Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 5527324" data-attributes="member: 7883">Yes....Bargle set the paradigm <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'm pretty sure even in earlier editions, fighters were still the ones more succeptible to charms and other types of magic.&nbsp; I think anything System Shock related (ie. Save vs. Petrify/Polymorph) they had better saves than Mages and others....but for Save vs. Spells they were worse.&nbsp; I could be wrong though....my 2nd Ed. books are all boxed up.So I think the precedent of fighters being vulnerable to spellcasters was always there.In my experience, yes, fighters are succeptible to charms etc.....but if the fighter passes that save against charm, he could conceivably kill the spellcaster in 1 round.&nbsp; Depends on things like the presence of Contingent spells, Quickened Dimension Doors for escape etc.....but still.I'm not advocating that spellcasters are weak.&nbsp; They're not.&nbsp; It's just that I feel sometimes the &quot;I'm a fighter, I suck&quot; card gets overplayed at times.&nbsp; If one can contest that fighters are no good without their equipment, one can equally contest that wizards aren't nearly as good without a bunch of scrolls and bracers of armor and all that.As to Warblades......they don't even have Heavy Armor as a feat, nor are Handle Animal or Ride class skills for them...thus, they're really no good for representing many of the sample characters I suggested in my earlier post.&nbsp; Of course, that's labouring under the assumption that we're not modifying the warblade...just as the discussion seems to involve using a stock fighter.Banshee</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Banshee16, post: 5527324, member: 7883"] Yes....Bargle set the paradigm :) I'm pretty sure even in earlier editions, fighters were still the ones more succeptible to charms and other types of magic. I think anything System Shock related (ie. Save vs. Petrify/Polymorph) they had better saves than Mages and others....but for Save vs. Spells they were worse. I could be wrong though....my 2nd Ed. books are all boxed up. So I think the precedent of fighters being vulnerable to spellcasters was always there. In my experience, yes, fighters are succeptible to charms etc.....but if the fighter passes that save against charm, he could conceivably kill the spellcaster in 1 round. Depends on things like the presence of Contingent spells, Quickened Dimension Doors for escape etc.....but still. I'm not advocating that spellcasters are weak. They're not. It's just that I feel sometimes the "I'm a fighter, I suck" card gets overplayed at times. If one can contest that fighters are no good without their equipment, one can equally contest that wizards aren't nearly as good without a bunch of scrolls and bracers of armor and all that. As to Warblades......they don't even have Heavy Armor as a feat, nor are Handle Animal or Ride class skills for them...thus, they're really no good for representing many of the sample characters I suggested in my earlier post. Of course, that's labouring under the assumption that we're not modifying the warblade...just as the discussion seems to involve using a stock fighter. Banshee [/QUOTE]

Verification