Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bryan898" data-source="post: 2689035" data-attributes="member: 9085">I haven't taken part in the discussion as of yet, though I've followed it and enjoyed it immensely, but I'd like a chance to field this question as it intrigued me.1.) The spell mirror image would be a counter to the fighter hitting the wizard, the feat cleave would be a counter to that tactic, the wizard is then left with mutliple other counters to still prevent the fighter from hitting him.  The wizard still has an ability to protect from that tactic, invisibility for example.2.) It's more fun because the wizard already has numerous ways to protect from the fighter, and giving the fighter the ability to deal with one of them seems to balance it out a bit better.  One less viable defense against a fighter isn't going to hurt the wizard, especially at the cost of three feats.3.) Spellcasting classes basically have the upper hand in the game as far as power goes.  Allowing a fighter to deal with a second level spell with a three feat combination doesn't seem too overpowered.  Not every fighter will have Great Cleave, and mirror image is still a viable tactic for the wizard, along with his huge list of others.Now I ask the opposite:  Why is it so important that this one second level spell of the wizard's has no good counter for the fighter?  Why is it more fun to allow the wizard near complete protection from the fighter's attacks than a chance for the fighter to hit the wizard?  How does one second level spell having a counter to it that you'd rarely run across ruin the fun for the wizard, when he has hordes of other options at his fingertips?  You seem to have a pro-wizard bias  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />.By the way, I do have a pro-fighter bias. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />  I enjoy playing fighter classes more than spellcasting classes, though I've played both.  However, I do like that the spellcasting classes are the more powerful than the fighters at higher levels, I want my Gandalf's and Sauron's to be all powerful.  Adds to the fantasy feeling of the game for me.</blockquote>

Verification