Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6653515" data-attributes="member: 5834">Depends on which version of Merlin you're reading. He was capable of killing people from afar with a spell. You didn't mess with Merlin. Knights did not try to fight Merlin. Merlin seated a king on the throne and managed him. Merlin considered himself a manipulator of man's affairs. He knew men would follow someone like Arhtur they understood rather than someone like Merlin that they didn't. Everyone feared Merlin.It is that relative fear that I believe D&D tries to foster through its system. Martials kill casters all the time. They fear them and do not go against them lightly. I admit 3E took the caster-martial disparity way too far in the caster direction. 5E is a much better wheelhouse for the disparity. Casters can do some crazy stuff. Martials can kill them far easier than 3E. A caster has to be extremely careful in 5E. There is plenty of stuff he can't defeat. The martial-caster dependency is much stronger than it was in 3E. The martial-caster dependency is also part of the fantasy genre. Magic is supposed to be limited and dangerous. Martials can do their thing without those concerns making them more reliable doers of deeds.3E was over the top. I had to do a lot as a DM to maintain caster-martial dependency. I did take steps to ensure it. I prefer the 5E-2E overwhelming DPR and highly magic resistant creatures to the 3E paradigm. Caster-martial dependency is part of the fantasy genre. If either one obviates the other, then you lose something in the genre. What would Merlin be without Arthur? Or Gandalf without Aragorn or the Hobbits? Gotta have that dependency to drive the story meaning everyone brings something to the table that is needed.The fighter brings very reliable, consistent fighting prowess with DPR and durability.</blockquote>

Verification