means that dagger-users will be basically twiddling their thumbs and skipping turns waiting for characters who are effective for 100% of the fight to get things done.
What Dagger-Users will be doing is trying to do the best moves possible for their current position. No class is 100% effective for 100% of the fight...
In fact... Wizards have a distinct disadvantage in that they do low damage AND have to break through Magic HP on their own AND they do low damage to HP. They can deal physical damage through very select spells but those are abilities meant to negate their major weaknesses (which all classes have. Even Rogues have a skill made to allow them to deal serious damage even against an enemy's front)
The difference between the Rogue and Wizard is that the Wizard is ranged and the Rogue does significantly more damage in the back and once Armor HP is gone. Though they both have amazing CC abilities and rogues have more damaging "spells". (well among other things. Depending on what kind of wizard they are as well.)
Yet why is it that we don't consider he Wizard a "lesser class" for having the exact same weakness? Why are they considered 100% effective 100% of the time?
---
It is why I kind of want there to be "Magic weapons" (weapons that deal magic damage) even if they are of a disadvantage and "Physical spells". Sure they aren't as good as ordinary weapons and ordinary spells. Yet their ability to synergize with certain party combinations actually opens up the game.
Want your Wizard to start up their CC game sooner? Well get the warrior to equip the "Magic Ax".
Guy got a tiny but of armor HP left and it is the mage's turn? Well cast that sword rain.
