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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4238555" data-attributes="member: 710">I worried a bit about the same, especially if I wanted to take the position of a newbie not familiar with D&D or possibly roleplaying at all. Playing a Fighter is pretty simple... off course, I think that actually is not true in 3E. At higher levels, he might be ineffective, but that's hardly good for a newbie. 3E introduced a level of tactical complexity into the game that I haven't seen in many others. Combat Maneuver, complex spells, and similar aspects all require tactical understanding. Even a Fighter is not excluded from this.And if I look at the Fighters I enjoyed most - they were usually build around using special combat tactics (the most successful one was a Fighter specializing in all kinds of combat maneuvers, typically ending up with trip as the most useful). In short, I think that the complexity of each class isn't that different.The difference lies in fact more in what you do - as a Fighter, you hold off enemies (possibly so that the Cleric can buff himself or the Wizard can cast his best spells), and coordinate with other melee combattants for flanks. And typically (not a given in 3E, but common) you fight in melee.As a Wizard, you usually fight from range. And you strike multiple targets, and use "non-evocations" to weaken your enemies or buff your allies. I think that's why the design time ultimiately decided to give every class a "spellcasting-like" ability progression, but define the 4 roles. Because these exemplify the differences the classes best. How often you can use an ability is less important then what kind of abilities you have.Off course, that's my opinion, and your experience might be different.</blockquote>

Verification