Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6363040" data-attributes="member: 42582">Who is asserting that casters are always better?I am asserting that there seems to me to be no domain in which non-spell-using PCs have clear mechanical superiority, whereas there are multiple domains in which it seems to me that casters have much greater versatiity and capabiity.The wizard doesn't have to be better than the fighter in those other rounds, for two reasons.First, if they're purely hypothetical rounds, it doesn't matter who would, hypothetically, be better, if the wizard was actually better in the actual rounds.Second, if the wizard has dominated play in certain key rounds, the fact that she sits back and cools her heels in other rounds is irrelevant. One example of that is the wizard who softens everything up with a fireball, or cuts the battlefield in half with a wall spell, and then plinks away with cantrips while the fighters mop up. That is still an instance of caster dominance. Where is the ability of martial characters to do this sort of thing (analogously to, say, 4e's CaGI).The point is that if the caster has any of those spells prepared - and surely they will have some spells, won't they? - then they are in a position to exercise a type of impact over the ingame situation that non-casting PCs don't rival.This is why I keep stating that I don't understand what you think 10th and higher level casters will be doing with their spells.For me, the answer to your question is that it becomes hard to play a powerful but non-magical character. (A long the lines of, say, Conan, or Boromir.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6363040, member: 42582"] Who is asserting that casters are always better? I am asserting that there seems to me to be no domain in which non-spell-using PCs have clear mechanical superiority, whereas there are multiple domains in which it seems to me that casters have much greater versatiity and capabiity. The wizard doesn't have to be better than the fighter in those other rounds, for two reasons. First, if they're purely hypothetical rounds, it doesn't matter who would, hypothetically, be better, if the wizard was actually better in the actual rounds. Second, if the wizard has dominated play in certain key rounds, the fact that she sits back and cools her heels in other rounds is irrelevant. One example of that is the wizard who softens everything up with a fireball, or cuts the battlefield in half with a wall spell, and then plinks away with cantrips while the fighters mop up. That is still an instance of caster dominance. Where is the ability of martial characters to do this sort of thing (analogously to, say, 4e's CaGI). The point is that if the caster has [I]any[/I] of those spells prepared - and surely they will have [I]some[/I] spells, won't they? - then they are in a position to exercise a type of impact over the ingame situation that non-casting PCs don't rival. This is why I keep stating that I don't understand what you think 10th and higher level casters will be doing with their spells. For me, the answer to your question is that it becomes hard to play a powerful but non-magical character. (A long the lines of, say, Conan, or Boromir.) [/QUOTE]

Verification