Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Son of the Serpent" data-source="post: 7964388" data-attributes="member: 7015476">The team player thing is also irelevant.&nbsp; The wizard isnt gobbling up the rogues role and hogging the spotlight in this example.What is actually happening is the wizard is providing a better rogue for the party than a rogue wouod be and IS NOT being a wizard.&nbsp; It doesnt even make sense to make a comment about &quot;team playing&quot;.&nbsp; The person who makes such a comment is clearly blind to the fact that this is one of the BEST examples of team playing directly as what ive laid out is a wizard who has entirely sacrificed their capacity to be a good wizard to INSTEAD be a rogue.&nbsp; One could say the party basically has a rogue but not a wizard.&nbsp; Its an example of how your role in the party is not what your character sheet says in the &quot;class&quot; box.&nbsp; The wizard hasnt taken over the spot light.&nbsp; Hes not even being a wizard.&nbsp; If we are being realistic we would realize that means if the party needs a wizard then they will need a different player to do that.&nbsp; There is no point in paintingnthe hypothetical player as being monopolistic.&nbsp; Thats an absurd comparison.Tbh, i really think that unless someone min maxes the heck out of a rogue, then a couple of creative and skillful tweaks as well as decent spell choice in fact does create a wizard that causes rogue obsolescence WITHOUT minmaxing the wizard.&nbsp; But its going to play like a magical rogue because the skill and feat selections as well as spells will basically be a list of what a rogue would steal from a candy shop (where the candy is class building mechanics) if he couod grab whatever he wanted.There is only one area the rogue is a better rogue in than a wizard who builds everything around being a rogue.&nbsp; Skills.&nbsp; Rogues can absolutely have a greater skill pool.&nbsp; Thats it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Son of the Serpent, post: 7964388, member: 7015476"] The team player thing is also irelevant. The wizard isnt gobbling up the rogues role and hogging the spotlight in this example. What is actually happening is the wizard is providing a better rogue for the party than a rogue wouod be and IS NOT being a wizard. It doesnt even make sense to make a comment about "team playing". The person who makes such a comment is clearly blind to the fact that this is one of the BEST examples of team playing directly as what ive laid out is a wizard who has entirely sacrificed their capacity to be a good wizard to INSTEAD be a rogue. One could say the party basically has a rogue but not a wizard. Its an example of how your role in the party is not what your character sheet says in the "class" box. The wizard hasnt taken over the spot light. Hes not even being a wizard. If we are being realistic we would realize that means if the party needs a wizard then they will need a different player to do that. There is no point in paintingnthe hypothetical player as being monopolistic. Thats an absurd comparison. Tbh, i really think that unless someone min maxes the heck out of a rogue, then a couple of creative and skillful tweaks as well as decent spell choice in fact does create a wizard that causes rogue obsolescence WITHOUT minmaxing the wizard. But its going to play like a magical rogue because the skill and feat selections as well as spells will basically be a list of what a rogue would steal from a candy shop (where the candy is class building mechanics) if he couod grab whatever he wanted. There is only one area the rogue is a better rogue in than a wizard who builds everything around being a rogue. Skills. Rogues can absolutely have a greater skill pool. Thats it. [/QUOTE]

Verification