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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="On Puget Sound" data-source="post: 5753322" data-attributes="member: 68988">It sounds like, in every case where you have changed the rules, you have done so in a way that advantages stealthy ranged types, disadvantages heavy melee types, or both.  You have built a fighter-unfriendly game, in which the sensible thing is not to play a fighter.  This is very easy to do when houseruling - each individual ruling seems sensible and harmless, but the cumulative effect of your rules, your campaign, the way your NPCs react to things, and the party's tactics and composition has gradually evolved into a world where fighters tend to suck. <s> The original rules included some things that were put there specifically to prevent one type of character concept from dominating or being nerfed; you have removed those safeguards (e.g. attacks break stealth).</s>Assuming you don't want to unravel all those changes - after all, you made them for a reason - you should probably encourage this player to create a different character, and dissuade future players from choosing a low-mobility defender type.  <s>My suggestion would be a swordmage; it retains the defenderyness but adds a lot of mobility and a bit of range/ reach.</s>Edit - realized after re-reading the thread that I was replying from a 4e perspective.  3.5 does not embrace the notion that "all classes must be equally effective at all levels".  High level fighters in that system underperform even without houseruling, unless they take advantage of some of the character-building options that you've excluded, such as rogue or barbarian multiclassing, spiked chain tripmonkey build, or other shenanigans that break the image of the Wall of Metal that this player wants to play.</blockquote>

Verification