Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 5813803" data-attributes="member: 48518">Sure. You can have a fighter hack down a door with his axe instead of the rogue picking the lock. Or the fighter battle a dozen orcs one by one, instead of the wizard fireballing them all in one shot. Those are situations where once class can do something less effeciently.There are also situations where one class might simply be unable to accomplish something. No one can raise a dead comrade except a cleric. No one can fly over the cliff except the wizard.I think one solution to making each class interesting is bringing back the glass canon approach to the wizard. They used to have way less hit points than the fighters. That was an interesting weakness. When you faced off against half a dozen opponents, you needed your martial characters to block the melee opponents and prevent them from reaching your casters. And you needed to reach their casters before they took out your key characters. That was great <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I like the counter-magic approach too. 3E invited that into the game, the spontaneous counterspelling. But it existed beforehand also, in non-spontaneous form: I recall in our 1E games, that our mages and clerics always had Dispel Magic spells handy and used them against static magical defenses (runes) but also in battle to remove conditions (hold person being pretty darn frequent), remove paralysis was another spell used super frequently in that respect. The point being, you can have magic be efficient, but if the opponents have ways to counter it, whereas the swordplay is pretty much unavoidable, like it was in previous editions pre-high levels, then the martial characters are very important to have for that reason also.</blockquote>

Verification