Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5845147" data-attributes="member: 2011">Precisely. Earlier versions of the game system tried to balance out the Fighter by giving him multiple attacks per round, and by giving him a much higher survivability. It didn't try to do it by having him Jump 60 feet into the air without magic.Wizards (and other spell casters) use magic. They can do non-realistic things. Fighters do not use magic. They should be limited to plausible things, at least in the core rules. But, they get other different advantages.One of the problems of D&D in general is that many players want their cake and eat it too. In 1E, a lot of players played multiclass Fighter/Wizards or multiclass Fighter/Cleric/Wizards so that they could do everything. But, those PCs were limited in armor and if XP was used correctly, they were lower level than their PC allies. They could do more, but they were second tier in many ways. But with the thrust for balance, the 3E version of the game turned into one of "every PC could a lot more than single class PCs, they just had to pick the right combinations of classes and feats and prestige classes". There is a big difference between splitting your XP between 2 or 3 classes, and being -1 to hit and a few defenses.Then suddenly, these players of combo classes complained when a different player stuck to his guns with a Wizard, or Cleric, or Druid and was outshining them at higher level. Let me see. Your PC was the best for 10 levels, now his PC is the best. And you find that not equitable?In all of the 1E through 3E games I've ever played in, it wasn't the players of the straight Fighters complaining about higher level Wizards and Druids and Clerics. It was the min-maxers multi-class players (especially in 3E) who wanted to be able to do everything who were complaining. The players of the straight Fighters realized that without them, the spell casters didn't have enough time to be able to blow away an encounter. Sure, the spell casters could do that, but it was rarely with a single spell. It often took a combination of spells and without those Fighters, those spell casters wouldn't survive.In fact, 3E is the edition that allowed spell casters to craft scrolls so easily as well, making Thieves a bit more obsolete. In earlier versions, there was a chance of failure and the rules indicated that the DM should force the player to go off and adventure to acquire the appropriate materials (special quills and inks). In 3E, most of that was blown off.IME, 3E is the edition that let the genie out of the bottle (feats, specifically metamagic feats, cheaper and more fine tuned multiclassing, easier magic item creation, haste and polymorph and greater invisibility) which 4E then tried to stuff back in with its balance rules. Spell Compendium had some extremely powerful and/or useful spells in it. In 1E/2E, spells could be disrupted with any damage. In 3E, a concentration check prevented that and a feat made it hard to miss that check. Plus the front line could not do opportunity attacks pre-3E. The game became one of making life easy for the spell casters, hence, they by default became more powerful. Pre-3E and post-3E, the game was a lot more balanced.Granted, other people might have different experiences.</blockquote>

Verification