Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Votan" data-source="post: 5526390" data-attributes="member: 18680">I should also point out that the 3E fighter is an odd creature.&nbsp; I find the Paladin and Ranger less of an issue at high levels than the Fighter as they can both fulfill their archetypes better.&nbsp; I never did enjoy the weak will saves of the core martial classes (with the notable exception of Paladins) but I can easily imagine games in which it never really came up.&nbsp; In my first 3.5 E game I used a lot of vampires (DC 13 domination) so it appeared like a massive flaw in class design.&nbsp; But that could also have been a poorly chosen type of opponent.I did find, in real play, that wizards tended to disappoint a bit.&nbsp; This was especially true if their spellbooks were targeted.&nbsp; I never really managed to make a cleric disappoint, though.&nbsp; The most raw fun we ever had involved a ranger, a psion, a paladin, and a cleric.&nbsp; No wizard to be found.&nbsp; [Earlier in the game, replace psion with Druid].The most optimized party that I ever DMed did have two wizards (and nothing close to a fighter) -- that was the closest I ever got to seeing issues.&nbsp;&nbsp; My most enjoyable 3.5 character (as a player) was an Elf Druid (archer more than anything else).&nbsp; In real play, the wizard as &quot;Batman&quot; was rare.&nbsp; But the poor performance of the Fighter persisted and the class seemed to never really shine in actual play.&nbsp; I observed this in several cities across a long period of time, so if I misunderstood the class it wasn't a rare misunderstanding.&nbsp; But I see this as an issue with 3.X, rather than evidence that 3.X was bad.&nbsp; While my favorite edition is likely 1E, there is a lot to like and enjoy about 3.X (and these days I DM Pathfinder so I am hardly an opponent of the system).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Votan, post: 5526390, member: 18680"] I should also point out that the 3E fighter is an odd creature. I find the Paladin and Ranger less of an issue at high levels than the Fighter as they can both fulfill their archetypes better. I never did enjoy the weak will saves of the core martial classes (with the notable exception of Paladins) but I can easily imagine games in which it never really came up. In my first 3.5 E game I used a lot of vampires (DC 13 domination) so it appeared like a massive flaw in class design. But that could also have been a poorly chosen type of opponent. I did find, in real play, that wizards tended to disappoint a bit. This was especially true if their spellbooks were targeted. I never really managed to make a cleric disappoint, though. The most raw fun we ever had involved a ranger, a psion, a paladin, and a cleric. No wizard to be found. [Earlier in the game, replace psion with Druid]. The most optimized party that I ever DMed did have two wizards (and nothing close to a fighter) -- that was the closest I ever got to seeing issues. My most enjoyable 3.5 character (as a player) was an Elf Druid (archer more than anything else). In real play, the wizard as "Batman" was rare. But the poor performance of the Fighter persisted and the class seemed to never really shine in actual play. I observed this in several cities across a long period of time, so if I misunderstood the class it wasn't a rare misunderstanding. But I see this as an issue with 3.X, rather than evidence that 3.X was bad. While my favorite edition is likely 1E, there is a lot to like and enjoy about 3.X (and these days I DM Pathfinder so I am hardly an opponent of the system). [/QUOTE]

Verification