Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 6259863" data-attributes="member: 30678">Exactly! And fighters who damaged a wizard would disrupt his spell, which balanced things a bit (at least if the wizard didn't have Stoneskin on him). When we converted our high-level AD&D characters to 3E, I was shocked to realize that my fighter died at least once every session, sometimes even two or three times! And most often due to "poor" saves (i.e. 'cuz I only had something like +12 Fort and +8 Will, and needed to roll 15+ every time). I got to read most of the comics and novels in my DM's book shelf during those 3E years, just waiting to be raised or resurrected. I've always thought that the logic behind "squishy-wizards-earning-the-right-to-rule-the-world-if-they-survive" type of reasoning is seriously flawed. I've played every iteration of the game since BECMI, and it never felt right, especially considering that today's paradigms are different from those days. However, at least in AD&D your fighter had decent saves and could automatically disrupt spellcasting. 4E added a lot more balance between classes, and Pathfinder has a lot of archetypes and feats to make fighters more "specialized" (for example, you can pick up a few feats to disrupt spells and deflect ray spells with your shield). Extra attacks vs. Wish, Miracle, Power Word : Kill, etc.? Sheesh... I'd hoped that 5E would have learned a few lessons from 4E. Yet this is just my opinion. I know a lot of people enjoy a different kind of game, and that's just fine.</blockquote>

Verification