Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 5273515" data-attributes="member: 7883">It could be....but, it was also a lesson to players in the group against making characters with glaring weaknesses just so they could maximize one or two main strengths....like focusing your scores on STR and CON, and dumping CHA and WIS.&nbsp; Well....there are consequences to that.....particularly if the DM limits the selection of magic items they have access to.Yes, in 3E, there were magic shops or merchants or whatever.&nbsp; But I didn't usually just go and make it like there was a Wal-Magic around the corner in the town.&nbsp; Yes, there might be a shop or arcanist with a few items they were willing to trade...but it wasn't a matter of saying &quot;open the DMG, figure out what you want, and tell me the cost, and you can buy it&quot;.&nbsp; I usually rolled up a spread of items that might be available, depending on the size of shop, reputation of the arcanist etc.&nbsp; That helps to avoid the problem of players stacking some scores while stripping others, then balancing the character out with magic items.Maybe I just wasn't a friendly DM for optimizers.To the main point, however, I *did* find that fighters were still viable options, even at high levels.&nbsp; Yeah, they could be vulnerable to charms etc.&nbsp; But they still chopped many spellcasters into chunks of meat........and in the party environment, they were still the ones who did a significant amount of damage to enemies, and kept the party's wizard and druid from being overwhelmed, so they would have enough time and space to use their own spells.&nbsp; By no means were they less important.Particularly when 3.5 altered so many spells like Hold Person etc. to allow new saves every round.&nbsp; Once that happened, in combination with the lower save DCs of 3.5, I didn't really see many opponents get affected by those spells long enough for them to have significant effects.Banshee</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Banshee16, post: 5273515, member: 7883"] It could be....but, it was also a lesson to players in the group against making characters with glaring weaknesses just so they could maximize one or two main strengths....like focusing your scores on STR and CON, and dumping CHA and WIS. Well....there are consequences to that.....particularly if the DM limits the selection of magic items they have access to. Yes, in 3E, there were magic shops or merchants or whatever. But I didn't usually just go and make it like there was a Wal-Magic around the corner in the town. Yes, there might be a shop or arcanist with a few items they were willing to trade...but it wasn't a matter of saying "open the DMG, figure out what you want, and tell me the cost, and you can buy it". I usually rolled up a spread of items that might be available, depending on the size of shop, reputation of the arcanist etc. That helps to avoid the problem of players stacking some scores while stripping others, then balancing the character out with magic items. Maybe I just wasn't a friendly DM for optimizers. To the main point, however, I *did* find that fighters were still viable options, even at high levels. Yeah, they could be vulnerable to charms etc. But they still chopped many spellcasters into chunks of meat........and in the party environment, they were still the ones who did a significant amount of damage to enemies, and kept the party's wizard and druid from being overwhelmed, so they would have enough time and space to use their own spells. By no means were they less important. Particularly when 3.5 altered so many spells like Hold Person etc. to allow new saves every round. Once that happened, in combination with the lower save DCs of 3.5, I didn't really see many opponents get affected by those spells long enough for them to have significant effects. Banshee [/QUOTE]

Verification