Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrozenNorth" data-source="post: 8748912" data-attributes="member: 7020832">Both of the examples  were solo play.Edit.  And this also misses the point.  The first post asked Maxperson to give an example of something a fighter could do that a wizard couldn’t.  He responded at 20th level, attack 8 times on two consecutive turns….EXCEPT that is something wizards can do, by using the True Polymorph spell.  The converse however, deliver messages over a long distance quickly, is something fighters just simply can’t do.  At all.Frankly, wizards benefit from two kinds of versatility.  First, free choice of spells gives them a great amount of versatility in their builds and second, their spellbook and rituals gives them a lot of versatility to tailor their spells day-to-day.  The problem is that wizards give up very little for this versatility.Wizards are most frequently compared to fighters because fighters have the opposite problem.  They are overly specialized and in game design terms, they are paying a very steep price for a small advantage in the combat pillar.In principle, if you are comparing the most versatile class across three pillars to the class that is best at the combat pillar and weak at the two others, the comparison should be embassingly lopsided in favour of the fighter.  Except it isn’t.It is good design that you shouldn’t need a fighter in the party to succeed in the combat pillar.  But it is bad design that the class that is supposed to exemplify the combat pillar (and that is an archetype that many players identify with) ends up being so unnecessary.</blockquote>

Verification