Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="two" data-source="post: 855161" data-attributes="member: 9002">no, do all the obvious stuffOf course you do all the obvious wizardly stuff, fly if you want, invisible if you want, etc. etc.&nbsp; If you can get the following situation:&quot;1. least expected it 2. couldn't get to him 3. when he had everything he needed to take them down (striking deals with local baddies, informing the rival church that so-and-so cleric is walking around, etc etc)&quot;But if the wizard can pick his time to attack, optimally, and insure the party can't retaliate, sure, wow, he will be effective.&nbsp; If he hires cronies to help him, yeah, great, etc.&nbsp; So will ANY NPC you pick; this has nothing to do with the NPC, it has to do with the DM allowing an ambush of X% assured mortality.&nbsp; Fine, yippie.Need I mention that a cleric, or rogue, or Z under similar circumstance will shine brightly as well?My point was, in a more balanced scenario (not a straight stand up fight but also not &quot;neeeh neeeh you can't possibly hurt me&quot;) the cleric, who schemes and plots just as hard as the wizard, will probably be more effective and last longer.&nbsp; The idea is for the NPC to lose -- but lose after mucho blood, not a total party kill.&nbsp; right?&nbsp; Right.&nbsp; Or are you saying the party will NEVER be able to target the wizard with a fort-save spell?&nbsp; Or NEVER be able to ready an arrow against a spell being cast?&nbsp; Never do HP damage?&nbsp; i.e. never attack the Wizard's big weaknesses at all?&nbsp; If not, sure.&nbsp; Scary wizard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="two, post: 855161, member: 9002"] [b]no, do all the obvious stuff[/b] Of course you do all the obvious wizardly stuff, fly if you want, invisible if you want, etc. etc. If you can get the following situation: "1. least expected it 2. couldn't get to him 3. when he had everything he needed to take them down (striking deals with local baddies, informing the rival church that so-and-so cleric is walking around, etc etc)" But if the wizard can pick his time to attack, optimally, and insure the party can't retaliate, sure, wow, he will be effective. If he hires cronies to help him, yeah, great, etc. So will ANY NPC you pick; this has nothing to do with the NPC, it has to do with the DM allowing an ambush of X% assured mortality. Fine, yippie. Need I mention that a cleric, or rogue, or Z under similar circumstance will shine brightly as well? My point was, in a more balanced scenario (not a straight stand up fight but also not "neeeh neeeh you can't possibly hurt me") the cleric, who schemes and plots just as hard as the wizard, will probably be more effective and last longer. The idea is for the NPC to lose -- but lose after mucho blood, not a total party kill. right? Right. Or are you saying the party will NEVER be able to target the wizard with a fort-save spell? Or NEVER be able to ready an arrow against a spell being cast? Never do HP damage? i.e. never attack the Wizard's big weaknesses at all? If not, sure. Scary wizard. [/QUOTE]

Verification