Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="haakon1" data-source="post: 8754352" data-attributes="member: 25619">Interesting.  I have a game history perspective on this.I haven’t played 5e beyond Tier I, but this same issue existed in all earlier editions: a strident “Wizards rule” assumption, when actual play doesn’t always seem that way.Where Wizards shine (speaking generally, across generations of editions) is crowd control/mass fighting and their many unique abilities.Where Fighters shine is in long strings of fight without rest … durability and not needing to recharge their abilities … which with Short Rest in 4e and 5e is not as big a deal.Even if Wizards rule (perhaps?), the game began as literally a wargame (Chainmail) with Heroes and Wizards added to regular units.  It never intentionally dissed or disliked Fighters.AD&D 1e assumed Fighter was the most common class (on various tables), and it balanced “Wizards rule” in two ways that were later dropped:1) XP tables were different by class.  It was easier than the default of Fighter to advance as a Thief (later Rogue), but harder as an Magic-User (later Wizard, Sorcerer, etc.). 2) Squishiness, lethality, and starting super weak, at level 1.  Tradition was, at least in groups I played with, every PC started at level 1.  For an MU, that meant 1d4 HP, AC10, and 1 spell a day.  An MU character survivor who reached 5th level - Fireball capable - was rare and celebrated.</blockquote>