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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Asisreo" data-source="post: 8756908" data-attributes="member: 7019027">This, though, is what I think is the most important argument. Because at the end of the day, it's not about whether wizards are technically powerful, but whether they feel powerful when played. I could make a class that simply says "You are a god, you can do anything for free." And it's powerful, sure, but after a bit it feels less "powerful" and more "the devs decided to make DM'ing a class." As a DM, sure I'm "powerful." But it'd be odd to say that "The DM is the best position because you're the most powerful." Even though some DM's act like that. Though, are they that different than the rogue? Because all of that stuff is a rogue's forte and they do it very well from what I've experienced playing and DMing for the class. The fighter is...a fighter. And I think that it's okay to have a class defined by combat to be the best at adapting to all forms of combat. They can be a great frontliner and backliner without significantly changing their character. In fact, a physical spread of ASI's lets a fighter keep up with any given other more specialized form of martial. What convinces you that they wouldn't re-invent the Eldritch Knight? Or the monk? Maybe slightly different features, but similar overall builds. All this to say that you may be looking too astutely at wizards and fighters when their contrast is intentional. They're both generalists, but one is a generalist with a focus on simple reliability and the other has a focus on complex adaptability. But a martial that shares similar complexities with generalists like wizards are rogues and monks. But instead of complex adaptability, rogues focus on complex reliability and monks focus on simple adaptability.</blockquote>

Verification