Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 6830334" data-attributes="member: 53980">Apologies if this is retreading something that's been discussed. I wrote it this morning but was unable to post it.I don't think they're best served playing a fighter or rogue if what they want to play is a magic-user.You realize that 7 out of 20 non-magical options is about the same as AD&D, right? Let's take a look at the 2e PHB (because it's sitting next to me). Non-magic includes the Fighter, and Thief. Magical options include the Paladin, Ranger, the Mage (I won't count the specialists), Cleric (I won't count specialty priests), Druid, and Bard. So you have 2 non-magical options versus 6 magical options. Proportionally, that's almost exactly the same.I disagree. That's like saying that MMA isn't impressive unless you throw a 90-lb-weakling into the ring for the fighters to beat on, so that they can demonstrate their baseline competency. Clearly that isn't the case.Fighter types, like all the other classes, can see their improvement in their opponents. If at level 3 you faced a pair of ogres and it was a hard fight, but at level 5 you fight three ogres and it's an easy fight, then you have obviously improved. You don't need the wizard to take the role of the goofy side kick just so that you can feel powerful. 5e expects you to reuse low CR monsters at higher levels. Keeping those creatures relevant is a key part of bounded accuracy.While there's nothing wrong with wanting to play a high strength wizard, expecting everyone to do so kind of goes against genre don't you think? A classic wizard archetype is the clumsy weakling who wields great magical power.I've played both a wizard and an arcane trickster rogue in 5e, and those characters have frequently done things using mundane methods. Magic is not the answer to everything in 5e. Just for starters, your known/prepared spells are limited, so you can't possibly have the solution to every problem in your bag of tricks. You have to be selective.</blockquote>

Verification