Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 1151748" data-attributes="member: 2011">Agreed.Not in my experience and probably not in reality. Most DMs I have played with have allowed non-Wizards adventures, modules, creature books, etc.But not non-Wizards books which mostly contain feats, spells, and PrCs.4 million+ people bought the 3E version of the Players Handbook.But I doubt Mongoose sold 50,000 copies of The Quintessential Fighter while WotC probably sold more than 500,000 copies of Sword &amp; Fist.Balance is a very difficult thing to judge and everyone judges it differently.I can make a case that Sorcerers are too powerful.I can also make a case that Sorcerers are too weak.Personally, I do not think Fighters are too wimpy at high level. I do think the clase is not versatile. But, some people either like that or are comfortable with that.Others are not.From my experience, however, Fighters do great at higher levels. It is all a matter of what the player wants out of the character. You want versatility? Do not pick a fighter. You want to kick butt in combat, even over many other combatant classes and PrCs, pick a fighter.Sure, people can come up with spell/feat/PrC/magic items combos that are uber. But if your DM is on the ball with this type of stuff, a normal fighter can do just as good if not better in combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 1151748, member: 2011"] Agreed. Not in my experience and probably not in reality. Most DMs I have played with have allowed non-Wizards adventures, modules, creature books, etc. But not non-Wizards books which mostly contain feats, spells, and PrCs. 4 million+ people bought the 3E version of the Players Handbook. But I doubt Mongoose sold 50,000 copies of The Quintessential Fighter while WotC probably sold more than 500,000 copies of Sword & Fist. Balance is a very difficult thing to judge and everyone judges it differently. I can make a case that Sorcerers are too powerful. I can also make a case that Sorcerers are too weak. Personally, I do not think Fighters are too wimpy at high level. I do think the clase is not versatile. But, some people either like that or are comfortable with that. Others are not. From my experience, however, Fighters do great at higher levels. It is all a matter of what the player wants out of the character. You want versatility? Do not pick a fighter. You want to kick butt in combat, even over many other combatant classes and PrCs, pick a fighter. Sure, people can come up with spell/feat/PrC/magic items combos that are uber. But if your DM is on the ball with this type of stuff, a normal fighter can do just as good if not better in combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification