Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 5508038" data-attributes="member: 5834">Since 90% of D&amp;D experience is based on how much damage you can do aka killing things, never really came up.If some skill-based or trap challenge came up, usually they left it to rogue.If someone required magic, they left it to the wizard.Same with cleric.I'll reiterate. D&amp;D is a team game. So whichever class had something to use to shine with, they were allowed to do it.And the fighter shined butchering things. He did that a whole lot.I was never in these games like Professor Cirno speaks of where the wizard always had the right spell, always had hours to scry and tons of rounds to buff, and was able to buff himself up into a melee monster while maintaing the spell diversity to handle other types of problems at the same time.In my campaigns, spell slots were limited. We did not always know what we're fighting. The BBEGs plotted agianst us including using their own wizardly power and what not. The enemy encounters were designed to challenge our specific group whether that group was made up of one of each class, four wizards, four fighters, a single wizard, or a single fighter.Any system is only as good as the DM running it, even 4E. I DMed 4E. My players tore that system up too with their group tactics same as 3E and 2E and 1E. I prefer the 3.x system because it best fits my narrative style and my opinion of what D&amp;D is, not because it is an inherently better system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celtavian, post: 5508038, member: 5834"] Since 90% of D&D experience is based on how much damage you can do aka killing things, never really came up. If some skill-based or trap challenge came up, usually they left it to rogue. If someone required magic, they left it to the wizard. Same with cleric. I'll reiterate. D&D is a team game. So whichever class had something to use to shine with, they were allowed to do it. And the fighter shined butchering things. He did that a whole lot. I was never in these games like Professor Cirno speaks of where the wizard always had the right spell, always had hours to scry and tons of rounds to buff, and was able to buff himself up into a melee monster while maintaing the spell diversity to handle other types of problems at the same time. In my campaigns, spell slots were limited. We did not always know what we're fighting. The BBEGs plotted agianst us including using their own wizardly power and what not. The enemy encounters were designed to challenge our specific group whether that group was made up of one of each class, four wizards, four fighters, a single wizard, or a single fighter. Any system is only as good as the DM running it, even 4E. I DMed 4E. My players tore that system up too with their group tactics same as 3E and 2E and 1E. I prefer the 3.x system because it best fits my narrative style and my opinion of what D&D is, not because it is an inherently better system. [/QUOTE]

Verification