The reason why fighters will never have nice things.

[tussock]

Swording stops being effectiving in D&D

That's the bit that needs to be fixed. Either by making the fighter into some sort of "Yes I can too sword it" magician, or making most everything swordable again, even the little cultist gods, like it used to be.

As an aside, DMFs are good with bows and can get flying mounts, they mostly just find themselves in narrow tunnels where that doesn't get any play, and like it that way.

XP is what the game is all about to you people?

I've seen it over and over again, tell a player there's no XP for something they did and they will never do it again. Give them a big reward for something and they will start hunting it. I get funny looks when I suggest doing otherwise.

1st edition was about the loot. A good gem was worth more XP than everything else in the dungeon put together, and players searched every pile of shit and levered open everything they could just so they wouldn't miss it. Rot grubs, instant death poison traps, and lethal diseases be damned, that potential gem was just too important.

2nd edition XP was about the rare big monsters with lots of specials, and my players at the time would get well into suicidal risks to gank one when it appeared. But they'd walk away from a horde of Orcs because it would be too easy and no real XP anyway. Money was nothing, big piles of coin often left to rot because it might be slightly inconvenient to carry them.

3rd edition came about and people changed to killing every damn thing they saw, because that was where the XP was, Orcs and all. Bear in the woods? Kill it. Birds singing? Kill them. Wolf howling? Hunt it down and kill it. NPC Druid complains? Kill him.
But 3e money is *huge* because it lets you kill stuff quicker, which the older games never allowed, so people trash the place again like 1st edition. Only now you say "I take 20" rather asking about the room and describing your search, so players care a lot less about the atmosphere.


Players don't always enjoy what the game rewards, but they do it anyway.

[Krakatoa]

It sounds to me like you just have bad players. People in my group generally do whatever their character would do and let the DM sort out XP.

[tussock]

They're great players, dude, "Gamist" is the word you're looking for. People from a background of board games and wargaming for the most part. Nerds.

I reckon your sort prefer the DM to hide that aspect of the game so they can focus on their character's motivations and other such wankery. I know I do when I get to play, but I still get slapped in the face with the obvious path to power now and then.

[For Valor]

It sounds to me like you just have bad players. People in my group generally do whatever their character would do and let the DM sort out XP.

No, we call your players "casuals". We call his players "gamers".

[Krakatoa]

Hehehe, you're funny.

[For Valor]

I was being perfectly serious... but thank you, I try.

[PoliteNewb]

I just have such a problem with the premise behind all this being a self fufling sort of thing. Most of all though, i'm having real trouble pinning down what the fuck the high level adventure standard really is? I mean what? Kill the Githyanki lich queen? Go to hell, build a castle? I mean wtf are we talking about exactly?

This. If there is going to be any discussion about what "high level fighters" should do (or hell, what high level wizards should do), we need to define what "high level" is, and what "high level adventures" are. Because people have radically different definitions.

Here are some high level adventures, according to the people that publish D&D.

1st edition:

--Have your plucky band of heroes fight their way through the hordes and fortresses of 3 armies of giants (hill, frost, fire), slaying their rulers and casting down their high places. Afterward, venture into the heart of the earth, invading the chief city of the feared Dark Elves, hopefully slaying their high priestesses and chief people. Then, invade the Abyssal realm of their goddess, and chop her fucking head off.

(GDQ series, 8th-14th lvl)

--Visit an insane deathtrap in the vain hope of destroying the undead monstrosity that resides there

(Tomb of Horrors, 10th-14th lvl...although let's be honest, this isn't a real adventure)

--Invade an Archmage's sanctum and stop him from ascending to evil godhood and draining the life from the surrounding countryside to do it, by killing or negotiation.

(Dungeon magazine #10, 14th-18th lvl)

2nd edition:

--Destroy a githyanki stronghold on the prime, then venture into the astral realm to prevent them from establishing a permanent gate, including stealing/destroying the tome that holds the secret to the construction of such gates.

(Dungeon magazine #43, 9th-12th)

--Travel to the Northern lands, where the Northmen are enslaving the dwarves, discover the Duergar Orb artifact that is warping their minds, and destroy it before it is placed in a gigantic iron golem-statue and becomes an enormous magitek mecha.

(Dungeon magazine #46, 11th-15th)

--Help save an elvish village by seeking out a famous bard in his home, then solve the mystery of his death and uncover/elude/defeat his murderers.

(Dungeon magazine #49, 10th-15th lvl...incidentally, my 7th-9th PCs destroyed this adventure, and managed to loot the supposedly impenetrable treasure room without undue difficulty)

--Stop an expanding Sphere of Annihalation from destroying a city, by invading the extradimensional fortress of a lich and swiping/seizing his talisman of control.

(Dungeon magazine #64, 12th-15th lvl)

--Invade the "White Kingdom of the Ghouls" (note: not standard ghouls) in the Underdark, hopefully negotiating truces and assembling an army of deep-dwelling races to aid you, slay the ghoul-king and his chief nobles, destroy the unholy sphere that is the source of their powers, and loot their overflowing coffers of riches.

(Dungeon magazine #70, 10th-15th lvl)

--Lead a preemptive strike on a lair of fire giants and red dragons and their armies to stop their invasion of an elven kingdom, ideally by causing their volcano stronghold to erupt.

(Dungeon magazine #74, 10th-15th lvl)

NOTE: Keep in mind many high-level AD&D adventures prevented magic from being an auto-win by using DM fiat. For instance, some adventures (including the D and Q series) simply say that teleportation, passwall, and other spells used to bypass obstacles simply do not work. Some say that powerful divinations that can bypass investigation and such simply do not work. This was a common (albeit heavy handed and shitty) AD&D tactic for dealing with the fighter/caster imbalance.

3rd edition:

--When a foul black rain completely suppresses all divine magic in a city (note: ah, a return to the fuck-you plot devices of yesteryear), defend the temple of St. Cuthbert from an assault by a renegade priest and his troll and demon allies.

(Black Rain on WotC site, 16th lvl)

--Investigate a hunting lodge which is haunted by ghosts of the many bizarre beasts who were slain and made trophies there.

(Haunting Lodge on WotC site, 17th lvl)

--Discover a ruined town, find out who destroyed it and why, assault the castle he lairs in, and stop him before he awakens an ancient evil.

(Thunder Below on WotC site, 17th lvl)

--Seek out certain fuels on the elemental planes for an ancient modron machine, to stop natural disasters.

(Force of Nature on WotC site, 18th lvl)

Now other people can post what THEY think high-level adventures should be like.

[shadzar]

OD&D was first 1 XP for 1 gp and more for monsters (100XP per monster "level"), and quickly changed to be almost all gold (~12 XP for an Orc by 1975).

basic, 1st/2nd AD&D....anything BEFORE WotC was levelling through defeating...

You have just directly contradicted tussock about levelling and experience in OD&D. I am willing to try and dig apart the gibberish because you are on medication, but when you contradict the very history you say I should read you look like a complete idiot.

defeating =/= killing

[tzor]

combat is the least important part of an RPG system, and that can be proven simply by flipping a coin to see which side wins in an opposition.

combat is the most important part of a miniature wargame.

Shad, stop being a retard. By this reasoning, there is no point behind any contest, because you "can just flip a coin *herp*"

Actually shadzar has a point, even though it is a weak one. The basic "resolution" mechanism for the LARP variation of the original White Wolf games (especially Vampire) was through Rock-Paper-Sizzors which is effectively a coin toss with a very thick coin that often lands on its side.

Real time resolution systems often tend to simplify; the closer you get to real time the easier it is to maintain a role play environment.

D&D was always designed from a "war gamer" attitude; real time was not even considered (the original round was one minute long) and details were considered important. It had role playing elements which made it not just the same as a generic war game, but it still kept the attitude and style of the basic design.

[shadzar]

Before comabt and tactics in the PO...2nd edition did a good job trying to move away form the miniature wargame to show there was more than just combat...sadly 3rd took two steps backwards wearing size 50 shoes.

It sounds to me like you just have bad players. People in my group generally do whatever their character would do and let the DM sort out XP.

No, we call your players "casuals". We call his players "gamers".

some would call your "casuals" roleplayers, and your "gamers" munchkins/min-maxers.....

ROLEplayers vs ROLLplayers

simulationists, vs gamists as tussock said.

[mean_liar]

You guys need to let up. There are people on this message board significantly stupider than shadzar.

Namely, anyone who talks to him, and even so much as acknowledges his worthless, grognard, trolling, thread-derailing ways.

I have never Ignored anyone on any list, board or group until shadzar. Even after whoever-it-was posted loli-guro porn all over the place, I didn't Ignore them until after I'd Ignored shadzar and got comfortable with the Ignore function.

No one posts such blithering, intellectually-offensive tripe as consistently as he does.

[tzor]

ROLEplayers vs ROLLplayers

Don't forget the Role Playing Roll Player

This strange player evolved during 1E when people started incorporating a number of third party game supplements all arranged towards character generation. Beyond the original height and weight, this went as far as base economic status, how many brothers and sisters you had and so forth. Whatever you rolled was the role you played.

Traveller had a similiar system to create your role. Sometimes you died during character creation.

[fectin]

combat is the least important part of an RPG system, and that can be proven simply by flipping a coin to see which side wins in an opposition.

combat is the most important part of a miniature wargame.

Shad, stop being a retard. By this reasoning, there is no point behind any contest, because you "can just flip a coin *herp*"

Actually shadzar has a point, even though it is a weak one. The basic "resolution" mechanism for the LARP variation of the original White Wolf games (especially Vampire) was through Rock-Paper-Sizzors which is effectively a coin toss with a very thick coin that often lands on its side.

Real time resolution systems often tend to simplify; the closer you get to real time the easier it is to maintain a role play environment.

D&D was always designed from a "war gamer" attitude; real time was not even considered (the original round was one minute long) and details were considered important. It had role playing elements which made it not just the same as a generic war game, but it still kept the attitude and style of the basic design.

Right. But Shadzar hasn't been making points about RPGs in general, or praising Amber diceless for its lack of mechanics; he has been explicitly and immistakably talking about dnd.
There is a great discussion about the advantagesand merits of different playstyles, which has no right answer. It's a great discussion, and there's a ton of ways to have fun, none of which are inherently superior. His point though, is unrelated: post-2nd edition players have ruined his game with their unwholesome focus on the combat parts of DnD.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying a good game of Magical Tea Party. Really. Using DnD to play MTP is not virtuous though, any more than using a Swiss Army Knife to pound nails is virtuous. It's a little silly and there are better tools, but whatever works. When you then belittle everyone around you for using the knife and bottleopener, that's just ludicrous.

[sabs]

Wait, post-2nd edition?

The skill system in 3rd edition was /way/ better than the weir-ass proficiency system from 2nd edition. At least 3rd edition let you have skills with ranks, that let you do things outside of combat. 2nd Edition had this weird, "yes/no checkbit proficiency thing"

[shadzar]

Shad, stop being a retard. By this reasoning, there is no point behind any contest, because you "can just flip a coin *herp*"

Actually shadzar has a point, even though it is a weak one. The basic "resolution" mechanism for the LARP variation of the original White Wolf games (especially Vampire) was through Rock-Paper-Sizzors which is effectively a coin toss with a very thick coin that often lands on its side.

Real time resolution systems often tend to simplify; the closer you get to real time the easier it is to maintain a role play environment.

D&D was always designed from a "war gamer" attitude; real time was not even considered (the original round was one minute long) and details were considered important. It had role playing elements which made it not just the same as a generic war game, but it still kept the attitude and style of the basic design.

Right. But Shadzar hasn't been making points about RPGs in general, or praising Amber diceless for its lack of mechanics; he has been explicitly and immistakably talking about dnd.
There is a great discussion about the advantagesand merits of different playstyles, which has no right answer. It's a great discussion, and there's a ton of ways to have fun, none of which are inherently superior. His point though, is unrelated: post-2nd edition players have ruined his game with their unwholesome focus on the combat parts of DnD.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying a good game of Magical Tea Party. Really. Using DnD to play MTP is not virtuous though, any more than using a Swiss Army Knife to pound nails is virtuous. It's a little silly and there are better tools, but whatever works. When you then belittle everyone around you for using the knife and bottleopener, that's just ludicrous.

no, everyone else has jsut been trying to use an RPG system for a miniature wargame for years even predating 3rd, but 3rd brought so many people in that dont get it 4th was turned INTO a minis game as they tried to merge the two...and left out everything but combat.

again going form the computer game model that can crunch numbers very well, but has limit...people are trapped in that minis game rules mindset, that if there isnt a rule you cant do it, like EQ doesnt allow you to climb trees simply because it isnt coded for you to do so because there is no mechanical advantage to doing so.

in a 3rd edition game there was a giant bug of sorts blocking and trapping out entire party. even though the spell itself says you can make stone weapons, people didnt want to let me use stoneshape to attack the giant bug in any form and argued about it because it wasnt in the rules it could be used the way i wanted. the DM on the otherhand rolled dice and decided my conical shape extruding from the ceiling was enough stone and weight to push down on and pin but not damage the giant bug giving us time to escape.

people got so trapped inside the rules they didnt even see it was possible, because making a cone extruding from the ceiling wasnt listed as possible because it didnt fit with what could be done with a minis wargame. the volume of stone was enough for the spellcaster player i was sitting in for...but for whatever reason geometry escaped their abilities to do to think about.

again why my signature says, play the game, not the rules. a minis wargame has to present best it can every possible outcome to resolve as all it does is give multiple choice to begin with, same as most MMOs as you cannot go beyond the scripted code. RPGs CAN go beyond what the devs and writers thought up...so cannot possibly be only what is in the rules.

like people thinking the game is only "killing" they miss so much because they cannot think enough to play to some other goal. why? because 3rd edition creators that brought in so many heralded the idea that everything should be killed. they taught players with 3rd to think inside the box, not outside it. that way they could train them to be ready for when they completely turn D&D into a minis game (4th edition).

i only talk of what i know, and that is D&D. i use the proofs of things i know. and if it makes you unhappy that 3rd and up taught so many to play D&D as a minis game..then dont blame me, blame those that taught it via the rules and stressing combat and killing as being the heart and soul of an RPG when that is just simply the easiest thing to make "rules" for because minis games arent hard to make.

the whole fighter arguement also falls flat when you look at what it is talking about...ONE part of the game...combat...well there is more than combat, and outside of that class can be meaningless or most important. but people made the statement "combat is the most important part of an RPG" and they are fucking wrong and stupid for thinking so. possibly just because that is all they think or WotC taught them an RPG was through it over-focus on combat and trying to rejuvenate a minis game from D&D.

BATTLESystem was a part of AD&D 1st, and something dropped and forgotten until C&T for 2nd revised....but they probably had to do something to sell minis and compete with the growing GW and WH40k...otherwise the minis game emphasis was taken out for 6 years worth of 2nd edition.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't know how 1st and 2nd Edition went, but 3E is actually a really bad benchmark to use for epic-level adventures (unless you're using the actual Epic-Level handbook) because they have the reverse problem of 4E.

That is, they have a low-level mentality and don't realize that the game is going into crazy-town. Seriously, read the FRPG or the Dragonlance Campaign Setting books. The NPCs that have levels in the high teens do basic kiddy-grade bullshit. Seriously, there's a class in Dragonlance where you are at a minimum level 17 when you complete it and all it does is... let you ride a dragon. In a setting where even mooks have dragons to ride. How could anyone who knew what D&D spells and effects are capable of doing overlook this? The answer is that they DON'T.

Order of the Stick is another fine example. The author of that comic is smarter than the writers of the two previous settings, so actually realizes he needs to take steps to remove the dissonance. So Rich Burlew has to intentionally neuter Varsuuvius and Durkon in order to force the plot he wants, because the other PCs are by his admission around level 13-15. Even though everything they've done so far is appropriate for people around level... 8.

[tzor]

I can describe 1st edition somewhat ... "Epic" was a very limited window of opportunity, if at that. Level limits were imposed on all non-human races and on several classes (there could only be one of the highest level druids and monks in any given campaign world and you had to defeat him or her to get the position). Those that could advance typically wound up in "retirement" tending to their castle or their chuch with the special and very expensive holy water font.

Most high level spells were two edged swords; wish is the best example of this especially in the ability of the DM to twist them so they could never be abused. Epic typically means astral and beyond and the 1E rule on how magic items decrease the more they are removed from the prime material plane basically kept a lot of "epic" campaigns just under the epic radar.

(Also note that high level armor was limited by material, only adamantine could be +5, for example.)

[shadzar]

I don't know how 1st and 2nd Edition went, but 3E is actually a really bad benchmark to use for epic-level adventures (unless you're using the actual Epic-Level handbook) because they have the reverse problem of 4E.

That is, they have a low-level mentality and don't realize that the game is going into crazy-town. Seriously, read the FRPG or the Dragonlance Campaign Setting books. The NPCs that have levels in the high teens do basic kiddy-grade bullshit. Seriously, there's a class in Dragonlance where you are at a minimum level 17 when you complete it and all it does is... let you ride a dragon. In a setting where even mooks have dragons to ride. How could anyone who knew what D&D spells and effects are capable of doing overlook this? The answer is that they DON'T.

Order of the Stick is another fine example. The author of that comic is smarter than the writers of the two previous settings, so actually realizes he needs to take steps to remove the dissonance. So Rich Burlew has to intentionally neuter Varsuuvius and Durkon in order to force the plot he wants, because the other PCs are by his admission around level 13-15. Even though everything they've done so far is appropriate for people around level... 8.

it is strange you dont know 1st and 2nd, where your initial arguement mostly comes from people there wherein the fighter is king at earlier levels, then quickly overcome by the "wizard can do it now" attitude. the whole why even have a fighter sicne the wizard can do it bit...

the problem people miss is that when looking at a wizard taking things to make the fighter or rogue useless, they are not contributing to the party as a whole.

while the wizard COULD take those things to make the fighter unrequired...there are other things it could take instead to help the party and offer something the fighter could not within the limited amount of spells a wizard can have.

1st i think had name level as 9th level, meaning above that would be high-level, and 2nd via the DM:HLC states that 10th level an up is considered high-level play.

3rd i dont know what would be considered high-level with all its weird ECL and all that crap....

but basically the earliest fights of a fighter being useless in 1st and 2nd i recall as boiling down to was the wizard player an asshole and trying to do the job of the fighter or rogue, instead of doing his own job?

the wizard CAN get things to do the fighter and rogues jobs, and it helps in an all wizard game to cover those missing classes, but when you have a fighter...taking a spell jsut for the sake of replacing another party member makes you want to question the wizard players intent.

if the DM is giving the wizard player the spells to do so...then why is he?

for 1st and 2nd a wizard at this "high-level" of 10th level will have these spells

1st: 4
2nd: 4
3rd: 3
4th: 2
5th: 2

13 spells...few more if specialized or prereq bonus was met...

so how many of those 13 spells will a wizard devote to duplicating fighter abilities?

people look at the fact the fighter CAN be duplicated in abilities and dont think if it SHOULD be.

damage output...yeah a wizard can cast fireball 3 times as his 3rd level spell choices...but then what? when the wizard runs out of spells...you best have something or someone else that can do more....then you get into the 30 minute workday where you rest to let the wizard memorize spells again after resting IF you could...

it all builds on MANY things where people find little problems and connect them together to make something bigger, because some warped playstyle trying to min-max the game and when the BEST options run out you ignore anyone with OTHER options and just recharge the BEST options again before continuing on....

[Kaelik]

in a 3rd edition game there was a giant bug of sorts blocking and trapping out entire party. even though the spell itself says you can make stone weapons, people didnt want to let me use stoneshape to attack the giant bug in any form and argued about it because it wasnt in the rules it could be used the way i wanted. the DM on the otherhand rolled dice and decided my conical shape extruding from the ceiling was enough stone and weight to push down on and pin but not damage the giant bug giving us time to escape.

This example is like, a complete condemnation of you as a human being, and also your point, sparse as it is, on several levels.

The point of this is:

1) Fighters can't do cool things like Wizards can.
2) Shadzar whines about how people are obsessed with combat and rules and 3e is bad because of that, and so therefore fighters can do cool things. (This makes no sense, as those things are unrelated, or even contradictory.)

Your example involves:

1) Using a very flexible spell that is flexible in the actual rules, and that fighters have basically no fucking access to whatsoever to beat a challenge.

This is proof against your point that fighters can do cool things, and against your point that 3e is very bland and combat centric with nothing else for anyone to do.

It also shows how rules can actually be open enough to allow choices and different tactics, and do in fact support Wizards being awesome without having to MTP, unlike Fighters.

2) But because you are stupid, it's actually an example of you trying to break the rules because you are a whiny bitch who can't figure out what they are, and then you complain when other people get mad at you for cheating.

Stone Shape, is first of all, range touch, so unless you were flying, it is unlikely that you could touch the ceiling to do this in the first place. Second of all, this is precisely against the actual rules of the damn game, and everyone but you and your DM was right when they said you cannot attack something with Stoneshape. There are any number of cool things you can do with stoneshape, including make weapons, IE make a weapon, that can then be used to attack on a different action, not the same action.

If you are really smart and anal (I know you are not smart, so you didn't do this) you could use Stone shape to make conical projection from the ceiling, and support the weight on a very small amount of stone, and then show with actual physics that this would not support the weight for even a second, which would result in immediately dropping the stone on the creature. This however would do some piddly amount of HP damage, and so isn't actually an effective use. You could try to do this so that the weight falls on the creature in a way it can't shake off, and is more than it can hold, but since you were dealing with a large vermin, chances are good that you couldn't even shape that much stone.

And finally, if you were just smart, you could actually use the rules, and not cheat, and put up a 5ft tunnel right next to it, and have everyone run through on the side, forcing it to chase you past it's chokepoint with you on the other side.

But what you for sure can't do is make any kind of attack on it resulting in rolls resulting in it being pinned. Because that's against the rules.

[tzor]

Well if you just look at 1E it is important to remember that everything had a "flip" side. The wizard could cast a fireball ... or perhaps not, given the current circumstances of the combat (given the fact that combat often occured in confined dungeons and the fireball was a lot nastier than the 3E version in terms of what it did and where it went). He also could be a pretty crappy fighter if necessary and probably (at higher levels) had a few magic items in order to be a bulk distributor of mediocre power.

The fighter, on the other hand, was the master of mediocre power. Nothing as fancy as fireball, but he keeps going and going and going. He was the only class to get really good multiple attacks, assuming that he is attacking one person without moving or a huge pile of 1 HD creatures swarming around him.

The difference between the high power / limited use of the wizards attacks and the medium power / unlimited use of the fighters was one of those big things in 1E that was always the hardest to balance.

[shadzar]

1. that example from a game i dislike, was to show exactly how people think ONLY of the game as a minis game because they dont think outside the rules.

2. the ceiling was in range since STONE shape doesnt say you have to touch the exact spot you are trying to shape and the room was carved out of the stone cavern so ANY part of the room was within range as long as i could touch it.

3. the DM didnt allow damage as the spell has none listed, but as a finger pushing down on the bug it was able to pin it since, unlike magic missile trying to activate a lever...the stone being reshaped DOES have mass and force able to exert upon something and the final shape was able to pin the bug with its instantaneous transmutation rather than impaling the bug...

4. the DM actually suggested i "shape" a section OUT of the ceiling so that it would drop on the bug, bug i reminded him we were playing 3rd, not 2nd and the morons that play 3rd wouldnt be able to wrap their small brains around how you could create a damage dealing affect form a spell without damage assigned to it, so went with the conical shape as to pin the monster so that we could get past it rather than worry about any damage to slow the game down with figuring it out as well slowing the game down and having to explain to the 3-tards those parts of science that their short-bus brains couldnt handle even when they were in school.

you can twist thing to however you want to read them, probably why you have been on my ignore list like forever with those others...but it doesnt change the fact you are twisting them because you fail at reading comprehension.

so like they learned then...you to shoudl learn to step outside of the rules and learn to think for yourself. your DM shouldnt have to wipe your nose and your as for you, you should have learned that before your mother let you on the internet.

[shadzar]

Well if you just look at 1E it is important to remember that everything had a "flip" side. The wizard could cast a fireball ... or perhaps not, given the current circumstances of the combat (given the fact that combat often occured in confined dungeons and the fireball was a lot nastier than the 3E version in terms of what it did and where it went). He also could be a pretty crappy fighter if necessary and probably (at higher levels) had a few magic items in order to be a bulk distributor of mediocre power.

The fighter, on the other hand, was the master of mediocre power. Nothing as fancy as fireball, but he keeps going and going and going. He was the only class to get really good multiple attacks, assuming that he is attacking one person without moving or a huge pile of 1 HD creatures swarming around him.

The difference between the high power / limited use of the wizards attacks and the medium power / unlimited use of the fighters was one of those big things in 1E that was always the hardest to balance.

true, but in the early discussions of this type of fighter v wizard people left out most of the concept of fighting in a dungeon where those fireballs would wipe out the rest of the party, not just the enemy and such. fighter v wizard has a VERY narrow focus in those days as well 2nd because the scope that ewas left out when talking about it...i mean a super powerful wizard had to survive housecats to get that power to begin with....

the fighter was basically building on the same things...stamina/att/defense and built around having even amounts of all, while the wizard was sacrificing stamina and def for all out att power. THAT is why the wizard could do such powerful things, but also a weakness to them in that when he ran out he was screwed but the fighter could in turn pick up the wizard and start beating things with it to save his own life.

[Midnight_v]

@ kaelik.

Bravo sir...
shadazar exemplifies whats wrong with people who try to play the game not the rules. They're too busy trying to bullshit through the game to actually notice things that work sans bullshit.

[shadzar]

@ kaelik.

Bravo sir...
shadazar exemplifies whats wrong with people who try to play the game not the rules. They're too busy trying to bullshit through the game to actually notice things that work sans bullshit.

show me where it says the stone cant be shaped in the way i did it, Moldlice_Vagina

[fectin]

@ kaelik.

Bravo sir...
shadazar exemplifies whats wrong with people who try to play the game not the rules. They're too busy trying to bullshit through the game to actually notice things that work sans bullshit.

show me where it says the stone cant be shaped in the way i did it, Moldlice_Vagina

While you're at it, show me where in the Monopoly rules it says I can't move on someone else's turn.
Also, although the rules say that you gain a level when you accumulate enough XP, they don't forbid gaining levels before then! I like to "power up" Dragon Ball Z style whenever we run into a challenge that's too difficult. The idiots I game with don't like that though, cuz "it's not in the rules."