeed meaningful. Not everyone has to do a gorillion damage a turn. That is a dim view of balance.

>>98602219
this is the same problem as mecha, or even tanks

where its impossible to create a single universal definition because the concept as a whole is so loose, and yet people throw fits because XYZ has traits ABC and therefore not a "real" mecha
>a mecha has to be piloted; except for gigantor who set the template for all future mecha and is piloted with a remote control
>a mecha has to purely mechanical; even though magical mecha or even organic mecha have been a genre staple for years
>a mecha has to be gigantic; except for classic works like VOTOM that have mechs that are only the size of trucks
>the transformers pass the "quack like a duck, walks like a duck" test and have all the mecha tropes (combining, transforming (duh), being mechanical, being giant, imitating life) and yet people swear up and down that they arent actually mecha, just mecha-nical life forms

at some point, we just have to accept mecha is purely based off of vibes, because you can genuinely argue darth vader is a mecha based off what other characters have been called mecha

>>98602265
>Yeah, it's terrible if the guy with a starter pistol can oneshot the tank because he complained too much.
the solution proposed is obviously a terrible one, and no one would ever actually argue for it

but the problem proposed is very much real
if you dropped a tank into battlefield but neglected to add any anti-tank weapons, then you end up with a situation where maybe plinking it with a pistol is the only thing you can do
in this situation, you would be entirely within your rights to demand counter-play to the tank
and while making handguns destroy tanks is unreasonable, you could just add bazookas or mines to the game
or even just let grenades damage tanks, which is unrealistic but has been an accepted counter to tanks since metal gear

>>98602111
you're saying "no" while agreeing with me
all I said is it is not (((completely))) arbitrary
and lo, you've proceeded to list all the ways in which a depiction can fit audience expectations
in other words, audience expectations need to be taken into account

you lot would have saved yourselves a lot of arguing if only you actually read what you're arguing against

>>98602291
>and lo, you've proceeded to list all the ways in which a depiction can fit audience expectations
and most people will arbitrarily use only some or even none of the points on that list
which is why we have wizards that do not resemble the hypothetical platonic ideal of a wizard in the slightest
what a wizard actually is not concrete and depends purely on what the writer wants to be a wizard

>>98602036
>I could write a section where a wizard was just someone who pisses really hard if I just included one or two barely wizard-related tropes like putting stars on their beanies and making them wear bath robes over their clothes.
I'm 2 steps away from being a wizard...alls I need is a bathrobe and stars...

>>98602296
how many times do I have to write "completely" for it to permeate
as is, you're arguing with imaginary windmills, not with me

>>98602317
>how many times do I have to write "completely" for it to permeate
because what makes a wizard a wizard is completely arbitrary
it is not tied to appearance, origin, or source of their power

if we go by "wizards can do supernatural things" then by god, superman is a wizard

>>98602322
>because what makes a wizard a wizard is completely arbitrary
if that were true you could have taken any concept in the universe and called it a wizard
which has been disproven multiple times in this very thread, when anons kept producing examples of what in their opinion fits
ironically showing that the word has descriptive power

can you take an elephant, the literal nonmagical animal, and legitimately call it a wizard?
can you call a hydrogen atom a wizard?
show that this can be done and I'll agree with you that the term is *completely* arbitrary

>>98593544
A perfectly balanced game has a strict 50/50 W/L rate. In other words flipping a coin is the peak of balanced gaming.

>>98602412
thats a bit of an oversimplification
and using WR as the only indicator of balance is actively taught against in discussions of game balance
LOL learned the hard way when trying to balance akali around WR
but a lopsided WR does indicate that there is a problem, even if its a bad indicator of telling you what the problem actually is

white wins something like 52% of the time in chess, despite a purely symmetrical board state
this does indicate that white has an objective and indisputable first-move advantage
this has not led to an endless stream of balance patches to chess, outside of increasing the number of moves you can have before a draw is declared, but it has led to a certain level of grace when you draw as black instead of losing

>>98602412
Assuming the coin is flipped by a machine and has no faults.

>>98602412
>In other words flipping a coin is the peak of balanced gaming.
maybe, but an interesting game also contains interesting decisions, of which coin flipping has none

>>98602431
>white has an objective and indisputable first-move advantage
>this has not led to an endless stream of balance patches to chess
note however that a chess match consists of multiple games, so each player plays white and black an equal amount of times
so it's not like the win disparity is completely ignored

>>98602449
the symmetrical nature of chess allows for competitions to simply do best-of-X format so everyone has to play both sides
in a TCG, where you cant exactly tell the players to swap decks, then designers have come up with all sorts of ways to equalize the second players turn
although, long story short, there are ways to at least get closer to 50/50 while still playing an actual game

>>98595039
Nah, he's right. The concept of balance is retarded and is only for faggots who play games competitively. People who play for fun (the correct way to play games) don't give a fuck about balance because they have fun whether they win or lose.

>>98602285
Grenades likely work because

> Short range makes the risk high
> How many the player can get is easily controlled
> Can only carry as many as the dev allows
> Not having a bunch is fine cause they're not a main weapon

Realistic? No, but mechanically it works fine.

>>98602578
even in a casual setting, you still want the characters to be at least in the same ballpark as each other
if you are going to put superman on the same team as oracle, harold, and robin
then you better give the one in the wheelchair SOME advantage over superman so that the average plot isnt 3 players sitting on their asses while superman does everything

>>98602589
>so that the average plot isnt 3 players sitting on their asses while superman does everything

That's realistic though. Think about any group dynamic in real life. The person in the group who is seen as the most competent is usually the one who ends up doing all the work while the rest of the group just rides that person's coattails.

A good GM could even take that dynamic and turn it into a plot point.

>>98602603
even if theres no realistic way to balance having superman on the team in combat
comics figured out a long time ago that batman having detective powers, a super computer, and not being killed by kryptonite to handwave away why it isnt just superman with a bat-themed sidekick

you dont need perfect balance in a casual game the same way you would in a competitive game, but you at least need to give every character some kind of advantage, even a ridiculously small one, so that the DM can create situations where the objectively trash character can do something other than warm the bench

>>98596835
retard.

>>98602265
they're supposed to be balanced, they can be balanced, and they are balanced in plenty of games. balance is at least as important in cooperative games as competitive, and for exactly the same reasons. dominant strategies reduce the number of interesting decisions, and make the game worse, regardless of whether the players are cooperating. stop making excuses for incompetent designers.

>>98602412
it isn't, since it isn't a game, obviously. and of course cooperative game balance has nothing to do with win ratios, especially in games with no win conditions. think before posting.

>>98602578
this is false. balance has nothing to do with competition.

>>98602603
realism does not equal good game design.

>>98602603
>That's realistic though.

It's a tabletop roleplaying game, not a tabletop roleplaying simulation

>>98602276
Honestly semantic arguments and "what does and what does not constitute a TRVE [insert subject here]" are lowest form of discussions on the internet, below even calling each other niggers.

>>98602603
https://youtu.be/MGpFEv1-mAo?si=GctrqEkCGsw5ITQd

Truly the nigger of arguments.

>>98602603
>That's realistic though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGpFEv1-mAo

kek

>>98603206
>>98603532
HIVEMIND, straight from the ancient scrolls

>>98602944
Wrong. See >>98593739

The solution to OPs pic is to not be in front of a tank like a fucking retard, hence the two guys in cover in the background. I use to play Planetside 2 which the meme came from, it is now a dead game because of balance fags ruining it.

>>98596586
No. In those editions a level 5+ Fighter with AC 0 is going to ginsu a room full of orcs in a few rounds taking a little damage. The choice in that case is between a limited spell slot for speed or taking longer at the cost of a few hp.

>>98597655
>To be fair, a decked out max level fighter vs a naked and unprepared max level mage fight is basically going to be decided by the initiative roll and whether the fighter crits
FTFY.

File: IMG_1795.jpg (42 KB, 399x501)

42 KB JPG

>>98593652
>Heal plz

>>98602431
>white wins something like 52% of the time in chess
White wins close to 100% of the time as the level of play increases.

>>98602449
>note however that a chess match consists of multiple games
This is irrelevant because someone will still get to play White first and have more opportunities to achieve the first win, and winning first provides an advantage.

>>98603206
>>98603532
I love how Gabe gets genuinely pissed off just remembering these conversations.

>>98603933
Only if you are using post-3e inflated hp totals for the magic-user along with the nerfed saves from those editions. Pre-3e, a level 20 mage only had 20 to 70 hp (10d4+con bonus (max +2) +10), the Fighter deals 1d8+17 damage 2.5 times per round while only having a 10% to 25% of being effected by they mage's spells.

>>98604044
>pre-3e
We're talking about games people actually play unc, not forgotten old garbage.

>>98603999
>White wins close to 100% of the time as the level of play increases.
lol
>winning first provides an advantage.
lmao

>>98604217
>lol
rofl
>lmao
XD

>>98604232
LOL!

>>98603819
Wrong. See my post, which is correct.

>>98604044
the only editions that matter, yes.

>>98604638
Uh no, also you are gay. Go back to gaytown aka preddit.

>>98604661
Concession accepted.

>>98603933
how are you going to find the wizard?
If you do, how are you going to force him to give a shit about your existence?

>>98593544
In a non-retarded game wizardly powers are limited to what they are in old stories, I.E cursing, blessing, enchanting, shapeshifting, weather control, and they can't throw fireballs or whatever. And all their magic takes boatloads of chanting and rituals and whatever to do. So if you want to get anything done quickly, you need men with swords.

>>98609219
No.