Mannahnin wrote:I like every edition. They all have their virtues and foibles. Things they’re good or bad at. 4th was a pretty radical step, and breaks with a lot of D&D traditions. But in doing so it also dumps a lot of headaches and problems and imbalances that had been problems for decades. I can absolutely understand folks who don’t like it. I’m tempted to try a game of Pathfinder at some point, too, as there are a few things about the 3rd & 3.5 designs that I miss.

just turn invisible(lvl 6, I can still hear you, smell you, touch you, ect. One bag of flour or emersion in a liquid means invisible people can be seen by the lack of substance in the air. Watch the predator movies for more examples.)

or teleport(lvl 8 or 10) through traps (which you need to know are there).

Fighter? Just nuke everyone with fireballs(lvl 6), or disintegrate(lvl8+) them.

Even the "vulnerable to damage" argument seems awfully weak when you can fly, and reflect any ranged attacks, and make four illusionary copies(its 1D4+1 and they pop on a hit so one splash damage that hits them all takes them all out. Unless you are talking greater illusion which requires way higher level and can make better things than silly copies of yourself)

of yourself zip around. And that's not even getting the billion things no other class can do at all(not true. Magic boots make anyone fly, Blink rings make anyone telport, etc.); jump through dimensions(item for this), raise the dead(item for this), make magic items(NPC for this), transform into anything(item for this), read minds(item for this), teleport across continents(item/portals for this), make magic traps(NPCs for this), know the future(items/NPS for this) ...

Besides the fact that depending on the gods of both the Cleric and Druid the party won't get a long well at all and constantly bicker over what to do, assuming any amount of roleplaying is involved of course. At worst one of these two faith based characters will even lose favour with their god for going along with things when they shouldn't have making them totally useless until they attune.)

Perhaps you just haven't played enough to realize the full scope of the classes and situations. Or your DM is sort of a one pony show and therefore your encounters always play out the same and you have found that party dynamic that bests it everytime.

Number one reason not to take lots of mages? You run out of fire power fast and will not survive any kind of extended battles (especially starting at lvl 1 to 6). Also you have to adventure long enough to develop your character to the point where you can even get any of those spells you sighted above like they were candy.

A good DM will be able to challenge any party dynamic, so why you would take any one thing is irrelevant cause eventually you will get caught somewhere you can't handle(Any wild/dead magic zone for example, or coming up against any shadow born creatures or Sharrans, Beholder, etc. pawns magic users ). Fighters don't run out of what they are good at until they are dead. Same with rogues, monks, etc. In fact my group will be lucky to have more than one spellcaster period because they know they should spread out their classes to improve their odds of surviving any one situation. If you need more of anyone class they can always higher an NPC.

Gwar! wrote:That's what you need to check out Pathfinder