Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3191570" data-attributes="member: 2067">Clerics are (in part) a melee-centric class, however. Good BAB, good HD, good armor, and spells that can make their baseline medicore abilities off the charts with a few rounds. Clerics can get up into melee. Wizards, however, cannot. Even WITH armor, they're better off staying the heck away from anything that can swing a sword with some confidence. I mean, why would a wizard *need* armor, except to go into melee, which is something they are going to be vastly inferior in anyway? Even multiclassed they're not going to be very good unless they've taken a PrC to address some of those &quot;I can't hit a barn, and a strong breeze can kill me&quot; issues. The best Wizards spells are ranged and either auto-hit or touch-attack at least partially because Wizards *can't hit jack* and *die from a bad trip*. Clerics and wizards support two different archetypes and two different ways of playing and the what's good for one isn't what's good for the other. I mean, consider the possible mechanical outgrowth of allowing wizards to wear armor:Wizards can wear armor -&gt; Wizards with high, fighter-like AC's (as wizards tend to focus on Dexterity a high amount, for touch spells and the like) -&gt; Wizards who get into melee more often (which violates a lot of archetype) -&gt; Wizards who get hit and critted more often (since the opposition rolls more dice than the players, even with immense AC's, it's not an issue of &quot;if&quot; they're going to get hit, it's &quot;when.&quot;) -&gt; More Dead Wizards.If you were going to give Wizards some armor, you'd have to up their HD, give them a better BAB, and then take something away (like blast spells) to compensate, and you wind up with...uhm....the Bard. Or the Cleric. And since those already exist, I don't see why Wizards need more armor than they get.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 3191570, member: 2067"] Clerics are (in part) a melee-centric class, however. Good BAB, good HD, good armor, and spells that can make their baseline medicore abilities off the charts with a few rounds. Clerics can get up into melee. Wizards, however, cannot. Even WITH armor, they're better off staying the heck away from anything that can swing a sword with some confidence. I mean, why would a wizard *need* armor, except to go into melee, which is something they are going to be vastly inferior in anyway? Even multiclassed they're not going to be very good unless they've taken a PrC to address some of those "I can't hit a barn, and a strong breeze can kill me" issues. The best Wizards spells are ranged and either auto-hit or touch-attack at least partially because Wizards *can't hit jack* and *die from a bad trip*. Clerics and wizards support two different archetypes and two different ways of playing and the what's good for one isn't what's good for the other. I mean, consider the possible mechanical outgrowth of allowing wizards to wear armor: Wizards can wear armor -> Wizards with high, fighter-like AC's (as wizards tend to focus on Dexterity a high amount, for touch spells and the like) -> Wizards who get into melee more often (which violates a lot of archetype) -> Wizards who get hit and critted more often (since the opposition rolls more dice than the players, even with immense AC's, it's not an issue of "if" they're going to get hit, it's "when.") -> More Dead Wizards. If you were going to give Wizards some armor, you'd have to up their HD, give them a better BAB, and then take something away (like blast spells) to compensate, and you wind up with...uhm....the Bard. Or the Cleric. And since those already exist, I don't see why Wizards need more armor than they get. [/QUOTE]

Verification