Difference between revisions of "Talk:Philosopher (3.5e Class)"
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
m (→Balance Point: I fail English forever) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I fail to see how this is Rogue level. Don't get me wrong, It's a great class. It's just that one has a hard time seeing how this is as useful as a Factotum or Warblade. It just seems more like Fighter level to me. {{unsigned|76.1.130.160}} | I fail to see how this is Rogue level. Don't get me wrong, It's a great class. It's just that one has a hard time seeing how this is as useful as a Factotum or Warblade. It just seems more like Fighter level to me. {{unsigned|76.1.130.160}} | ||
| − | :Full casting counts for a lot. I was actually about to suggest that it instead be Wizard-level, but the high number of divination spells (which, while useful in certain wizard-level games that allow scry-and-die tactics, are rarely direct wizard-level effects). I would put it on a similar pedastal as the warmage, which is a comfortably Rogue-level full caster. It also has a significantly | + | :Full casting counts for a lot. I was actually about to suggest that it instead be Wizard-level, but the high number of divination spells (which, while useful in certain wizard-level games that allow scry-and-die tactics, are rarely direct wizard-level effects). I would put it on a similar pedastal as the warmage, which is a comfortably Rogue-level full caster. It also has a significantly higher number of class features than the warmage, although most of them appear intended to complement casting or exist for flavor. I think Rogue-level is a fair assessment. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 01:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
::Makes sense. Thanks for taking time to explain that! --[[Special:Contributions/76.1.130.160|76.1.130.160]] 03:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC) | ::Makes sense. Thanks for taking time to explain that! --[[Special:Contributions/76.1.130.160|76.1.130.160]] 03:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:39, 6 March 2011
Balance Point
I fail to see how this is Rogue level. Don't get me wrong, It's a great class. It's just that one has a hard time seeing how this is as useful as a Factotum or Warblade. It just seems more like Fighter level to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.130.160 (talk • contribs) at
- Full casting counts for a lot. I was actually about to suggest that it instead be Wizard-level, but the high number of divination spells (which, while useful in certain wizard-level games that allow scry-and-die tactics, are rarely direct wizard-level effects). I would put it on a similar pedastal as the warmage, which is a comfortably Rogue-level full caster. It also has a significantly higher number of class features than the warmage, although most of them appear intended to complement casting or exist for flavor. I think Rogue-level is a fair assessment. - TG Cid 01:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Thanks for taking time to explain that! --76.1.130.160 03:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
