Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mort" data-source="post: 4260957" data-attributes="member: 762">The rogue has to roll to pick a lock, it takes minutes unless he takes a significant minus to go quicker. Any lock a rogue can pick (and many he couldn't) a 3e wizard can open in 6 seconds with no chance of failure. Same goes for many utility spells, yes a rogue might be able to do it - but a wizard can do it as well or better and he can still do many things the rogue can't - this is bad design.or put another way, if a party has a wizard, a rogue isn't necessary, the player can pick another schtik that he wants.Sorry but nothing could dominate combat like an effective wizard or other effective spellcaster. it's not all about damage, it's mobility, battlefield control and just all around usefulness. This is one of those broad generalizations that doesn't hold true upon any examination; even from the limited playtests I've seen - 4e has more focus on mobility, tactics and other considerations that 3e ever did. Different classes have different roles and focuses in combat - but apparantly 4e makes the cardinal sin (to some people) to dare to make other classes as effective as the wizard and cleric.</blockquote>