NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4987526" data-attributes="member: 32536">You pointed out, and Hussar agreed, that it is not explicitly called out in the rules, which is true. There is no point in any 3E core rulebook that says the game assumes you have a party of a Fighter, a Rogue, a Cleric, and a Wizard. That doesn't change the fact that it is indeed an implicit assumption of the rules, and that the designers have stated several times that it is the case.Of course, there is also a difference between what the rules implicitly assume and what they implicitly require. The 3E rules assume the team has a Fighter, but a Fighter is nowhere close to being required in that system. This is mostly because there are plenty of good alternatives for the Fighter (many of which are stronger than the Fighter), but few for the Cleric or Wizard (most of their alternatives are much weaker).Honestly, I don't care if it is playable or not. The big problem with 3E is that there are a large number of challenges that are simply unanswerable without certain classes. To get back to the point of this thread as a whole, these challenges tend to be the kind that are only solvable by dedicated magic users. If you have mages of any kind in your team (like you claim to have had in your "minimized" teams), then you really are not missing the basic requirements for the system. A team of nothing but a Fighter, a Barbarian, a Monk, and a Marshall would probably have a lot of trouble against fairly normal challenges in 3E, but an equivalent 4E team (replacing Warlord for Marshall) would work just fine.</blockquote>

Verification