Community

Mournblade94 wrote:

I have seen fighters defeat wizards of equal level at least half the time so I see no problem.

I was not on these boards before 4e, but I never heard a complaint about wizards being overpowered UNTIL 4e news was released. I like the wizard as they were. I think some how the developers are retro hypnotizing us into believing we all thought wizards were overpowered all along.

I've seen it. Hell, as a DM I did it on accident, nearly owning the crap out of a 4 man group of 20th level characters. I took out half the party with one shot thanks to a giant fireball and used Celerity and Time Stop before I realized the only thing keeping the players alive was that I didn't want to kill them.

That was before I came here and learned even nastier tricks. And yes, there are nastier tricks. Casters can devastate noncasters in really sick, sick ways.

Something I thought of: In a low level game I was playing in (as in, started at level 1), the Wizard was also the most powerful member of the party thanks to her ability to use Color Spray. She would end most encounters as soon as they began thanks to that spell. My Warblade couldn't always hit the Orcs (damn dice), but she could wipe out a lot of people easy.

Class balance at all levels of play exists for ultimately for one reason:

Fun. :D

By establishing an even of spectrum of "fairness" between classes of the same relative level, a more pleasurable gaming experience OVERALL is more or less ensured. Tabletop RPGs are games that revolve around a cooperative group effort (emphasis on the word group).

If one is only playing a wizard so that his or her character is mechanically superior to the other party members, then perhaps s/he is playing D&D for all the wrong reasons.

Furthermore, a high-level fighter can be just as dramatically compelling and combatively formidable as a high-level wizard. That is, at least, in a balanced system.

PS. 80% of all my D&D characters have been wizards- and not just arcane spellcasters, but wizards.

OrlannWands wrote:

Class balance at all levels of play exists for ultimately for one reason:

Fun. :D

By establishing an even of spectrum of "fairness" between classes of the same relative level, a more pleasurable gaming experience OVERALL is more or less ensured. Tabletop RPGs are games that revolve around a cooperative group effort (emphasis on the word group).

If one is only playing a wizard so that his or her character is mechanically superior to the other party members, then perhaps s/he is playing D&D for all the wrong reasons.

Furthermore, a high-level fighter can be just as dramatically compelling and combatively formidable as a high-level wizard. That is, at least, in a balanced system.

PS. 80% of all my D&D characters have been wizards- and not just arcane spellcasters, but wizards.

But also.. all class should play diffrently, sometimes vastly different, and not just roles diffrent either.

The all powerful wizard, like gandalf, is really not a pc, rather an npc or such. Much like an angel etc. A player wanting to play one is a bit out there. It would be better for all if the player played a more normal wizard

But doesn't Cloudkill also move 10ft away from ye? Then it again it spreads, which I assume just meaning it keeps getting bigger and bigger? I know it says 20ft, but will it continiously get bigger? covering like a 100ft area soon enough? Heres the link from the SRD: Cloudkill

Anyway, Wizards indeed should be mighty, but not so where the fighter could never beat them, or where in the party, the Fighter is replaced, as said for many a reasons.

Such as in Dragonquest (namely the 8th will do) video game series, the spellcasters in those games were useful, yet the warrior types still had their uses in the game as well. Even in 8th, the warrior types were balanced well with the spellcasters, they could do the equivalent, or I believe more damage than the spellcasters could do.

Although not the best, or even a good example, still says that spellcasters are not always the uber, the best of everyone.