Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LuYangShih" data-source="post: 691365" data-attributes="member: 10414">I haven't read the entire thread yet, so if this was already brought up, too bad.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; Why the hell should a Wizard do as much damage as a Fighter?&nbsp; The entire PURPOSE of the Fighter is to be the best at combat.Wizards already have massive utility purposes a Fighter could never hope to match, a better main statistic, way better skill list and amount of skill points, AND extreme power in combat.&nbsp; And you want them to do MORE?!&nbsp; I don't get the argument that Haste is neccessary for damage based Wizards to succeed, either.&nbsp; From what I've seen of Wizards in my campaign, they use Haste, and then use two save or die spells.&nbsp;&nbsp; Furthermore, Wizards SHOULDN'T be able to equal or surprass the damage a Fighter does.&nbsp; I already think they're too effective in that area, as they can still blow away large groups more effectively than a Fighter, AND take out the big enemies with save or die spells, thus making more useful in the other area of combat as well.Fighters should be the absolute best in combat output and capability, because frankly, they don't have anything else.&nbsp; Watch a campaign in which the hack'n'slash isn't constant, and the Fighters weaknesses really start to come out.&nbsp; Even in a pure hack'n'slash game, Fighters aren't really any more impressive than most Wizards and especially most Clerics.&nbsp; I find it extremely irritating that people complain about Wizards not being able to do as much damage as Fighters when they have so many other useful/cool things they can do a Fighter can't even come close to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LuYangShih, post: 691365, member: 10414"] I haven't read the entire thread yet, so if this was already brought up, too bad. ;) Why the hell should a Wizard do as much damage as a Fighter? The entire PURPOSE of the Fighter is to be the best at combat. Wizards already have massive utility purposes a Fighter could never hope to match, a better main statistic, way better skill list and amount of skill points, AND extreme power in combat. And you want them to do MORE?! I don't get the argument that Haste is neccessary for damage based Wizards to succeed, either. From what I've seen of Wizards in my campaign, they use Haste, and then use two save or die spells. Furthermore, Wizards SHOULDN'T be able to equal or surprass the damage a Fighter does. I already think they're too effective in that area, as they can still blow away large groups more effectively than a Fighter, AND take out the big enemies with save or die spells, thus making more useful in the other area of combat as well. Fighters should be the absolute best in combat output and capability, because frankly, they don't have anything else. Watch a campaign in which the hack'n'slash isn't constant, and the Fighters weaknesses really start to come out. Even in a pure hack'n'slash game, Fighters aren't really any more impressive than most Wizards and especially most Clerics. I find it extremely irritating that people complain about Wizards not being able to do as much damage as Fighters when they have so many other useful/cool things they can do a Fighter can't even come close to. [/QUOTE]

Verification