Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8364324" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I just want to highlight the analysis here:A single spell, when used at a moderately effective time (explicitly not an especially favorable time, just a generally good one), is the equivalent of twelve rounds of Fighter attacks. Meaning, the Fighter needs approximately three full combats just to catch up to what the Wizard did in one combat. With one spell.This is what's supposed to be "not that far behind." A Wizard that still has cantrips, and numerous lower-level spells, can literally sit on his butt for the next 11 rounds of combat and be contributing the same amount as the Fighter did working her butt off that whole time.And I haven't even touched the fact that Overgeeked is wrong--the 5th level Wizard can do this twice per day. You don't start getting only 1 spell slot for a given spell level until you get 4th level spells. Plus, they can in theory actually do it three times, if they're feeling especially spicy (Arcane Recovery, which after 24 rounds of combat, I would damn well hope the party has taken a short rest!)So yeah. A Wizard blowing all of his highest spell slots on fireballs for the day literally has all the rest of his spells to take advantage of, while the Fighter needs 36 rounds of combat. Even if you assume 6 rounds apiece, which I've been repeatedly told would be an INSANELY long combat by 5e standards if it happened even once, let alone consistently, you're still needing 6 combat encounters a day just so the Fighter can catch up. The Wizard still has three 2nd and four 1st level spells to play with....and it's also worth noting that, even in 5e, direct-damage spells are usually seen as slightly sub-optimal, as you can get more (metaphorical) bang for your buck with other spells instead.And then there's this problem on top.Yet people wonder why 4e fans weren't happy with cantrips, since they're "exactly like at-wills"!</blockquote>

Verification