Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6669203" data-attributes="member: 1465">It didn't kill the Wizard because:(1) Nobody was ever given the access to such wide areas of capabilities through spells as the Wizard (except the Sorcerer, but who is always just a variant). The problem is that as wide as the set of Maneuvers you can design, they will always be mostly combat tricks. (2) If you tried to use the Wizard as a 'level-dipping class' you wouldn't keep up with higher level spells, so single-class Wizard remained a very good choice, with plenty of room for creating lots of totally different characters within the same class.(3) No other class was really a &quot;Wizard, plus something else&quot;, while Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin are often seen as &quot;Fighter, plus something else&quot;.There was one thing that killed the Wizard however, and that's prestige classes. At least in the sense that when they were available in a game, it was rare to see someone stay just a plain Wizard, exactly because prestige classes were always &quot;Wizard, plus something else&quot;.With the 3e Fighter the problem was, it was always more interesting to stop progressing and take another class, because anyway it didn't have anything unique to look for after Weapon Specialization.Yes I agree, this is something I even wrote feedback about during the playtest years, saying that WotC should have tried to use a regular structure for subclasses, i.e. have the subclasses of ALL classes start at level 3 and grant benefits at the same levels. This would have made it a lot more easier to swap or even mix'n'match subclasses between classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6669203, member: 1465"] It didn't kill the Wizard because: (1) Nobody was ever given the access to such wide areas of capabilities through spells as the Wizard (except the Sorcerer, but who is always just a variant). The problem is that as wide as the set of Maneuvers you can design, they will always be mostly combat tricks. (2) If you tried to use the Wizard as a 'level-dipping class' you wouldn't keep up with higher level spells, so single-class Wizard remained a very good choice, with plenty of room for creating lots of totally different characters within the same class. (3) No other class was really a "Wizard, plus something else", while Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin are often seen as "Fighter, plus something else". There was one thing that killed the Wizard however, and that's prestige classes. At least in the sense that when they were available in a game, it was rare to see someone stay just a plain Wizard, exactly because prestige classes were always "Wizard, plus something else". With the 3e Fighter the problem was, it was always more interesting to stop progressing and take another class, because anyway it didn't have anything unique to look for after Weapon Specialization. Yes I agree, this is something I even wrote feedback about during the playtest years, saying that WotC should have tried to use a regular structure for subclasses, i.e. have the subclasses of ALL classes start at level 3 and grant benefits at the same levels. This would have made it a lot more easier to swap or even mix'n'match subclasses between classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification