Which is more vital to the party?

Which would you consider more vital to the party?

  • A tactically well-played wizard.

    Votes: 45 16.4%
  • A tactically well-played cleric.

    Votes: 131 47.8%
  • Neither. A party can do just fine without 'em!

    Votes: 48 17.5%
  • Both. You're screwed, man.

    Votes: 50 18.2%

Lord Pendragon said:
Like our DM nyrfherdr mentioned, the player relationships are complicated, but saying the player doesn't (quite) get playing a wizard is a fair claim. However, that doesn't really mean anything. I'm not trying to change the players. I don't want to, and I don't think I have a right to. I offer both of them advice when they ask, and sometimes make a friendly suggestion. But I am very careful not to try and play their characters for them. They don't deserve that.

That's actually the point of this thread. I'm considering picking up a cohort to shore up a tactical weakness without trying to "train" the players in question. It's a game, I don't plan to berate their playing, or make them feel like they are playing the "wrong" way. ;)

I'm not suggesting that you do any of that. I AM suggesting that you find out WHY the player has chosen to ignore this wizards-wet-dream of an offer!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Remove ads

Top