Wednesday, September 5, 2012, 6:46 PM
I'm not as active as many on the forums and comments, but what little I've chimed in with, it may be obvious that I play mostly wizards and sorcerers. Well, I've played two sorcerers and many wizards, (as a point of fact I don't think sorcerer really deserves to be a seperate class, but that's not what I want to focus on tonight). In my experience the number of players who are chomping at the bit to play a wizard is small, and yet game designers seem to think that wizards are too cool, because they keep taking away from the wizards' power level. I for one have never had a campaign come to an end because my rogue and fighter playing friends thought my wizard-type was stealing all the glory. I personally feel the wizard's weakness was built into the system back in AD&D, but the one gift we mages were given in 3.x was the concentration check. I argue that wizard spells should stay "over-powered" but we just go back to the rule that if you get hit while casting the spell, it is lost period. These kinds of rules make players play a team of adventurers. If we are still using attacks of opportunity, then casting in a threatened square ALWAYS provokes such attacks, no concentration check, no casting defensively, you're done. I'm not a masochist, I swear. My logic is that this total lack of defense puts the wizard's offensive "power rating" into perspective, forces the wizard to rely on his or her allies who will in turn want some magic stuff once said wizard makes it to the proper level.