Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6150873" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I don't disagree that the Wizard's spells provide him a significant level of flexibility.  That said, the Fighter has what, 11 bonus combat feats over 20 levels which allow him to have a pretty fair repertoire of combat tricks, even if he chooses to devote all of his general feats to other purposes.  The Wizard would end up with four metamagic or item creation feats by taking the same approach. Let's assume the Fighter takes Skill Focus: Diplomacy and Negotiator, augmenting his diplomacy score by +5, and invests in cross class ranks.  The wizard is equally able to devote cross-class ranks, but doesn't make the feat investment.  What's the Wizard's great answer to the Fighter's superior diplomatic skills?  He certainly has some spells, but magic is also subject to detection and dispelling.  If the wizard is all loaded up with negotiation magic and happens to have an unexpected combat encounter, what does he do?  The Fighter still has all his combat skills.  He can also influence any number of people with that Diplomacy - he doesn't run out of skill checks per day, nor does he need to rest for a day to move from being a diplomat to a warrior. Both pale in comparison to a Bard, or even a Cleric with a decent CHA and diplomacy and sense motive as class skills, but such characters are better geared for Diplomacy. Now, I agree completely that the 3rd Ed non-spellcaster classes merit more and better abilities.  I think Pathfinder does a good job enhancing them without making the other classes suffer (everyone gets more goodies; the classes that needed them most get more additions), although still not perfect.  It also levels the playing field between class and non-class skills a lot (+3 bonus rather than doubled costs and halved maximums makes a huge difference; Skill Focus can offset a Class skill, with an even bigger bonus with a significant investment in the skill), and provides a lot more options with its Archetype model. Even there, the Fighter's bennies are combat-focused - but that provides even more combat advantages, so he has lots of options in his field of expertise even if he chooses to direct some skill points and regular feats into a second area of expertise.  Does he have to give up some combat focus to be a diplomat and a leader?  Sure.  But, again, the game is about choices.  If you want to be the UberWarrrior, then devote all your character resources to being the UberWarrior - but that is all you will be.  If you want to be good at two, or three, things, you won't be as good at any of them as a character focused entirely on that one area - but you also will be quite useful in two or three areas, rather than exremely powerful in just one. If the wizard wants to wear armor and wield a greatsword, he will have to give up some wizardly prowess as well.  He, too, makes choices.  He won't be as great a caster, but he'll be much more useful in an anti-magic zone, or dealing with very spell-resistant opponents.  He can afford to focus more on casting, though - if he relies on his allies to deal with those challenges where he is not so potent, and is reduced to a support character.  Our Sorcerer felt pretty useless in a recent (fairly low level) encounter - the enemy was immune to her enchantments, resistant to her damaging spells and pretty hard to hit even with a mundane ranged attack (while flying).  But she could still use Mage Hand to manipulate a skull from the local "decor" in the enemy's face for an "aid another" effect at range.  Not the game-winner, but a definite boon to the group.  She had her moment to shine, when she was dropping Goblins with her Sleep spell - this time, others get to shine, but that doesn't mean she has to sit around bored, doing nothing.  It does mean the player may have to think outside the box.</blockquote>

Verification