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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5414019" data-attributes="member: 82106">I don't really see any evidence that wizards were ever intended to be a secondary striker. In fact generally building a wizard oriented towards damage output doesn't work out all that well. If you are well-versed in optimization and OK with playing a Genasi you can do a good job of it, but you can also make a passable defender out of a Barbarian or Ranger, but I wouldn't say they are secondarily defenders or should have defenderish features. It just means the system is flexible enough to let you bend things a decent amount.In general AoE classes are inherently not that well suited to being strikers anyway. Spreading a bunch of damage around amongst a lot of targets is almost always marginally inferior to just whaling on one guy at a time, unless you get such huge damage output that you're basically whaling on a whole lot of guys at once, at which point it is broken. The sorcerer pretty well illustrates THAT issue. Most sorcs (since the nerfs that got rid of their infinite action cheese etc) are not terrible strikers, but they tend not to be able to force a decisive move. Get into an encounter with a single solo and they just can't compete with a ranger or rogue. A 'striker wizard' pretty much suffers the same problem, except also lacks a bonus damage mechanic. You can go Blood Mage and get close at paragon but the strikers are still better at it. Now, look at the Ancient Soul based sorcerer and you see the flip side. With some DB optimization they are just preposterously powerful, and it is basically "I'm doing single target damage to lots of targets every round."</blockquote>

Verification