Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 5663814" data-attributes="member: 4348">The old thread on Fighters vs. spellcasters has some irony to it.  One thing in history was that the Fighter USED to be seen as overpowered, as well as somewhat also the Ranger as far as Multiclassing went.  Many builds that people did required a Dip in Fighter or a dip in Ranger.  It was almost like a plague with how many called for it.  Unless one went Pure Spellcaster many saw them as broken for multiclassing.So it's ironic how times change.  People vote more for a straight spellcaster, or comment on the power of spellcasters now for the dip and rate Fighters as something not to touch.  I just find it irony on how times change...or maybe it's more those who are doing the CharOps and arguing the builds (it many times doesn't seem to be the most effective ones...but the loudest ones getting their points).Perhaps it was just how CharOps used to be, where we are discussing straight builds overall (which I truly like the differences of Fighters starting strong at first, then Spellcasters taking the power reins later, at least how I see it and I think many others see Spellcasters so strong as to be unbalanced), whilst they were discussing massive multiclassing.I don't really like massive multiclassing (that entire, I'm a good guy monster that is a half Githyanki/Orc Werewolf Vampire Cleric/Barbarian/Hulking Brute/Divine Morgant/Superior Bulldozer type builds) in the way many did it, and if I DM restrict it from having those builds available.BUT...I know there are some that do this, and enjoy it (not my cup of tea, actually, now days I don't know anyone who actually plays characters like that who haven't been banned from the groups I play with...and that's me as a player, much less as a DM...so maybe they did all vanish in actual play...naw, they still show up at CONS).  I have to admit I haven't seen tons of the CharOps discussions that I used to, but those I do see don't seem to go with the same slant they used to.  Even after the 3.5 Nerf it seemed people still thought a dip in Fighter was a good choice (though not necessarily as much with the Ranger anymore).If I recall many of the nerfs to the Warriors came due to this CharOp approach...and I think some of it carried over to Pathfinder as well in their nerfs.  Spellcasters were actually seen as suboptimal for builds...Does anyone see the irony in that in relation to the current discussion of Spellcasters vs. Fighters?Or maybe I'm just remembering wrong...I am getting up there in years these days.</blockquote>

Verification