Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NerfedWizard" data-source="post: 4574021" data-attributes="member: 68865">(And both love arguing as you can see.) So basically, if it's pure D&D 3.5, I won't play wizards because clerics make them look like total losers, and I won't play armoured wizards because clerics make them look like total losers. I did try playing wizards and sorcerers for a very long time but in the end the power difference was too much to stomach in what was quite frankly a hack and slash game. If it's a homebrew variant where clerics and druids are totally and utterly nerfed, I would happily play a wizard, or indeed an armoured wizard, as per current D&D 3.5 rules. They're not useless in a party of fighters, rangers and rogues - it's only when the cleric comes along, or a druid, that you suddenly realise that there is someone else in the party who can do absolutely everything that the wizard can do - better than the wizard can do it - and has tons of other stuff as well. The only reason clerics do not totally break the game is that they are usually positive plane-aligned and are forced into acting as healers for the party. But that is BORING. BORING BORING BORING. So, that leaves negative plane-aligned clerics, and they're OK. If I were to debate savage species, the complete wizard etc. we would be here all year but reach the same conclusion so let's not even start that discussion! Anyone else got any literary references for armoured wizards???</blockquote>