Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 5815503" data-attributes="member: 1879">Fair enough. I do disagree a bit though. A wizard has (or should have) abilities that a magic-less fighter simply cannot match. Scrying, flight, charm person, etc. He should pay for this by being less round-to-round effective in combat than the fighter is. It sounds like this is the way 5e is headed. Yes the wizard gets to throw a vancian trump card a couple of times a day with a fireball, but mostly he's using at-will feat spells that should be less painfull than a foot of steel to the face.Likewise the Paladin is a holy warrior. He has divine grace and holy powers. This should make him more effective than a fighter in specific circumstance like fighting demons or the undead. But against a bandit he should be at least a small notch behind the fighter if only becuase of all that time he spend kneeling in the chapel rather than training in the sallé.Ranger, to me, is looking more like a kit or whatever they're calling it in 5e than a distinct base class.Yeah, Aragorn had spells. Aragorn was also 80 years old. He had multiclassed.</blockquote>