Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7751644" data-attributes="member: 996">A fighter ability in 4e used weapons, spells used implements, fighter abilities did (untyped) damage based on the weapon used, spells did damage including a wide range of damage types based on the spell itself, fighter abilities generally hit AC, spells rarely if ever did, fighter attacks were melee & close, attack spells mostly ranged & area, and so forth, on down the line.  The complaint remains completely bogus, even if rephrased more softly as 'feelz.'  The feel of playing a fighter (defender who /needs/ to get into the thick of things to be effective) and spellcasting wizard (controller with no such requirement) are completely different.At the bottom of it, after many itterations, the actual complaint could be extracted from the bogus one:  that fighters had a similar (not the same) number of at-will, encounter, daily, and utility 'exploits' (manuvers would have been so much better a term) to wizards' spells, and that among other things, made those classes roughly balanced, rather than the wizard claiming Tier 1 and the fighter sitting in Tier 5.  The wizard's spells still came out ahead - they were more varied & versatile, included additional at-wills, free rituals, and a preparation mechanic that doubled his number of daily & utility spells known - just not by the huge margin at high level that traditional LFQW delivered.</blockquote>