Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6362840" data-attributes="member: 15700">Rather than continue giant walls of text and refute every one of your points again (no one likes walls of text), I will attempt again to illustrate the basic fundamental flaw of your thinking here with just the first part.That whole list?  It is dependent on the caster both preparing that spell ahead of time, and having the available slots to cast it.  This is a very basic concept and I'm honestly struggling as to why you can't seem to understand it.  It doesn't matter how many spells are in your spell book.  If you can't cast them, you can't cast them and therefore they can't be used in the analysis of what the wizard can do.  And that's even me giving you the benefit of the argument that the caster chose those spells to enter into his or her spellbook to begin with."Guys, I am super awesome!  I have every spell in my spellbook.""Great!  We could really use a teleport spell right about now.""Um...I never prepped that one..."I am also not dismissing your specific style of game play.  I'm dismissing everyone's personal style of gameplay because that's a subjective factor, and basing my argument on how the rules were actually designed to be played.  I.e., 5e was not designed to give players short rests after every single encounter.Oh, and Jack?  There are 30 first level wizard spells in the PHB, not 12.  So no, the chances of the wizard learning all of those is not even close.  Especially since as higher level spells become available, the wizard won't be using his or her 2 spells learned per level on level 1 spells nearly as often.Again, you're missing the forest through the trees.  The point wasn't "how can a battle with lower level mobs last 5 rounds."  The point was, "If you have 15, 20, or 30 (the number really doesn't matter as long as it's greater than the number of spell slots of the wizard), explain to me how the wizard is better than/replaces the fighter for all of those other rounds.  This is a very relevant factor that you keep ignoring, and won't answer.Since we know that the game isn't designed to do long rests (recovering all the spell slots) between each encounter (it explicitly gives guidelines on # of encounters), and the basis of your entire argument is that the caster will cast a spell to be better than/replace another class, we know that the caster will not have all of his or her spell slots available for every single round of all the encounters he or she runs into during the adventure day.  You agree, yes?  I.e., if the first encounter lasts 3 rounds, that's 3 spells the caster used to be better than the fighter, and 3 slots he or she won't have available for encounter #2.  So on and so on.  So if a caster has a total of 8 spell slots, and there ends up being 20-30 combat rounds before the next long rest spread out between a half dozen or so encounters, how is the caster being better than the other classes for the rest of the 12-22 rounds?  And this is even giving you the benefit of not even considering the likelyhood that the caster would not have even used all of his or her slots on combat spells to begin with (further limiting which spells would be effective in combat).*Edit* You know what, I'll even use your example of the sleep spell because it came up in one of my sessions last week..  The first encounter?  The wizard slept* 2 giant ants out of 4 in the first encounter.  That was pretty darn good, and better than any other class could do for that round.  Her other slot was used on a non-combat spell earlier.  For the rest of that encounter, and the four other encounters they ran into before they could rest, she was not nearly as effectual as the fighter, being resorted to mostly firebolt cantrips.*she did not prep thunderwave because being a squishy wizard, the last thing she wanted was to put herself right in the heart of melee combat.</blockquote>

Verification