Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7027531" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, bows are nice but I can be invisible or take other measures. Not that any of that is totally sovereign against melee attacks, but its pretty good. Worst case I can get a shot at SODing your notional battlemaster into a goldfish or holding him, or petrifying him or a couple other options. The key to being a REALLY bad-assed wizard is, you never get into the situation where a fighter is in your grill. If you got there, you already failed. You have so many levers on a situation, there's just no need for that. The measure I often go by is to ask, "which is more potent, 5 wizards or one wizard, one cleric, one fighter, one rogue, and a ranger?" Well, at higher levels you'd almost always be a more powerful force as 5 wizards, or maybe arguably 3 wizards, a cleric, and a bard in 5e but certainly 5 full casters. The overall strategic and operational options available to that party means they simply won't often need a fighter type, and 5e really hasn't dealt much with the "a wizard can in a pinch obviate the need for a rogue". I'm not saying rogues, fighters, etc aren't fun to play or that they can't participate in a significant way in the game, THAT is reserved for 3.5, but if you really play with the full "what can I do with my magic to change the rules of the game in my favor?" kind of mentality, then casting is head-and-shoulders above swordplay.</blockquote>