Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 4359306" data-attributes="member: 5834">reYou sound like another guy who hasn't played high level DnD. Dragons, demons, other wizards, priests, arcane hybrids, half-fiend melee combos, devils, angels, and numerous other high CR creatures that could take a wizard out one on one. And they can fly or use magic on their own so that the wizard is on his own.Sorry, it is very easy to give the wizard a run for his money. And there aren't many monsters that can give the melee a good run for his money with a priest backing him. That's why I said the majority of you complaining about wizards must not have had very good priests.A priest and melee class together was a nightmare for just about any being to deal with. Enormous physical damage, high hit points, and a priest to keep them healed and buffed to the point where they were able to compete.You didn't play with one, if you did, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.Most high level creatures have SR and enormous saves. If I was running an NPC party, I gave them a priest. Design the parties for maximum interaction, just like the PCs are designed. There is no reason whatsoever to design groups like they do in modules, which was just ignorant on the part of module designers.A major flaw of 3E was making equal level characters an equal level challenge. That was utterly stupid. A lvl 6 wizard was not a CR 6 monster.See above. I'll just reiterate that a good priest made melees god-like and nearly invincible. They could make any wizard run out of spells.As I said, there were some serious design flaws in the 3E monsters. They corrected some of those in 3.5. They never did get around to correcting classed NPC CRs. Since I understood how the game worked, I took it upon myself to do so.Melees strength was continuous unlimited damage. This was a very powerful ability when coupled with a cleric.I truly doubt you played with a skilled priest to ask this question. Non-casters shouldn't be able to deal with certain enemies without the help of magic. That is what makes the classes have to work together.This might be nice. But I'll still miss the pleasure of playing a cleric. I liked helping my party win. If you played as a passive DM that didn't think much about the encounter, you are correct.I didn't. If my party went after the big bad, they had best win. Because they are getting harassed and not being allowed to rest. Or the enemy is going to get their spells ready too.I just didn't think the same way as other DMs. My thinking on encounters was to make a few really tough encounters with a ton of NPCs and monsters. I wanted the party to feel like they were in a war and had no time to rest or prepare or change tactics.Our campaigns were so harsh that we instituted a house rule that gave each player hero points. This allowed them to avoid certain death. You know what? People still died. Even with 1 hero point a level that can avert death.If you run standard modules, you will experience what you are talking about, even with just melees. There were plenty of overpowered melee combos as there are were overpowred caster combos. You certainly don't need a save or die spell when you're a melee doing well over a 100 points of damage a round.So don't give me this trash about melees being weak in 3.5. They weren't as versatile, but they did plenty of damage. Unless you were gimping your melees on magic items, then all those high level melees had stacked weapons with feats up to ying yang and did horrible damage that made a mage blush when they got into damage range.I had more melees kill my encounters just by winning initiative and getting a lucky crit than mages with save or dies.So I'm fairly happy that 4th edition reduced melee damage output as well as spell versatility. Melee damage output in 3.5 got out of hand at high levels just as much as magic did.When I say I miss the magic system, I'm talking about the versatility and the play/counterplay aspect of learning to be a good spellcaster that helped your other group.Well, I'm giving 4th edition a try. But I know for a fact it doesn't have the type of magic system I like. Neither did 3.5, but it was a whole lot closer to what I like than 4.0.</blockquote>

Verification