Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6180493" data-attributes="member: 58197">There's a fundamental difference here. In combat, the unarmored, spell-less wizard is a very minor asset... but still an asset. The wizard may spend most of the fight dodging and shooting a crossbow, and do very little damage, but very little damage is better than no damage, and the wizard can also do things like stabilize dying PCs. If nothing else, s/he can soak up a whack or two that would otherwise have been aimed at the fighter. The wizard could be a liability if the fighter sacrifices effectiveness to protect him/her, but that's the fighter's choice, and in most cases the best way to protect the wizard is to take down the enemy ASAP. So the party's chances of victory are not lessened by the wizard's involvement.In a skill challenge, however, a PC with poor skills is an actual liability. The party's chances of success are lessened by that character's involvement. In fact, you don't even have to have poor skills to be a liability--you just have to have less skill than the most skilled PC in the group! The logical thing to do is to have all less-skilled PCs absent themselves if possible. The equivalent in combat would be if the fighter alone were more likely to win than the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue together.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 6180493, member: 58197"] There's a fundamental difference here. In combat, the unarmored, spell-less wizard is a very minor asset... but still an asset. The wizard may spend most of the fight dodging and shooting a crossbow, and do very little damage, but very little damage is better than no damage, and the wizard can also do things like stabilize dying PCs. If nothing else, s/he can soak up a whack or two that would otherwise have been aimed at the fighter. The wizard [I]could[/I] be a liability if the fighter sacrifices effectiveness to protect him/her, but that's the fighter's choice, and in most cases the best way to protect the wizard is to take down the enemy ASAP. So the party's chances of victory are not lessened by the wizard's involvement. In a skill challenge, however, a PC with poor skills is an actual liability. The party's chances of success [I]are[/I] lessened by that character's involvement. In fact, you don't even have to have poor skills to be a liability--you just have to have less skill than the most skilled PC in the group! The logical thing to do is to have all less-skilled PCs absent themselves if possible. The equivalent in combat would be if the fighter alone were [I]more likely to win[/I] than the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue together. [/QUOTE]

Verification