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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CPXB" data-source="post: 1472723" data-attributes="member: 17233">I think that it is mostly true that fighter-types, including monks, do get the shaft in D&D 3.x.  I've been reading what people say and its just true that fighter-types need spellcaster support way more than a spellcaster needs fighter support (after all, a spellcaster can just make fighter-type support -- simulacrum or golem or whatever -- or summon up such support).I mean, I think about it this way.  Consider a naked fighter at 20th level vs. a naked sorcerer.  Start 'em 100 feet away and give the fighter init.  Round one -- fighter closes some of the distance.  Maybe he shoots some arrows, inflicts some damage.  Sorcerer's init -- Imprisonment.  The minimum save DC of the spell is 23.  The naked fighter likely has a Will save of, say, +7.  The odds are the fight is over.Placing them right next to each other doesn't really change this much.  Sure, the fighter might hurt the wizard some before being imprisoned or mind controlled or whatever, but the sorcerer is just going to dominate this fight.Wizards are worse.  At least as sorcerer doesn't have the flexiblity of a wizard -- with preparation there is just nothing a high level wizard can't do better than any other character class (except heal -- which is handled by a cleric, obviously . . . another spellcasting class).  Heck, the wizard would have cast a quickened dominate person spell before the imprisonment, reducing the successes of the fighter winning by a great deal.It is not really different with clerics or druids, either.Furthermore, in terms of adventuring, a 20th level fighter without serious support from magical community -- not just in terms of healing, but has been noted in terms of providing magical equipment -- is just useless around CR 20 creatures.  A non-equipped sorcerer or wizard still has, at least, a chance to do something to a CR 20 critter . . . or can at least escape with various teleportation spells (or similiar ilk).  The fighter against that pit fiend?  Wasted.And, thinking, I think it is a huge flaw that the spellcasters can dominate the fight if there is only one fight a day (or, rather, more dominate).  Games that are reasonably low on combat -- or at least the sort of intense combat that three or four fights a day involves -- aren't precisely rare.  I'm having trouble thinking of a D&D game I've been in that had so little role-play or investigation that fighting was, basically, the only thing the party did.  I know such games exist -- someone mentioned rolling for wandering monsters for every hour or travel time! -- but *lots* of people don't play D&D that way.  Like I said, I don't know anyone who does and I know lots of gamers.  I think that if D&D was serious about "game balance" then there would be alternate rules or whatever so take into account games that don't have four-fights-before-resting mindsets where the players and DM would rather have one big, important fight than a bunch of fights.I'm not dissin' on that style of play, BTW, I'm just saying that D&D doesn't provide for alternate styles of play -- which I find sort of sad because otherwise it is a very well constructed game.But, as designed, I think that it is very, very reasonable to say that the fighter-types get the shaft.</blockquote>

Verification