Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg
I think wizards in TFT are quite powerful, but are a challenge to figure out how to use that power well and stay live. I think a lot of TFT is that way - it's possible to survive years of combat, even as a wizard - it just takes a lot of figuring out how to get a decent chance to do it, and then also luck, good allies, circumstances, etc. That for me is what the game is about - trying to actually succeed despite all the dangerous parts.
[snip]
As long as you let people switch to Dodge if they haven't acted and someone throws a fireball at them, I tend to think it's usually fair enough.
|
Heartily agreeing with Skarg, challenge equates to fun. And certainly not every group has been unhappy over the misfortunes of its wizards.
What's a good ratio of wizard PCs to see survive in proportion to all other PCs? Again that's totally subjective, and will vary from group to group even when following identical rules. If I'm calling wizards weak, it's only because in my experience, if a party of 10 starting characters set out, 7 heroes and 3 wizards, the survivors at the end of the day would normally be 4 heroes and
at best 1 wizard.
The high mortality rate is surely what gives TFT its edge, and an
overall mortality rate near 50% is I think a good thing. But a mortality rate of 43% for heroes and 67% for wizards (that's what the preceding example works out to) doesn't seem to be the intention of the game.
Now maybe the three GMs in my group (I was one) were just bloodthirsty and had it in for wizards. What is this thing called "attribute bloat" I keep hearing about? :) We never had that problem with fighters and thieves, let alone with wizards!!! Our wizards barely lasted long enough to earn 300 XP. Was that all on us, or did the rules have something to do with it?
And ditto on that more liberal use of Dodge, btw.