Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6249429" data-attributes="member: 2656">Though I found the spell disruption rules as written, used adversarialy by the DM, could make wizards all but unplayable. Given fighters didn't have a defender mechanic, outside of a bottleneck defense, there was no way within the rules for melee PCs to pin down enemies and actually defend the squishies. In practice it seemed to come down to a &quot;gentleman's agreement&quot; where the players made an effort to defend the squishies, and the squishies weren't pursued and hacked down as literal wargaming tactics&nbsp; might seem to dictate.Where this wasn't the case, I saw campaigns where few or no wizards survived, maybe the occasional fighter mage.I strongly prefer practical and transparent rules to rules that are applied situationally due to their brutality. I hated having to question DMs in 1e and 2e days to try and deduce whether wizards were worth playing in that campaign or a waste of my time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aenghus, post: 6249429, member: 2656"] Though I found the spell disruption rules as written, used adversarialy by the DM, could make wizards all but unplayable. Given fighters didn't have a defender mechanic, outside of a bottleneck defense, there was no way within the rules for melee PCs to pin down enemies and actually defend the squishies. In practice it seemed to come down to a "gentleman's agreement" where the players made an effort to defend the squishies, and the squishies weren't pursued and hacked down as literal wargaming tactics might seem to dictate. Where this wasn't the case, I saw campaigns where few or no wizards survived, maybe the occasional fighter mage. I strongly prefer practical and transparent rules to rules that are applied situationally due to their brutality. I hated having to question DMs in 1e and 2e days to try and deduce whether wizards were worth playing in that campaign or a waste of my time. [/QUOTE]

Verification