Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 3195900" data-attributes="member: 8158">Having a meat shield between you and the enemies is not providing the margin of safety you're implying, since those foes aren't magnetically attracted to the tank.Let's do a quick recap here. Initially, you remarked to the effect that it seemed postively bizarre that a fragile wizard should even be concerned with AC, since the wizard shouldn't put himself in melee. Wicket and I both pointed out that AC is essentially reactive in nature, and there are plenty of circumstances where a character is the target of attack rolls despite all efforts to avoid melee. To avoid admitting the validity of that counter-arguement, the response you've come up with is to suggest all these other actions a wizard can undertake to defend himself that render AC moot, which is an abrupt change of lanes since your original contention was that the wizard need not concern himself with damage avoidance as long as he stays away from the enemy. When it's pointed out that those actions aren't as foolproof as you're presenting them to be, you come back with the retort &quot;well, nothing's foolproof, and no class gets everything it needs&quot;, which further belies your original position that AC is not something a wizard needs if he's canny.Bottom line, the question being addressed was: &quot;why would a wizard *need* armor, except to go into melee, which is something they are going to be vastly inferior in anyway?&quot; It's been answered more than adequately.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Felon, post: 3195900, member: 8158"] Having a meat shield between you and the enemies is not providing the margin of safety you're implying, since those foes aren't magnetically attracted to the tank. Let's do a quick recap here. Initially, you remarked to the effect that it seemed postively bizarre that a fragile wizard should even be concerned with AC, since the wizard shouldn't put himself in melee. Wicket and I both pointed out that AC is essentially reactive in nature, and there are plenty of circumstances where a character is the target of attack rolls despite all efforts to avoid melee. To avoid admitting the validity of that counter-arguement, the response you've come up with is to suggest all these other actions a wizard can undertake to defend himself that render AC moot, which is an abrupt change of lanes since your original contention was that the wizard need not concern himself with damage avoidance as long as he stays away from the enemy. When it's pointed out that those actions aren't as foolproof as you're presenting them to be, you come back with the retort "well, nothing's foolproof, and no class gets everything it needs", which further belies your original position that AC is not something a wizard needs if he's canny. Bottom line, the question being addressed was: "why would a wizard *need* armor, except to go into melee, which is something they are going to be vastly inferior in anyway?" It's been answered more than adequately. [/QUOTE]

Verification