Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gammadoodler" data-source="post: 8758063" data-attributes="member: 6914290">I'm curious what arguments for wizards not being &quot;all that&quot; remain. Those that do and don't require DMs' thumbs on the scale.What I have for Do:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Magic items are more for martials</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">At 6-8 encounters/rest it's fine..but the DM needs to have those 6-8.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fighters can do skills stuff outside the explicit rules if they ask the DM (though so can wizards)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Spells aren't that big a deal, if it's meant to be a challenge, the DM has to provide a way to interact with it.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Encounters can be designed to interact with any of the classes mechanical shortcomings.</li>
</ul>What I have for Don't<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">No one's ever complained at my game</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">I've seen fighters do all kinds of cool stuff in my games (no specifics provided)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Wizards can't prepare for every eventuality. A daily spell list will have a gap somewhere.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Wizards can't replace every class in the party at peak efficiency in every role (number of replaceable party members and relative efficiency up to debate, but at least one or two at respectable efficiency)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fighters are really popular (according to D&amp;D beyond)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Everyone at the table is there to have fun, so class balance doesn't really matter.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Gaps in performance aren't as noticeable until a tier of play most tables do not get to.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Wizards have fewer chances to do damage by virtue of attacking characters getting more attacks per turn.</li>
</ul>Is that about right?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gammadoodler, post: 8758063, member: 6914290"] I'm curious what arguments for wizards not being "all that" remain. Those that do and don't [I]require[/I] DMs' thumbs on the scale. What I have for Do: [LIST] [*]Magic items are more for martials [*]At 6-8 encounters/rest it's fine..but the DM [B][I]needs[/I][/B] to have those 6-8. [*]Fighters can do skills stuff outside the explicit rules if they ask the DM (though so can wizards) [*]Spells aren't that big a deal, if it's meant to be a challenge, the DM has to provide a way to interact with it. [*]Encounters can be designed to interact with any of the classes mechanical shortcomings. [/LIST] What I have for Don't [LIST] [*]No one's ever complained at my game [*]I've seen fighters do all kinds of cool stuff in my games (no specifics provided) [*]Wizards can't prepare for every eventuality. A daily spell list will have a gap somewhere. [*]Wizards can't replace [B][I]every[/I][/B] class in the party at [B][I]peak[/I][/B] efficiency in [B][I]every[/I][/B] role (number of replaceable party members and relative efficiency up to debate, but at least one or two at respectable efficiency) [*]Fighters are really popular (according to D&D beyond) [*]Everyone at the table is there to have fun, so class balance doesn't really matter. [*]Gaps in performance aren't as noticeable until a tier of play most tables do not get to. [*]Wizards have fewer chances to do damage by virtue of attacking characters getting more attacks per turn. [/LIST] Is that about right? [/QUOTE]

Verification