Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 3986756" data-attributes="member: 1757">Replace the D&amp;D wizard with the Scholar class from OGL Conan and a fighter *can* look as kick-ass as Conan.As is noted upthread, you need to change at least one of two variables in order to balance the fighter and wizard at high (&quot;paragon&quot; or &quot;epic&quot;) levels: 1) the abilities of spellcasters and/or 2) the abilities of fighters. The way I run it in my current game is to alter both: I play Iron Heroes (which features much stronger fighter-classes that are not dependent on items for their basic stats, defenses, and combat effectiveness) and use a homebrew wizard class that is (a) roughly on par with fighters in terms of combat effectiveness and (b) restricted as to &quot;I win&quot; abilities (flight, teleportation, instant bypassing of traps, etc.). It seems that 4e is adopting a similar rubric, and I for one am excited.As to the f/x discussion: It's also going on in the Bo9S thread on this board. To restate what I said there, I think that the specific flavor of F/X should be up to the DM (not everyone wants flying warriors who shoot bolts of flame from their swords), but I also note that an averred distaste for &quot;flashy&quot; or &quot;wuxia&quot; elements tends to be used as an excuse to nerf the fighter at higher levels. The context for high-level play really does need to shift to the mythic examples discussed herein, unless you nerf the other classes down to a fraction of their 3e power. You can't have your fighters looking like Conan unless your wizards look like Tsotha-Lanti: being able to use poisons skilfully, pulling off a couple of quasi-magical tricks, and throwing an exploding ball of fire or two (and those might be alchemical items as well), and certainly not being able to fly, teleport, summon powerful monsters as a combat action, turn invisible while attacking, protect oneself from normal weapons, or for that matter use more than one or two tricks in a combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ruleslawyer, post: 3986756, member: 1757"] Replace the D&D wizard with the Scholar class from OGL Conan and a fighter *can* look as kick-ass as Conan. As is noted upthread, you need to change at least one of two variables in order to balance the fighter and wizard at high ("paragon" or "epic") levels: 1) the abilities of spellcasters and/or 2) the abilities of fighters. The way I run it in my current game is to alter both: I play Iron Heroes (which features much stronger fighter-classes that are not dependent on items for their basic stats, defenses, and combat effectiveness) and use a homebrew wizard class that is (a) roughly on par with fighters in terms of combat effectiveness and (b) restricted as to "I win" abilities (flight, teleportation, instant bypassing of traps, etc.). It seems that 4e is adopting a similar rubric, and I for one am excited. As to the f/x discussion: It's also going on in the Bo9S thread on this board. To restate what I said there, I think that the specific flavor of F/X should be up to the DM (not everyone wants flying warriors who shoot bolts of flame from their swords), but I also note that an averred distaste for "flashy" or "wuxia" elements tends to be used as an excuse to nerf the fighter at higher levels. The context for high-level play really does need to shift to the mythic examples discussed herein, unless you nerf the other classes down to a fraction of their 3e power. You can't have your fighters looking like Conan unless your wizards look like Tsotha-Lanti: being able to use poisons skilfully, pulling off a couple of quasi-magical tricks, and throwing an exploding ball of fire or two (and those might be alchemical items as well), and certainly not being able to fly, teleport, summon powerful monsters as a combat action, turn invisible while attacking, protect oneself from normal weapons, or for that matter use more than one or two tricks in a combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification