Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8269289" data-attributes="member: 93670">Quite the opposite.&nbsp; It is a simple point of comparison with an objective metric in the form of how large one set of math is compared to another set.&nbsp; The point is not that wizards need to do more damage. I agree that the wizard's primary role is generally not damage, but that primary role needs to justify the combination of damage disparity and design elements trying to individually compensate for problems of past editions. Not.&nbsp; The justification itself needs to work within the constraints of the class itself though so hypothetical edge cases &amp; contrived situations&nbsp; involving &quot;what if this happens and that spell is prepared but nobody in the party can just solve it in other ways without using a spell slot or waiting for the wizard to prepare the spell after a long rest&quot;.I even brought up things likebuff/debuff/control spells but those are almost universally saddled with excessive saves &amp; overused concentration on a resource (spell slot) burning limit stacked alongside the no resource consuming damage disparity. That comparison&nbsp; &amp; associated problem itself is problematic because I'm told it should be ignored &amp; the wizard should not expect to be notable&nbsp; in the combat pillar itself de to how they &quot;dominate&quot; in social &amp; exploration.&nbsp; Given social &amp; exploration pillars are a smaller chunk of nearly any campaign compared to the combat pillar &amp; generally even something limited to a small fraction of sessions&nbsp; the wizard probably needs to clearly dominate to such an extreme degree that they come close to just not being an option for the party without a wizard... a few edge case hypotheticals does not&nbsp; accomplish that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8269289, member: 93670"] Quite the opposite. It is a simple point of comparison with an objective metric in the form of how large one set of math is compared to another set. The point is not that wizards need to do more damage. I agree that the wizard's primary role is generally not damage, but that primary role needs to justify the combination of damage disparity and design elements trying to individually compensate for problems of past editions. Not. The justification itself needs to work within the constraints of the class itself though so hypothetical edge cases & contrived situations involving "what if this happens and that spell is prepared but nobody in the party can just solve it in other ways without using a spell slot or waiting for the wizard to prepare the spell after a long rest". I even brought up things likebuff/debuff/control spells but those are almost universally saddled with excessive saves & overused concentration on a resource (spell slot) burning limit stacked alongside the no resource consuming damage disparity. That comparison & associated problem itself is problematic because I'm told it should be ignored & the wizard should not expect to be notable in the combat pillar itself de to how they "dominate" in social & exploration. Given social & exploration pillars are a smaller chunk of nearly any campaign compared to the combat pillar & generally even something limited to a small fraction of sessions the wizard probably needs to clearly dominate to such an extreme degree that they come close to just not being an option for the party without a wizard... a few edge case hypotheticals does not accomplish that. [/QUOTE]

Verification