Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Irony on fighters vs. spellcasters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6242782" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>That isn't how I remember 2002-2004 era Char-op on the WotC char-op boards (which is when I was active). It was well known that the most powerful thing you could have was 9th level spells - and nothing was worth a drop in caster level. On the other hand, contrary to reputation, CharOp wasn't just about the most power you could produce (Barbarian 1/Bard 4/Ur-Priest 4/Nar Demonbinder 1/Mystic Theurge 10 with a caster level IIRC somewhere in the 40s in the days before before Pun-Pun). </p><p></p><p>The challenge was more normally to hit certain benchmarks (BAB 16, 9th level spells, various others). And Fighter 1 (or occasionally Fighter 2) gives all martial weapons, all armour, and a feat. An extremely flexible package for qualifying for one of dozens of useful prestige classes. Also the advice on fighter isn't IMO as you remember it. It was "Fighter 1 is often useful and very flexible. Fighter 2 is <em>sometimes</em> useful. Under no circumstances ever take Fighter 3. It is useless, pointless and something that you simply should not do because it is so weak".</p><p></p><p>3.0 ranger, likewise. The advice was "If you want to play a two weapon fighter of some sort, a single level of ranger is an extremely good bargain. Do not under any circumstances take a second level in ranger or you will get laughed at. But a single level in ranger is worthwhile <em>for a two weapon combatant".</em></p><p><em></em></p><p>And I don't know about you - but to me the advice "Take the first level in this class if you want to do <em>this</em> but under no circumstance take the second level in the class" doesn't say to me that the class is overpowered. It says that the class is front-loaded.</p><p> [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] also has a point - that CharOp standard have improved and casters have become more flexible. But at least in 2002 the fighter and the ranger were not seen as strong classes, merely classes that could be of use putting builds together if and only if you took one level in them (possibly two for the fighter but never more).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6242782, member: 87792"] That isn't how I remember 2002-2004 era Char-op on the WotC char-op boards (which is when I was active). It was well known that the most powerful thing you could have was 9th level spells - and nothing was worth a drop in caster level. On the other hand, contrary to reputation, CharOp wasn't just about the most power you could produce (Barbarian 1/Bard 4/Ur-Priest 4/Nar Demonbinder 1/Mystic Theurge 10 with a caster level IIRC somewhere in the 40s in the days before before Pun-Pun). The challenge was more normally to hit certain benchmarks (BAB 16, 9th level spells, various others). And Fighter 1 (or occasionally Fighter 2) gives all martial weapons, all armour, and a feat. An extremely flexible package for qualifying for one of dozens of useful prestige classes. Also the advice on fighter isn't IMO as you remember it. It was "Fighter 1 is often useful and very flexible. Fighter 2 is [I]sometimes[/I] useful. Under no circumstances ever take Fighter 3. It is useless, pointless and something that you simply should not do because it is so weak". 3.0 ranger, likewise. The advice was "If you want to play a two weapon fighter of some sort, a single level of ranger is an extremely good bargain. Do not under any circumstances take a second level in ranger or you will get laughed at. But a single level in ranger is worthwhile [I]for a two weapon combatant". [/I] And I don't know about you - but to me the advice "Take the first level in this class if you want to do [I]this[/I] but under no circumstance take the second level in the class" doesn't say to me that the class is overpowered. It says that the class is front-loaded. [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] also has a point - that CharOp standard have improved and casters have become more flexible. But at least in 2002 the fighter and the ranger were not seen as strong classes, merely classes that could be of use putting builds together if and only if you took one level in them (possibly two for the fighter but never more). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Irony on fighters vs. spellcasters
Top