Melee don't have to depend on skills to do damage is straightforward to use. Casters depend on their skills and each skill is situational, I.e. You have to watch for elemental affinity, terrain, etc. but seriously, if you think mages are overpowered then make a party of mages, the game lets you I promise
Thank you for supporting my (and OP's) point. The spellcaster's toolbelt is large and varied and always has a tool for the job. Melee's basically get a hammer and must treat every monster as a nail, regardless of how effective that is.
Nonsense. You can just as easily invest a little into either magic, scoundrel or expert marksman to broaden the available tools for a warrior.
Originally Posted by Haleseen
Don't warriors always suck in games mostly anyways? Even in dungeons and dragons they suck. They might be all cool at the start, but once the mage gains a few levels, it's all over. (Esp w/a fighter/mage).
Try your fancy warrior shit when you're being assaulted by a hasted dual wielding whirlwind of death.
But anyways, I had a dream about this thread. Basically, your mage isn't going to do shit against those big multi-boss encounters. You'll be glad that you have a melee tank in the fight, preferably a paladin (aka, healing/buffing/warrior).
Plenty of games in which mages weren't great and warriors were top. Also most of the time these "facts" are getting blown out of proportion so much it is not funny anymore.
