Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 6019690" data-attributes="member: 1645">As kids playing AD&D, my friends and I liked both the fighter and magic-user archetypes, but we definitely had the impression that the high-level magic-user was far more powerful.Whether the fighter was too weak or too powerful though, there was always the issue of how his fighting prowess improved.  His hit dice increased, which always strained credibility: "Go ahead, stab me!  You can't kill me with one hit!"  His damage didn't really increase -- except that every fighter found a girdle of storm giant strength and gauntlets of ogre power -- and a +5 longsword, of course.  His to-hit didn't really increase much, either -- except through those same magic items.  This made a Robin Hood-style archery contest awkward.(Robin Hood-style sword-play was also awkward, as was Ivanhoe-style jousting.  Star Wars-style sword-play was also awkward, come to think of it.)Exactly.  I thought 3E had solved the problem with its Fighter class and bonus feat list.  At a glance, I saw that you could build an archer, a knight, a samurai, etc.  It didn't really play out that way though.Unforgivable, really.This is particularly odd when we look at the source material and see how many fantasy characters should be multi-classed human fighter/thieves, which the rules didn't (really) allow.Also, the rules didn't lend themselves to such ad hoc calls; they didn't provide "hooks" for variations on the normal to-hit, then damage routine.  If you want an archery contest, or a joust, or a light-saber battle, where do you begin?</blockquote>

Verification