Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 3881873" data-attributes="member: 172">No, because the wizard has poor HP and armor selection and doesn't have near the defenses against magic and melee that the cleric does.That would be meaningful if the wizard had anything to do with the remaining movement action than trying to stay out of melee because the first big hit by a creature like a troll would take him out.A commoner isn't going to mop up enemies like a fighter is.I'm a little confused about what else you expect the fighter to do. The progress options for a fighter allow him to swing his weapon really good. If you don't like what being a fighter entails, I'm genuinely confused what you expect out of a fighter.But as D&D is a largely combat oriented game, it still remains an undeniably important role.I never once suggested this was about the player contribution; you're trying to put a spin on my words that wasn't there. Of course the wizard's broad utility is undeniable. It's physical conflict that the fighter is good at; fighter's the go-to guy for physical conflict, the class you want to play if you are about physical conflict.If physical conflict wasn't such a central part of the game, I might share your concern. If you deviate from norm for D&D, I think it's perfectly fair to expect the players make characters to accommodate (fewer fighters, more skill monkeys and spell users.)</blockquote>