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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 4986853" data-attributes="member: 7883">That lack of "feel" is one thing that disappointed me about Wizards in 4E.  Now, admittedly, I had some issues with spell changes made in 3.5.....but I say that as a DM that never had issues with players abusing spells that some other DMs had problems with (Polymorph et al).Everything seems limited to "blow this up", "move this there", etc.  It just doesn't scratch my itch the way magic did in earlier editions.I want magic to feel magic...4E doesn't do it for me....but no, it's not about one person being "better".....I always found in 3E that fighters were some of the most lethal characters in the game, and never understood the idea that they sucked compared to wizards.  Maybe my players just weren't optimizers...I don't know.  I do know that the fighters were the ones who with a few good hits, or a critical, could kill off an important enemy in one round, and could take a beating and keep going.  They *were* vulnerable to charms, but that was fine...they had to have a weakness....but even with spells like Stoneskin, fighters were turning wizards into hamburger rather easily.  The only time that wizards excelled was when they had 10 rounds more than everyone else to set up a whole bunch of buffs....but my players rarely did that....usually buffing began on the fly, in combat.....so by the time the wizard had his third or fourth buff spell active, the fighters had chopped up most of the opposition.It doesn't mean anyone's wrong....they're very different games.  This one just doesn't appeal to everyone.Banshee</blockquote>

Verification