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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4722702" data-attributes="member: 80487">In older versions, Wizards were openly touted as among the most powerful types in the game. Whether that means fighters "don't matter" depends on how one plays the game.MUs really start to cramp fighters' style when they go from serving as the "artillery" to taking over the main battle-line role. Even then, a central factor in the equation is how important that is in the whole scheme of a campaign. To judge from posts in this thread, it has become overwhelmingly the central concern in 3E.In an old-style game, MUs tend to die like flies -- due in no small part to the machinations of rival MUs. Power draws power in opposition; "Pot that MU!" is a familiar cry from PCs and monsters alike. It's obviously easier to get high-level characters when one has less frequent need to start over by rolling up low-level ones. If one has multiple PCs in a campaign, that difference can be magnified: two Lords and their hosts may be able to beat one Wizard and his minions.That strategic aspect of play makes a difference! Fighters and Clerics get a leg up in recruiting men at arms. (The Cleric really gets an "assist" in establishing a stronghold, but at that point the Fighter is overtaking him in other ways.) "You and what army?" is a different kind of question when it has an answer, and not having an army of one's own can be inconvenient.(High-level fighters in older editions excel at cutting swathes through armies of normal men. MU spells harming multiple subjects tend to be "overkill" in that department, generally to a degree depending on depth of formation. They have a limited number of uses, taking considerable time to recover in AD&D. The combat power of fighters is more of an always-on, at-will effect. Shape Change is pretty awesome, but it does nothing to help an MU's hit points.)Availability of magic items is another factor changed in 3E, and along with others it seems to me to favor spell-casters. This may not be widely representative, but in my experience non-spell-casters as 3E PCs are extremely rare. A character might start as a fighting type, and remain that primarily, but nearly always would add some levels in a magical class along the way.That it's a role-playing game is something not to overlook. If the standard is raw power, then lower-level characters of any type "don't matter" when there are characters of 12th or higher level in the campaign. Non-humans and Thieves originated as clearly less powerful types in the long run, yet they appealed to many players. Likewise, the role of a fighting man is qualitatively different from that of a magician. The development of character and accumulation of biography over time are key elements of the game's appeal, and of the desire to play one persona over another.When one is stuck always playing a character in "THE Party," it's easy to get overshadowed. Referring to that video clip, the BMX Bandit's problem is that he's joined at the hip to the Angel Summoner. Conan the Cimmerian might not be so exciting either, if he were always tagging along with Pelias the sorcerer.The game in its larger shape changed, and more particular rules did not change quite in accordance (although the designers clearly devoted considerable thought to the new view of "balance").</blockquote>

Verification