Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kestrel" data-source="post: 265547" data-attributes="member: 384">I would have to disagree with the point of view that fighters are shafted in low-magic games.&nbsp; DnD is supposed to be a group-based game, with each member having a role to fill.&nbsp; A fighter is the best at fighting.&nbsp; He has the highest base attack bonus, the most feats, and usually the highest hit points.&nbsp; Even at the higher levels, with or without magic items, this will be true.The argument I'm hearing is that a spellcaster is more powerful at the higher levels.&nbsp; If the classes are taken individually, that just might be the case.&nbsp;&nbsp; But, if you take them as a group, as the game intends, then fighters still have thier role to fill.A wizard that blasts away without a fighter to stop the baddies from reaching him is going to be a very dead wizard in short order.&nbsp; It only takes a superiorly strong opponent to grapple him and render his spellcasting useless.&nbsp; Without his meatshield (the fighter) to keep em off, he's pretty much screwed.&nbsp; Sure, in certain situations, like the open outdoors, his mobility can keep him protected, but not always.A cleric, with buffs, can be just as powerful as a fighter in combat.&nbsp; The downside to this is that it takes time to get the spells prepared and even with buffs, he's only going to match the fighter, not exceed him.&nbsp; Wouldn't the buffs be better used if they were put on the fighter?&nbsp; The fighter could then be even stronger and deal more damage, leaving the cleric to keep him alive and throw out other spells to help the party.Maybe parties should agree to work together to thier full advantage in low-magic games.&nbsp;&nbsp; A group of individuals is never going to work as well as a sychronized team.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kestrel, post: 265547, member: 384"] I would have to disagree with the point of view that fighters are shafted in low-magic games. DnD is supposed to be a group-based game, with each member having a role to fill. A fighter is the best at fighting. He has the highest base attack bonus, the most feats, and usually the highest hit points. Even at the higher levels, with or without magic items, this will be true. The argument I'm hearing is that a spellcaster is more powerful at the higher levels. If the classes are taken individually, that just might be the case. But, if you take them as a group, as the game intends, then fighters still have thier role to fill. A wizard that blasts away without a fighter to stop the baddies from reaching him is going to be a very dead wizard in short order. It only takes a superiorly strong opponent to grapple him and render his spellcasting useless. Without his meatshield (the fighter) to keep em off, he's pretty much screwed. Sure, in certain situations, like the open outdoors, his mobility can keep him protected, but not always. A cleric, with buffs, can be just as powerful as a fighter in combat. The downside to this is that it takes time to get the spells prepared and even with buffs, he's only going to match the fighter, not exceed him. Wouldn't the buffs be better used if they were put on the fighter? The fighter could then be even stronger and deal more damage, leaving the cleric to keep him alive and throw out other spells to help the party. Maybe parties should agree to work together to thier full advantage in low-magic games. A group of individuals is never going to work as well as a sychronized team. [/QUOTE]

Verification