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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DreamChaser" data-source="post: 4505179" data-attributes="member: 1190">I agree with you completely...which I think is why rogue and fighter (which were not previously unbalanced) did not get "neutered"Wizards  were (especially by the end of 3.5) able to do anything, at any time, in any situation better than any class. Even those that specialize in those things that specialize in that role.There was **no** way of preserving what Wizards became in 3e and pretend any level of balance IMO. This basic idea is why illusionist, sorcerer, and necromancer will be out later to fill the key roles that were pulled out of the wizard class in the process if moving into 4e.Additionally, having recently played a cleric, a bard, and an archivist, I can honestly say that the cleric's were great fighters who never got to fight because they were always healing. Bards just plain sucked (I didn't used to believe this but then I tried to play one at levels above 7...it sucked). The archivist was worse than the cleric. He wasn't even a good fighter (except that I took a bunch of shapechanger powers so during every combat I turned into a Bullette).Essentially, the buffster/ healer role needed an overhaul.As a first round of powers (comparing 4 months of 4e to 8 years of 3e), it is natural that the designers focused on evocation. Not only are those most fun for a huge portion of gamers, they are the easiest to get your head around as you learn a new system.In short, I think that neither cleric nor wizard needs help to feel more like they used to...clerics had the illusion of option and wizards had simply way way way too many options.DC</blockquote>

Verification