I hate game balance!

[mmu1]

And what about the people who play fighters and don't know until level 12 when they start getting overshadowed?

They've had 12 levels of fun and can roll a new character?

I mean, it's hardly the end of the world.

 

[The Little Raven]

I would consider the person who picks a Fighter when he knows that Fighters are weak and that the party Cleric/Druid can overshadow him, and then complaining about it after the fact, is the asshat.

I would consider the person to design a Fighter to be weak and overshadowed by the party Cleric/Druid to be a poor game designer, since none of the objective metrics for comparison (such as level) function properly.

 

[Rechan]

When I saw wizards get to that high of a level, they felt that they wanted to spend their spell slots on things other than what other characters in the party can do for free.

Most of the "step on another's toes" spells are low level, and thus are common for high level wizards to take, since they will fill the higher level slots with far more useful combat spells. Knock, for example, being a perfect lock opener is much more sensible for a 14th-level wizard than a 2nd-level combat spell.

Don't forget scrolls and wands.

A wand of Invisibility or Knock is a great investment. A scroll of Silence and Invisibility Sphere beats the pants off "Let the rogue scout ahead". In later levels, Scry + Teleport beats infiltration.

Hell, I never understood why people didn't resort to just an Open/Close cantrip on doors that you think are trapped, instead of the rogue risking his ass.

 

[Rechan]

They've had 12 levels of fun and can roll a new character?

That's it. I'm no longer taking you seriously.

 

[The Little Raven]

They've had 12 levels of fun and can roll a new character?

I see the problem with this situation: an asshat DM defending poor game design.

"Sorry, Jerry, but what you want is stupid, since you didn't want to be a spellcaster."

 

[Barastrondo]

I would consider the person who picks a Fighter when he knows that Fighters are weak and that the party Cleric/Druid can overshadow him, and then complaining about it after the fact, is the asshat. Same with someone who chooses to only use the PHB when all WotC books are allowed, and then complaining when a Warblade from Tome of Battle is more powerful.

Best way to test that theory is to see if they're still complaining when they try to pick a fighter when all classes are balanced. If they are, then yeah, they're probably an asshat by nature. If their complaints go away, then perhaps their grievance was legitimate while it lasted.

 

[Remathilis]

Did you really play in a game where that happened?

::raises hand::

I was the thief in a game that consisted of three mages, a fighter, and a rogue (clerics? we don't need no stinkin' clerics!). For a while, was really useful. However, as the three mages realized there were only so many fireballs needed, they began to branch out. One of them got the clever idea to branch out into "utility" magic; he had all the blaster power he needed from a wand of fireballs and a couple prepped attack spells (+ whatever the other wizards had). He began to research, learn, and memorize spells like fly, imp. invisibility, knock, true-seeing, charm person, tenser's floating disc, several teleports and (of course) polymorph self.

Between the other mages downing everything typically in 2-3 rounds thanks to save-or-dies or high damage output spells and utility mage being able to most mundane things with 100% success, the fighter and I became useless. The fighter took to fighting with a dagger (he was a high str fighter spec in bastard sword) since he knew he didn't need to do damage, just take a few blows until the mages were done. They would ask me to perform my "thiefly duties" just to see if it could save them a spell slot, but there was no REAL price for failure, other than an expended spell slot. In order to balance against the wizard-brigade, the DM resorted to more and more powerful monsters, meaning the fighter and I made more trips to-and-from the afterlife guarding the mages while they did their thing.

I enjoyed the game for the story it told, but to be honest I wanted to be something more than a "Staff of Trapfinding" on the wizards' belt.

I lived through it in 2nd and 3rd edition. I liked the group, and I liked the DM, but I generally was disappointed with the fact that no matter how hard we tried, the wizards-three dominated the game and (even when we traded a wizard for a cleric and gained a ranger) the casters (now two wiz + clr) were the only important element of combat. The ranger, fighter(now fighter/wizard, can't beat em...) and rogue just running interference. I was sad to see the game end, but I was relieved to be done with it and play something useful in the next one (I called the cleric)

 

[wally]

No, it was more of a case of "Our heaviest hitter/utility guy is spent, and we're almost certain to face a TPK without him, so we should rest.

The problem isn't necessarily the fault of wizard players or DMs, but rather the way the class was designed.

I don't mean to sound to critical, but that doesn't sound like the fault of the way the class was designed. If you guys relied so much on the one wizard, and you let him blow all of his spells right away, before you reached the TPK fight, then it sounds more like it was because that was the way you guys played rather than the way the class was designed.

-wally

 

[drothgery]

Did you really play in a game where that happened?

In both of the extended 2e campaigns I played in, I ended up abandoning a thief for a wizard because my PC was essentially useless at mid levels (and we're talking 7th or so here).

 

[Scribble]

Which is why that was one of the major drawbacks of 3.x - if you picked something you wanted to play, then it might suck mechanically and there's nothing you can do about it. In my opinion 4E took this away.

So we agree?

Yeah thats what I'm saying... 4e is designed so you can come up witha concept and play it without worrying so much about not getting it perfect gamewise...