Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 5315519" data-attributes="member: 5143">I agree completely.&nbsp; The problem is that what sounds good IN THEORY doesn't work out in practicality.&nbsp; It was easy to sit back and say &quot;Wizards only have so many spells per day and they have low hitpoints and poor AC, so they die easily, while Fighters have good AC and lots of hitpoints and can attack infinitely, and although thieves aren't good at attacking normally they can get a huge amount of damage in rare circumstances...besides, they are the only ones who can find traps and open doors, so they have their use, Clerics are the only ones who can heal.&quot;&nbsp; Unfortunately, in play when groups insisted on resting and recovering spells long before the Wizard ran out, it often made them much more useful to the party than the rest of the characters.&nbsp; The same thing happens when the only locked doors you come across can be easily opened by a knock spell.In practice having your entire character replaced by a ring of regeneration, a potion of healing, or a knock scroll made you feel like you didn't have a &quot;productive and meaningful role in the party&quot;.I admit, some groups didn't have a problem with this at all.&nbsp; I ran into them on my travels.&nbsp; They were so wrapped up in the roleplaying of their characters and the idea that the game was supposed to model &quot;reality&quot; that the idea that the game might be more fun if they felt as useful in the group as the other characters never occurred to them.&nbsp; After all, when they chose to play a Thief instead of a Wizard, they KNEW they weren't going to be as useful to the group.&nbsp; It wouldn't be very realistic if they were.But our group grew beyond that idea pretty quickly.&nbsp; Nearly everyone was multiclassing, because you were just better that way.&nbsp; Pretty much everyone was triple classed if their DM would let them.&nbsp; After all, you got all the advantages of 3 different classes without the disadvantages of any of them.&nbsp; And in exchange, you just had to be a level or 2 lower than everyone else.&nbsp; Which didn't mean much.&nbsp; The only time someone didn't pick that option is when we started at 1st level.&nbsp; Until you were about 3rd or 4th level, you were actually a little weak.&nbsp; If the game started above that, it was a no-brainer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 5315519, member: 5143"] I agree completely. The problem is that what sounds good IN THEORY doesn't work out in practicality. It was easy to sit back and say "Wizards only have so many spells per day and they have low hitpoints and poor AC, so they die easily, while Fighters have good AC and lots of hitpoints and can attack infinitely, and although thieves aren't good at attacking normally they can get a huge amount of damage in rare circumstances...besides, they are the only ones who can find traps and open doors, so they have their use, Clerics are the only ones who can heal." Unfortunately, in play when groups insisted on resting and recovering spells long before the Wizard ran out, it often made them much more useful to the party than the rest of the characters. The same thing happens when the only locked doors you come across can be easily opened by a knock spell. In practice having your entire character replaced by a ring of regeneration, a potion of healing, or a knock scroll made you feel like you didn't have a "productive and meaningful role in the party". I admit, some groups didn't have a problem with this at all. I ran into them on my travels. They were so wrapped up in the roleplaying of their characters and the idea that the game was supposed to model "reality" that the idea that the game might be more fun if they felt as useful in the group as the other characters never occurred to them. After all, when they chose to play a Thief instead of a Wizard, they KNEW they weren't going to be as useful to the group. It wouldn't be very realistic if they were. But our group grew beyond that idea pretty quickly. Nearly everyone was multiclassing, because you were just better that way. Pretty much everyone was triple classed if their DM would let them. After all, you got all the advantages of 3 different classes without the disadvantages of any of them. And in exchange, you just had to be a level or 2 lower than everyone else. Which didn't mean much. The only time someone didn't pick that option is when we started at 1st level. Until you were about 3rd or 4th level, you were actually a little weak. If the game started above that, it was a no-brainer. [/QUOTE]

Verification