NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MarauderX" data-source="post: 910529" data-attributes="member: 9990">I don't like the idea of having the casters reined in from doing extraordinary things, and having a pure arcane caster seems more of a limitation in 3E throughout all levels than just having a pure cleric.  I hate it when even the power gamers won't take a wizard or sorcerer at low levels because they know there is no firepower there, and if I DM a game anytime soon I will change things to make it more balanced towards casters.I used to play OD&D waaay back when, and keeping the game balance was rather difficult for casters at high levels, but they paid for it at the lower levels with minimal spells, little damage, and basically no versitility.  I think it even said something to that effect in the old red basic set.  When I first read through 3E, I was kinda stunned at how much power there was, and was glad the monsters were also well defined to offset the new feats and skills that the PCs now had.  In play, I was surprised to see players starting at 1st lvl had already mapped out their PCs for the next 10 levels, and had the PrC requirements figured out to get there the quickest.  It made perfect sense to max out everything as soon as you can, but was sad, and I realized that unless you did so, you were inferior to your fellow players, and they expected you to max out or else you became the weakest link.  That weakest link has always seemed to be the casters in each campaign I have been in.  I could go into detail about how I have seen character development and abilities of the wizard vs. every other class, but there is no need here.  IMO, the wizards needed help in pumping to 3.5, but we can only wait and see what the actual results are.</blockquote>

Verification