Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hanez" data-source="post: 5863591" data-attributes="member: 82160">None of the above.I think spellcasters were generally close to balanced in 2e and 3e, with some exceptions that could be fixed.  I think the over reaction to caster/martial balancce as seen in 4th is a reason as to why it turned my group off, made it feel like NOT D&D, and  helped make Pathfinder successful.I think some spells and abilities for the 3e Druid, Cleric and Wizard needed to be modified and refined.  But I also think there was a lot of work needed to make martial classes more powerful and items for martial classes more interesting/powerful.   I like the fighters powers in 4e as an optional fighter build for those who want martial classes with options too, I also thought tome of battle and Iron heroes had great ideas to pump up martial characters.I also think D&D needs to explicitly tell DMs (again) that the rules can't coddle them, no game of this type will ever be perfectly balanced.  It is the DMs (and the players) job to work to find solutions to make sure everyone is having fun and feels that they are contributing to the game.</blockquote>