Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Runestar" data-source="post: 4571541" data-attributes="member: 72317">I would say that while a 3e caster had the requisite spells to excel in any role he wants, in reality, his limited allotment of slots means that he can only focus on 1 role at any one time. It would be fallacious to claim or assume that they can excel in all roles simultaneously.For example, a wizard or psion can pass off as a respectable defender (by using summons/astral construct to grapple foes and generally clog up the battlefield). Or a battlefield controller (using spells like glitterdust and sleep to disable foes while the fighter mop up). Or a striker (using metamagicked ray spells or save-or-die effects to surgically take out key foes). But you can't be all 3 at the same time. You have to decide what you want to be, and focus on that, lest you dilute your power/effectiveness.I don't see anything wrong with that, since that means my wizard has the freedom of adapting to suit any role that is lacking in the party. No tanks? A summoner wizard it is then. Enough fighters in the party to ensure a steady output of damage? Then there is clearly little need for a blaster mage, and more want for a battlefield controller to let the fighters do their job more effectively, and with less fear of repercussions. And so on and so forth. How is this not team play?Was that so problematic in 3e?</blockquote>