Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mort" data-source="post: 4293300" data-attributes="member: 762">The problem with this argument is: 1) you are actively targeting a characters weaknesses - this works against any character not just the wizard; but2) unlike most melee classes, a spellcaster (and wizard particularly) can change what his weaknesses are. Depending on spell selection if he encountered something that exploited his weaknesses before he can, very easily plug those weaknesses up in the future. Plus with the introduction of ever more conjuration spells, spell resistance was rarely an issue.The last more than anything is what made 3e casters (the ones that could pick spells sorcerers  etc. not so much) more powerful class over the others.In practice any wizard paying attention can make it very, very hard for others to damage him - he can easily have a ridiculously high AC (especially if splat books are involved, though even without them) and descent HP (false life and empowered false life are vastly underestimated). Or forgetting that easily have a flat % miss chance (b/c it's flat it's usefull at all levels making it even more powerful in high level play) Further wizard mobility (with spells such as expeditious retreat, dimension door, and dimension hop etc (splat books) was unmatched.As for "limited resources" - you're completely discounting how easy scrolls were to make in 3e. Spells such as knock, comprehend languages, prying eyes etc. could be put on scrolls and rarely if ever needed to take up a wizards actual spell slots (yes this costs xp but it works out to a pittance compared to utility, this is even less an issue in 3.5 where experience was given at a higher rate if a character lagged in level).Sorry, I've both DM'd for and played mid-high level casters and the gap was just too wide.</blockquote>

Verification