Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 5508005" data-attributes="member: 5834">reNot in campaigns where  a DM controls xp flow. I don't imagine you were in many campaigns of this kind where the DM did this kind of planning. In my campaigns my players were reluctant to expend xp to make magic items or expend it on spells because they would fall behind in levels. You know, like the 3.x system intended.I've already proved what I've said over twenty plus years of gaming. I can prove you wrong over and over and over again. I've done it as both a DM and player. Things are not as you claim they are, never have been, never will be.D&D is a team game. You are trying to boil it down to "wizards do everything because their overpowered and fighters can't do anything because the wizard ends the fight". My contention was never a prepared fighter can stand toe to toe with a prepared wizard. They can't.My contention is that fighters are an equally integral part of the game in the 3.x system.They are not overshadowed by wizards.The fighter does not need to be able to take on a wizard one on one for the game to be balanced. Doesn't need to be that way at all. In fact a fighter should not be able to take on  a wizard one on one. It is a common trope of fantasy that a wizard will generally be stronger than the fighter in a one on one situation.D&D is a group game in which multiple character types are expected to interact to make the whole is stronger than its parts.It is up to the DM to ensure that challenges take into account this group structure without letting one part overshadow the others.Is that your ignorant interpretation? I gave you real game examples of a wizard doing nothing useful while the fighter butchers what they're fighting.And I can show you examples of the wizard landing a spell to end a fight.And it could go on and on.3.x is balanced. Fighters and melee-types were a useful part of the game. My players enjoyed playing them.I see no reason why one class should be balanced against another in terms of one on one combat. Is that the only type of balance you're concerned with? I'm far more concerned about flavor and simulating the fantasy fiction I enjoy. I find 3.x does a far superior job of modeling fictional archetypes. I don't need a game system where the fighter is balanced in a one on one fight against the wizard. That would seem inappropriate to the fantasy genre.I don't play these games to have the wizard go one on one versus the warrior. I play these games to tell a story. I have never in all my years of DMing and play found a campaign where the fighter was not present.If as you say the fighter was vastly overshadowed by the wizard and didn't feel like an integral and exciting part of the game, then no one would play the class. That is the type of balance I'm looking for.</blockquote>

Verification