NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6067439" data-attributes="member: 87792">A simple wizard: An elementalist.  They have easy control over one element or one force and can do more or less whatever the hell they want with it but lack flexibility.  They'd get e.g. <a href="http://www.alchar.org/~aedil/Campaign/WizardSpells/Affect_Normal_Fires.html" target="_blank">Affect Normal Fires</a> and a firebolt as cantrips, and have a few other spells like summoning a fire elemental from an existing fire, and fireball.  But only a few.  A simple cleric: A Warpriest.  They heal, they occasionally throw down a spell like zone of truth.  But mostly they hit things and rely on insight.1: Turn invisible.2: Pick locks.3: Pick pockets.4: Disarm traps.5: Stab people.6: Confuse people.Alternatively they pick one or two things and specialise in them.Less power, more options.  Affect normal fires for a wizard certainly wouldn't be At Will.That's the worst of both worlds.Of course not.  This is because a specialist should be significantly better at the things they specialise in than a generalist.  If the fire specialist got 50% more damage from fire spells (and evocations were worth casting anyway) would they be as strong as the generalist?  Possibly.  But versatility is a strength.  Taking away versatility and giving nothing back is hamstringing a class.  To point out a class you have hamstrung is hamstrung is obvious.Let's try a different simple wizard.  One who can only cast spells of the fire type - but counts all fire spells as if they were one spell level lower.  So he can cast Burning Hands and Affect Normal Fires At Will.  Scorching Ray as a first level spell.  Fireball as a second level spell.  Wall of fire as a third level spell.  And so on.  Realistically is he equal to the complex mage who can change shape, conjure fiends, and fool enemies into believing a door exists where it shouldn't?  I don't think so.  But if it's a thunderdome situation, our fire mage is going to win.  And if it's taking on an army, the ability to fling fireballs at third level and walls of fire at fifth is really going to help.  Is this discount on spells enough?  Probably not by 11th level.  But I think the specialist will be highly effective until about 7th level - rather than (as for the sorceror) looking silly by third level.In easy mode the wizard isn't crippled by that.  He's crippled by having a small selection of spells at which he is no better than our generalist wizard.  If he really got a boost in his specialist area he might be able to keep up (until the 3.5 wizard became ludicrous).And there you have the problem.  The fighter who can do nothing but hit must be better at hitting than the complex fighter.  Your solution is implicit in your problem.  It works in 4e.  You have the weaponmaster fighter (complex and tactical) and the Slayer with a two handed weapon who just hits stuff incredibly hard.  About half as hard again as a weaponmaster.  Which is more useful?  Pass.  Both have their place.Again, you've just described the solution.  A specialist does not fill the same role as a generalist.  A generalist should be a jack of all trades and master of none.  (This is where the 3.X wizard fails utterly - they are masters of all trades eventually).Who says?Yet you can drop a 4e slayer straight into a 4e game.  They are strikers not defenders but can certainly fill the role of a 4e PC.  And a 4e slayer is almost as simple as a B/X fighter - and certainly simpler than a 2e Weapon Specialist with Non Weapon Proficiencies - or a 3e fighter.And a single counterexample is enough to disprove your case.</blockquote>

Verification