Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 917056" data-attributes="member: 2486">Would that be aside from having roughly double as many hit points, a significantly better AC, an incredible number of feats; not to mention the better usage of 'strategic' melee (grappling etc.)Granted, but then you can't get a 9th level lich, so that's a non-argument <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />.  With regard to CR 11 monsters, a lot of them have far more hit points than liches, not to mention better Fort saves.  Indeed, for purposes of being vulnerable to disintegrate, liches are about the single weakest creatures in the game- hardly representative...  None of which are core rules.  'Backwards-compatibility' is all very well, but if it means disempowering core rules just in case people slap on supplements, then that's clearly a faulty approach. 13 Dex is fairly standard.  Remember that you'll want a good Con, and a good Int as well.  As for WF (ray) and PBS, I've never seen any PC wizard take either. Well, it was worth a shot <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />.  Seriously though, for the wizard to kill the lich, he must hit (50%), it fail its save (80%) and then roll more than 72 on 31d6 (er...can't be bothered to work out...probably about 90%).  So his top spell is only having a 36% chance to knock out the lich, the monster which is weakest against disintegrate.  Against creatures with good touch ACs, good Fort saves and lots of HPs, his chances drop dramatically. Bull Rush.  Trip.  Disarm (okay, so he could do a unarmed cdg, provoking yet another AoO and probably not being very effective unless his Str is exorbitant).  Sunder (likewise).  Grapple (if he misses on *his* AoO).  Think outside the box <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> . Given how slowly melee tanks move, that enemies can form defensive lines around the held victim, that cdg provoke an AoO and that hold could wear off over a couple of rounds, the PCs' need to be very well-coordinated to do the old hold/cdg trick.  I'm not saying that that's *bad* necessarily- I broadly agreed with the hold nerf: it's merely symptomatic of a wider trend. Well, are the tanks simply going to sit there and act as meat-shields?  Quite often an enemy tank is more than willing to provoke an AoO and charge an enemy mage if he thinks that he can take them down. Not as dangerous, but still dangerous.  Like I said, they have always had, and continue to have, a greater offense:defense ratio than fighters.  In 3e, they had better offense and weaker defense; in 3.5e, it looks like they might have comparable offense and weaker defense.  Given two targets with comparable offensive capabilities, any sensible opponent will target the one easier to kill. I thought mage armour, being a force effect, did count- though to be fair, I'm not entirely sure now you mention it. Nonsense.  Ignoring the fact that combat (under core rules) is both the bulk of encounters in any given game and is the font of nearly all XP, the examples we are using are 'combat wizards'.  If I played a loremaster with three Skill Foci in Knowledge skills, poor Dex and Con (good Int, Wis and Cha), an armload of divinations and utility spells and still expected him to match in combat, then of course that would be ridiculous.  The argument I'm making is that *combat* wizards now cannot compete.</blockquote>

Verification