Search results

By that reasoning, a champion would be preferable to a battlemaster or eldritch knight. And that's okay - not everyone has to like playing wizards or other casters. But watching one (or doing it yourself) utterly trivialize an encounter with a single spell makes it hard to take arguments that...

Because you're clearly trying to set up a gotcha. You aren't even pretending to be exploratory, you're constructing a scenario to be right. Pass. The entirety of the rules are open to you. Construct scenarios and report back when you have clear proof of martial superiority. If you can't do...

No. We don't have anything to prove to you. If you don't want to get it - don't get it. Alternatively - play a damn wizard for a year or two. Yep; #1 is a sure, although they (fighters, barbarians, rogues) are biased towards single target. Some party members biased towards single target is...

In a game where Magic Jar and Simulacrum are on the table, at that (or fricking Fireball at 5th level!), a spell that requires no optimization other than placement. Or, if we think of other casters (it is casters vs martial, right, not just fighters and wizards?), Hunger of Hadar which is...

That isn't fun, and not why I'd play a wizard. Rolling up a high level wizard and picking spells all at once is probably the least fun way to do it. Look, this concept has persisted for so long it is a trope. More or less. I miss some of the constraints on casters in earlier editions; 2nd ed...

It really depends on the setting. Some settings I like, and I care about it there. Some I don't, or feel generic - I don't care as much about the lore there. If Lord Soth were retconned to be a druid wearing a mask, Scooby Doo style, I don't think I'd like that very much.

Indeed. Even with the given example - If the extradimensional creature successfully escapes, the martials will be hard pressed to track and follow it. It might take a wizard a day or two, but it's gonna take an eldritch knight a heck of a lot longer than that.

Please generate the encounters and wizards that routinely fail at those encounters. I do not believe they routinely fail level appropriate encounters, and I require no convincing that they don't. Again, picking a list of spells for a specific encounter is boring, as are most whiteroom...

Voadam assumed, as did I, it was a solo encounter. If it is a trivial team encounter, why waste resources when a nontrivial encounter may be around the corner? These decisions, too, are part of what makes a wizard fun. Firebolt is pretty boring, but it is boring on purpose. In a well balanced...

This was one of the worst changes from 2e. Indomitable helps, but it isn't enough.

Yes, and I offered to let Flamestrike tell me what that list would be. They refused. As I said above - the burden of proof is upon you. If you are convinced wizards are that weak, generate a range of encounters and a range of wizards that fail at those encounters.

Then a team of five martials and one wizard can result in the wizard making tea while the brutes engage in their labors. No need to expend resources because it is not necessary to win the encounter. Perhaps a firebolt or two so the lads know you're still on their side. If we are to consider a...

No, I'm saying I wouldn't engage on Flamestrike's terms, so I won't engage on yours, either. Because any one particular encounter does not prove wizards are weak, or strong. They prove the player was clever or not or perhaps that the DM was being tough (as is always the case when a DM tailors...

It is entirely documented because this is the system of rulings, not rules. And, as in the other thread I offered to meet them halfway and they bailed. Again proving that you only read enough words to begin to formulate a reply. Please read the entire post. Picking a new list day by day is...

So, I've not played a thief but I have messed around with caltrops and battlemaster maneuvers. These grow stale; particularly by Tier 3. I'm not saying they aren't better than a champion or samurai - they most certainly are, but the list won't ever approach any particular wizard's list, not will...

The DM decides which spells on the list exist. There are a range that don't at my tables. If you've not read through the list and struck any you don't like, have you even DMd for a clever wizard before? Because it's a showboaty exhibition match and picking a tailored list of spells for a...

A wizard's spell list depends entirely on what happened to them for the previous 16 levels. No, I'm not interested in being baited into an exhibition match. But know that the Wizard is the Billie Jean King in this metaphor.

This was in another thread, where I offered to meet Flamestrike halfway and they wouldn't engage; and I even offered to let them restrict the list. They wouldn't. But, like I've stated here - the point isn't that the wizard always wins or always kills the monster first (though once we're at a...

Again, they got to pick which half of that list I did not have. If they can't bother with that level of detail, they aren't sincerely engaging in the question - because that is exactly what the DM of a wizard must do, at every level up. I don't need to engage in someone else's cherry picked...

Put another way, how many other classes need to invest a proficiency just to open up one of the handful of combat maneuvers available to them? And how many tables treat athletics as fully replaceable with acrobatics for everything but the initiation of a grapple? One that can be defeated by a...