Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SimonMoon5" data-source="post: 662378" data-attributes="member: 5821">Well, I don't know about anyone else, but what I personally want is not for wizards to do more damage than fighters, but rather for them to be able to do damage that is not totally insignificant compared to a fighter. For example, take my examples of a fighter doing 160 points of damage a round, versus a wizard doing 12 points of damage (per individual in the area of effect) per round. Now, sure, great, the wizard may get lots of people in the area of effect... but if it's only 12 points, why bother? The fighter will be along in a little while to do 160 points.&nbsp; I must admit to being perplexed by all the people who apparently regularly fight armies of monsters that (1) can be taken down by that 12 points of damage, and (2) nevertheless pose a threat to the party somehow unless they are dealt with quickly by the wizard.The wizard's damage is just not even comparable. If the wizard could reliably do 1/4 the damage of the fighter, that would be better. Perhaps even 1/3 to 1/2. I'm not asking the wizard to do *more* damage than the fighter, or even as much . I just want the wizard's damage to not be inconsequential. And that's where Haste comes into the picture... or rather, leaves the picture in 3.5e.Sounds like the incantatrix and fighter-archer in the game I play. My incantatrix, however, has a level to go before getting Empower Spell (and the campaign's on hold for the moment).Yet, since the game does not (usually) involve the PCs fighting each other, I'm not sure how useful this comparison is. (On the other hand, my incantatrix has Wind Wall memorized... just in case. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SimonMoon5, post: 662378, member: 5821"] Well, I don't know about anyone else, but what I personally want is not for wizards to do more damage than fighters, but rather for them to be able to do damage that is not totally insignificant compared to a fighter. For example, take my examples of a fighter doing 160 points of damage a round, versus a wizard doing 12 points of damage (per individual in the area of effect) per round. Now, sure, great, the wizard may get lots of people in the area of effect... but if it's only 12 points, why bother? The fighter will be along in a little while to do 160 points. I must admit to being perplexed by all the people who apparently regularly fight armies of monsters that (1) can be taken down by that 12 points of damage, and (2) nevertheless pose a threat to the party somehow unless they are dealt with quickly by the wizard. The wizard's damage is just not even comparable. If the wizard could reliably do 1/4 the damage of the fighter, that would be better. Perhaps even 1/3 to 1/2. I'm not asking the wizard to do *more* damage than the fighter, or even [b] as much [/b]. I just want the wizard's damage to not be inconsequential. And that's where Haste comes into the picture... or rather, leaves the picture in 3.5e. Sounds like the incantatrix and fighter-archer in the game I play. My incantatrix, however, has a level to go before getting Empower Spell (and the campaign's on hold for the moment). Yet, since the game does not (usually) involve the PCs fighting each other, I'm not sure how useful this comparison is. (On the other hand, my incantatrix has Wind Wall memorized... just in case. :) ) [/QUOTE]

Verification