Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6691837" data-attributes="member: 12731">You're shifting the subject. Of course the &quot;point of spell casters&quot; is to cast all those spells. What the point of spell casters is not, however, is being given a 2d10 cantrip when the martials routinely dish out 30 damage. Compared to an average fighter sporting AC 16-18 and dealing 1d10+5 damage with a longsword, a d10 cantrip looks reasonable. But why would you play an average fighter when you can play one dealing almost 50% more damage?And to arrive at the point: there is no way (that I have found) to boost spell damage by an comparable amount. Yes, a fireball catching a full squad of enemies without a single ally is still awesome, but that happens perhaps once.&nbsp; Out of a workday of perhaps thirty combat rounds.Don't read my posts as saying &quot;spellcasters are bad&quot;. Compared to feat-less fighters and non-optimized fighters I believe they work great.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 6691837, member: 12731"] You're shifting the subject. Of course the "point of spell casters" is to cast all those spells. What the point of spell casters is not, however, is being given a 2d10 cantrip when the martials routinely dish out 30 damage. Compared to an average fighter sporting AC 16-18 and dealing 1d10+5 damage with a longsword, a d10 cantrip looks reasonable. But why would you play an average fighter when you can play one dealing almost 50% more damage? And to arrive at the point: there is no way (that I have found) to boost spell damage by an comparable amount. Yes, a fireball catching a full squad of enemies without a single ally is still awesome, but that happens perhaps once. Out of a workday of perhaps thirty combat rounds. Don't read my posts as saying "spellcasters are bad". Compared to feat-less fighters and non-optimized fighters I believe they work great. [/QUOTE]

Verification