Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Byronic" data-source="post: 4333178" data-attributes="member: 56829">I agree with the OP in theory, because it's correct, in theory.And no, the OP had nothing to do with Wizards being super powerful. I have the same thoughts and I've never played a Wizard in my life (will change though). However in practice I believe that 4.0, despite its many flaws (oh there are so many things I wish they kept in.. or went the whole 9 yards instead of quitting half way) CAN be adapted to make up for its flaws. The following is an example.In practice I believe people will have their specialities.The best at rituals (in general) will be the Wizard, why? Because he'll have the most rituals and most likely have the right abilities and skills to use the best of them (with some exceptions).Everyone can heal themselves, and some (like the Warlord) can heal others. But NO ONE can heal better then a Cleric. Not only does the Cleric have healers lore but he's the best one for curing diseases and healing ailments. He has the Ritual feat and he can most likely cast it better then the Wizard.Everyone can disarm traps simply by taking thievery, however, how many party members are willing to burn a feat to get it? The best person of the whole party at disarming traps will most likely be someone who has thievery and has invested a lot in dexterity.In practice people specialise or they fail a lot of skill challenges.  Even in combat different classes will be much better suited at certain goals. In theory it all sucks, in practice it can work out quite fine.</blockquote>

Verification