Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4420177" data-attributes="member: 48965">I guess I just find it hard to believe that a character based around limited resources (mainly casters, and especially the wizard since he pre-selects spells) can &quot;dominate&quot; anothers area.&nbsp; This is how I see it, a wizard can only have so many knock spells or spider climb, or whatever and still have combat spells.&nbsp; If you, as a DM are making sure it's enough challenges&nbsp; for each player to shine in their perspective areas... then their will be enough problems where the wizard and rogue will get to do their thing.&nbsp; Or (if the wizard is combat focused) the wizard and fighter get to flex their combat shtick.&nbsp; Personally I think the casters can't cover every role all the time and this is what makes them balanced, if they take a broad grouping of spells this is especially true, and they risk not having the proper spell for the proper situation. It's funny you use this argument, as I've seen the exact opposite argued by proponents of 4e... that any skill is available to any character through use of a feat, and that you get so many feats it's not even a big deal to spend one or two on this anyway... so how does this protect or enforce niches outside of combat?&nbsp; For two feats (skill training and skill focus) my Wizard can now pick locks, pick pockets, disable traps and use sleight of hand as well as a thief, in fact this problem is amplified by the fact that skills are so broad now... the wizard is now as good as the rogue in everything related to thievery.I think your thoughts on bonuses and penalties do not take into consideration different defenses and/or differing damages and how those even out those bonuses, just my thoughts though.&nbsp;The Utility powers (at least at low level) are a joke as far as non-combat niches go since most are built to be used in combat.&nbsp; The only class that gets a fair amount with usage outside a combat situation is the Rogue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 4420177, member: 48965"] I guess I just find it hard to believe that a character based around limited resources (mainly casters, and especially the wizard since he pre-selects spells) can "dominate" anothers area. This is how I see it, a wizard can only have so many knock spells or spider climb, or whatever and still have combat spells. If you, as a DM are making sure it's enough challenges for each player to shine in their perspective areas... then their will be enough problems where the wizard and rogue will get to do their thing. Or (if the wizard is combat focused) the wizard and fighter get to flex their combat shtick. Personally I think the casters can't cover every role all the time and this is what makes them balanced, if they take a broad grouping of spells this is especially true, and they risk not having the proper spell for the proper situation. It's funny you use this argument, as I've seen the exact opposite argued by proponents of 4e... that any skill is available to any character through use of a feat, and that you get so many feats it's not even a big deal to spend one or two on this anyway... so how does this protect or enforce niches outside of combat? For two feats (skill training and skill focus) my Wizard can now pick locks, pick pockets, disable traps and use sleight of hand as well as a thief, in fact this problem is amplified by the fact that skills are so broad now... the wizard is now as good as the rogue in everything related to thievery. I think your thoughts on bonuses and penalties do not take into consideration different defenses and/or differing damages and how those even out those bonuses, just my thoughts though. The Utility powers (at least at low level) are a joke as far as non-combat niches go since most are built to be used in combat. The only class that gets a fair amount with usage outside a combat situation is the Rogue. [/QUOTE]

Verification