NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5364836" data-attributes="member: 15538">As I said, different characters have their strengths.There is a reason most wizards keep one or two D-doors in their back pocket. Otherwise, flying snatchers can be deadly. We are not in disagreement. Wizards are extremely powerful. In general, wizard > fighter, in most circumstances. However, I would definitely prefer a wizard and a fighter working together over two wizards. With a wizard backing him up, the fighter doesn't have to worry as much about adverse battlefield conditions or nasty spellcasting combos from monster casters; he is then able to demonstrate his capabilities fully.I believe the 3.5 fighter is underbuilt compared to most other classes. However, I also believe just as certainly that he is still the best *fighter*. To be truly irrelevant, a class has to be beatable at its own game. It's very difficult for a rogue or a paladin to say, "whatever comes our way, I'll find a way to damage it," but a fighter typically can. A cleric or wizard can hack most scenarios, but they can expend far fewer resources doing so if they can bring a fighter or barbarian to bear against hard-hitting opponents. Rogues don't really fight Large or Huge opponents so much as escape them, or finish them off once they have already been rendered ineffective due to grease/blindness/etc. A wizard and cleric team can bring down dragons, but missteps can be dangerous. It's much the same as the AD&D thief. It was a weaker class, but it was really better if you had one in your party. Fewer knock spells means more magic missiles, and that makes everyone happy.Wizards can summon monsters, but if they can buff the fighter, the result is better than either a summoned monster or an unbuffed fighter. See how that works?</blockquote>

Verification