Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Undrave" data-source="post: 8761453" data-attributes="member: 7015698">So, in the recent thread &quot;<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/are-wizards-really-all-that.690980/" target="_blank">Are Wizards really all that?</a>&quot;, fellow user [USER=7030563]@ECMO3[/USER] claims that: <ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Yes, the Wizard is 'all that', it's the most powerful class in the game</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">It was designed that way</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The game is better like that</li>
</ul>Putting aside the first and third statement, we got into a major argument over the second one. I argued that any imbalance was accidental, that there is nothing in the books to indicate that one class is more powerful than the other, especially not to someone who just picks up the book as a newbie and that if the classes WERE designed to be stronger or weaker than each other, the lack of conveyance is a bad design, and that the CR encounter building system would include adjustments per-class (and that WOTC wouldn't have tried to fix the Ranger multiple time if it was fine that it was weaker). ECMO3 argues that the fluff clearly puts the Wizard above the others (Supreme magic user and all that guff) and, furthermore, anyone can tell from the mechanics, and also that there is no indication in the book that all classes should be considered equal. It got me curious how the rest of the board falls on this issue, because I've never seen anybody else with the same view as ECMO3</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Undrave, post: 8761453, member: 7015698"] So, in the recent thread "[URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/are-wizards-really-all-that.690980/']Are Wizards really all that?[/URL]", fellow user [USER=7030563]@ECMO3[/USER] claims that: [LIST] [*]Yes, the Wizard is 'all that', it's the most powerful class in the game [*]It was designed that way [*]The game is better like that [/LIST] Putting aside the first and third statement, we got into a major argument over the second one. I argued that any imbalance was accidental, that there is nothing in the books to indicate that one class is more powerful than the other, especially not to someone who just picks up the book as a newbie and that if the classes WERE designed to be stronger or weaker than each other, the lack of conveyance is a bad design, and that the CR encounter building system would include adjustments per-class (and that WOTC wouldn't have tried to fix the Ranger multiple time if it was fine that it was weaker). ECMO3 argues that the fluff clearly puts the Wizard above the others (Supreme magic user and all that guff) and, furthermore, anyone can tell from the mechanics, and also that there is no indication in the book that all classes should be considered equal. It got me curious how the rest of the board falls on this issue, because I've never seen anybody else with the same view as ECMO3 [/QUOTE]

Verification