Hey Everyone,
Why are people always arguing about how the discrepancy between Wizards (and sometimes casters in general) & Melee characters is still to great? If you want complete balance why do people just not play 4th Edition D&D, they did a great job balancing the classes and the game is terrible. Then the same people argue that role playing is becoming more like playing a video game (especially when it comes to character optimization) and video games strive for THE ULTIMATE BALANCE, especially those MMORPG's.
I suspect in the future they will make all Table Tops where every class is of equal power and equal balance. I play all of the classes and enjoy all of the classes but I wonder if eventually all games will head in the same direction.
-Yeah I know
I don't have an issue with the discrepancy, and saying there is too much discrepancy is not the same thing as "I want perfect balance".
Which same people have argued both sides?
Swinging a sword effectively is easy, at any level. A Fighter enjoys his job from day 1. A Wizard starts out a lot slower, 'cause magic is hard. Eventually though, he gets to ramp things up quite a bit. It's those later levels that make him look so powerful. Folks forget that the Fighter had all the glory earlier in the campaign.
I think there can probably be a lot of insightful stuff said about the balance between casters vs. melee, especially throughout the levels.
However, let's leave 4th Edition out of it.
Also there are some fairly long threads about MMORPGS, many with good stuff here and there.
With PF there is good Balance
Melee vs wizard at range- Melee dies
Wizard vs Melee in close- wizard dies
That's Balance :)
Heh. True perhaps. But wizard is better equipped to keep the fighter at bay, than fighter is at closing in with wizard. :-)
Nevertheless I like playing melee types. They can go at it all day and night, while wizards are feeling sleepy after every encounter or two ;-)
No flame wars here. It's obvious that encounters usually start at range, so theres some closing in to do. Also there are several spells to slow your opponent or get away from her.
|
If you want complete balance why do people just not play 4th Edition D&D
Because perhaps there are other factors in the decision making process - for example some people may play PF for the Adventure Paths, and if Paizo created APs for 4e, they may well indeed play 4e. For other people other aspects of 4e aside from balance are a turn off for them. Basically "play 4e" is not often the best answer to someone criticising PF for its lack of balance between magic users and non magic users.
they did a great job balancing the classes and the game is terrible.
Highly debatable - many people love it, others enjoy it even though they prefer PF, many people play both (I play 3.5, PF and 4e). But as has already been said, lets try not to bash 4e please.
Then the same people argue that role playing is becoming more like playing a video game (especially when it comes to character optimization) and video games strive for THE ULTIMATE BALANCE, especially those MMORPG's.
Perhaps those same people are talking about other facets of RPGs that are making them more like playing a video game, rather than balance? You have made a connection there that may not exist.
I suspect in the future they will make all Table Tops where every class is of equal power and equal balance. I play all of the classes and enjoy all of the classes but I wonder if eventually all games will head in the same direction.
Perhaps, perhaps not. But it should be born in mind that all classes being balanced doesn't necessarily mean all classes being the same - 4e very much manages to give each class its own flavour while still keeping them balanced in the combat department.
It sounds like you are frustrated by readinf threads where people criticise PF for not having balance between melee and magic - if so I simply suggest you stop reading those threads :)
I failed to understand the arugement such as "magic-users can alter reality in high levels while melee classes can only attack four times per round, therefore it's unbalance", or "high level melee classes need magic items else they cannot beat magic-users on toe to toe fights".
So the magic-users shouldn't fly,use teleport, turn invisible or cast wish spell because it's unfair, because high level melee characters can't do that? or the melee characters in high levels should have some "magical cool but not really magic powers " to let them alter reality?
|
Becoming a wizard is for cowards who would prefer to cower behind cover playing with owlbear feces, making silly hand gestures, and chanting nonsense while a battle is raging. They can occasionaly be useful in non-combat situations, but they're often so frail and cowardly that they complain that they need to sleep after the group has killed only a few hundred orcs. They also insist on having someone who CAN be useful in battle hang back to protect them, should any enemies manage to sneak up behind the group. In doing so, they rob a warrior of his potential glory.
Wizards...pah! *spits*
My 2c:
Why are people always arguing about how the discrepancy between Wizards (and sometimes casters in general) & Melee characters is still to great?
Because they tend to speak generalized situations at higher levels.
We play pre made adventures and these things tend (so its not entirely up to GM) to happen:
#1. Lower levels "fighters" (=non-spell casting classes) tend to do the heavy lifting, with little help from casters
#2. We are in hurry. No time to memorize spells etc. => wizards become not so useful
#3. Wizards have actually pretty bad saves, no special defensive feats & low HP. So they are more hurt by their own tricks than the others. Casting a lot of defesive spells leads to #2 sooner. Plus no (very effective) AoOs (to defend self (and others!) from melee opponents).
#4. There are sometimes antimagic areas. No need to describe how useless wizard is there?
If you want complete balance why do people just not play 4th Edition D&D, they did a great job balancing the classes and the game is terrible.
The game has its good sides and bad sides. I think balance is a myth. Orb wizard is about the only one who can make saves very hard for opponents & if you have looked DPR threads 4e is actully further from balance than PF (it has very, very nasty abuse opportunities).
Then the same people argue that role playing is becoming more like playing a video game (especially when it comes to character optimization) and video games strive for THE ULTIMATE BALANCE, especially those MMORPG's.
Character optimization has been debated issue a long time (long before MMORPG's). I feel that its more about internet (=free exhange of ideas) and more character options (more ways to "abuse").
I suspect in the future they will make all Table Tops where every class is of equal power and equal balance. I play all of the classes and enjoy all of the classes but I wonder if eventually all games will head in the same direction.
No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's those later levels that make him look so powerful. Folks forget that the Fighter had all the glory earlier in the campaign.
Not to ignite a 5000th casters vs. fighters debate, but my experience is that the 'later levels' come sooner and sooner as the players get better and better at the (mechanical part of the) game.
I'm playing in one game where the casters already had all the glory at 1st level, though I don't claim that's typical. 3rd-5th is pretty reasonable, though.
It's those later levels that make him look so powerful. Folks forget that the Fighter had all the glory earlier in the campaign.Not to ignite a 5000th casters vs. fighters debate, but my experience is that the 'later levels' come sooner and sooner as the players get better and better at the (mechanical part of the) game.
I'm playing in one game where the casters already had all the glory at 1st level, though I don't claim that's typical. 3rd-5th is pretty reasonable, though.
No doubt there are exceptions to the rule. A great player, playing a Wizard, in a party of lesser mortals, can rule the roost. :)
I'm just saying that, typically, the Fighter is going to enjoy more success, from the the get-go. You're quite right that the caster does catch up to, and eventually surpasses, the melee-guy. And yeah, it can happen sooner rather than later.
Note: for the melee-guy, your power is always on, you don't have to memorize crap, and you need to assert yourself before the Wizard gets too big. :)
Arrrrr... We're in for rough ride, me boyos ...
I hate when OP's start a thread and run off.
It's not Wizard vs. Fighter.
It's Wizard + Fighter.
The most damaging spell in the Wizard's repertoire is often Haste.
+1. Buffing your team and debuffing the enemy is a good strategy, and wizards who keep that in mind will live long and prosper. :)
Because
Melee Players want to be the best they can be at all levels.
Magic Players want to be the best they can be at all levels.
Melee players do not like it when magic shows them up.
Magic players do not like it when melee shows them up.
In this day and age is is all about ME the player.
In the past age is was all about We the Team.
It's not Wizard vs. Fighter.
It's Wizard + Fighter.
The most damaging spell in the Wizard's repertoire is often Haste.
I agree, should be about the Team.
Team player vs Solo Act
Optimizer vs Non-optimizer
These create more problems in the games I've known than melee vs wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the past age is was all about We the Team.
It's still about the team; what you need to keep in mind is that, in a team game, it's fun to be able to contribute roughly as much/often as other people in the team get to. Or to put it another way, in football, not everyone needs to be the quarterback to have fun, but being the waterboy sure gets old fast.
If you can build a cleric who can do everything the fighter can as well or better, plus do extra stuff, that's no longer the case and the game falls apart as a team game unless you give up on playing one of those classes. In 3.5 this wasn't hard at all -- in PF although I think the cleric is still generally a somewhat stronger class across the board it's a lot harder.
Because
Melee Players want to be the best they can be at all levels.
Magic Players want to be the best they can be at all levels.
Melee players do not like it when magic shows them up.
Magic players do not like it when melee shows them up.In this day and age is is all about ME the player.
In the past age is was all about We the Team.I agree, should be about the Team.It's not Wizard vs. Fighter.
It's Wizard + Fighter.
The most damaging spell in the Wizard's repertoire is often Haste.
I disagree. Most of these discussions are theoretical, and people don't often play like they post. When I post I assume the DM is showing no mercy. I also think we are off the invisible OP's original topic. <--With that said I will not post again until he returns.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: This thread is a trap. :)
The OP is here. He is posting under the name Flipper. I don't understand the point he is trying to get across. After read his last post I am thinking he has a limited understanding of the system.
The OP is here. He is posting under the name Flipper. I don't understand the point he is trying to get across. After read his last post I am thinking he has a limited understanding of the system.
Teehee! We ALL have a limited understanding of the system, but only some are able to admit it. </fortune cookie>
The OP is here. He is posting under the name Flipper. I don't understand the point he is trying to get across. After read his last post I am thinking he has a limited understanding of the system.Teehee! We ALL have a limited understanding of the system, but only some are able to admit it. </fortune cookie>
Darn semantics. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Everyone,
Why are people always arguing about how the discrepancy between Wizards (and sometimes casters in general) & Melee characters is still to great? If you want complete balance why do people just not play 4th Edition D&D, they did a great job balancing the classes and the game is terrible. Then the same people argue that role playing is becoming more like playing a video game (especially when it comes to character optimization) and video games strive for THE ULTIMATE BALANCE, especially those MMORPG's.
It's not a question of balancing all the class out against each other, and the discrepancy wasn't as much of an issue in 1st/2nd ed D&D.
In 1st/2nd ed spells offered tremendous power, but even the most powerful spell (Wish) had major drawbacks. The Wotc philosophy was to eliminate those drawbacks - entirely. That combined with uneven attribute values and impact on the game (compare the impact of high Str for a Fighter vs. high Int on Wizard) and DC manipulation creates the imbalance. With no caps on DCs, or attributes the focus on optimized casters is to get the casting stat as high as possible, while non-casters play catch up.
So it isn't the spells per se, it's the spells with no consequences and heavy math manipulation available for the casting classes.
The relative ease on acquiring stat boost items that take DCs out of CR appropriate range make the problem worse. Hell, even a Wizard matched against a Fighter of equal level (doesn't matter if it's low or high level) can manipulate the DCs of his spell saves way beyond a reasonable save range.
With the d20 system it is all about stats/DCs, the system favors casters from a mechanical basis. If the spells had more drawbacks or if casting had more risks it might mitigate the manipulation issues but as it stands with every incarnation of 3.0/3.5/PF the situation gets worse, not better. While Pathfinder removed concentration as a skill did help the situation slightly it didn't really make much of a dent. All this really comes down to a core mechanic operating without restrictions and caps - caps which goes against the d20 philosophy.
Sometimes a 100% upward/open-ended design philosophy is not good for a system, at least when all values are applied to all aspects without all classes getting similar benefits, Boosting Str and swinging a sword vs. Boosting Int and casting Save or die spell.
Fundamentally it's a combination of factors that lead to the dominance of casters in playing groups.
1a)Fighter progression is linear- You get +1 BAB, increase number of iterative attacks, gain some skills and a feat every so often. Feat chains do increase in power but for the most part feats do not improve that much as you level (power attack is a notable exception).
1b)Wizard progression is geometric-Your BAB sucks but in most cases you don't actually have to roll to hit with a spell further your core functionality gets better as you level. Not only do you eventually get reality altering spells but your lower level spells generally scale in power.
2a)Fighters work function on the HP track-For the most part melee types do HP damage. Some late game critical effects show up but for the most part they are typically to little too late. By the time that a fighter can do a stunning critical 30% of the time the caster can auto-win the encounter.
2b)Casters can bypass the HP track-Indeed blaster casters are widely considered to be substandard because they basically just effect opponent HPs. This means that SoD/SoS spells can auto-win many encounters. Pathfinder improved this some but Save DCs still generally outscale saves.
3a)Melee types have no ability to reconfigure options-Some fighter types have enough spare feats to have 2 or maybe 3 modes (THF, Archery, TWF) but for the most part you tend to be a specialist. Outside of your specialization your damage dealing capacity goes way down.
3b)Memorization casters can reconfigure-If you are a wizard you can reconfigure your spell load each rest period to best suit your purposes. This is a massive advantage especially if you have spells to scout ahead.
4a)Melee types are stuck aiming for full attacks-5' steps and full attacks arguably make for boring combat. Iterative attacks are so critical for doing level appropriate damage that you need to be doing them the majority of the time. Recent changes via the APG helps this issue but static defensive lines are an issue for many modern gamers.
4b)Casters have a reliable method of not only casting every round but often casting multiple times per round. Quicken in particular allow casters the ability to spam multiple battle enders in a given round. Most of these have no significant range issues or targeting issues meaning they can strike in round 1 and every round after that. They can be challenged in close combat but interrupting casting (which was a part of 1e and 2e) wasn't really brought forward in a really meaningful way.
5a)Fighters in particular really struggle out of combat- Pathfinder helps in this regards with eliminating cross class skills and reducing skill list but for the most part fighters don't really have enough skill points and active class skills to be major contributors to the party's skill set.
5b)Casters have skill bypasses- While most full casters don't have a ton of skill points (wizards with high int get a pretty decent number) they often have spells and abilities (cleric domain abilities) that can supplement skill usage at least on a limited use basis. Charm Person can remove the need to negotiate with diplomacy, other skills supplement the skillmonkeys, etc.
Hey Everyone,
Why are people always arguing about how the discrepancy between Wizards (and sometimes casters in general) & Melee characters is still too great?
I would suggest that it's because they think there's still an issue, and hope that by discussing it they might be able to resolve the situation (or that they might influence the game designers when writing games). I don't see anything wrong with that as long as they're polite.
If you want complete balance why do people just not play 4th Edition D&D, they did a great job balancing the classes and the game is terrible.
That's debatable. Many people love 4e, and think that it is a great base for the types of games they like; others dislike it because of the direction it took. Some of the things I dislike most about D&D 4e are actually present in Pathfinder! 4e fixed many of the things that Pathfinder didn't, but then I think I probably prefer Pathfinder's style. Neither is my perfect game, but I wouldn't describe either as terrible.
Then the same people argue that role playing is becoming more like playing a video game (especially when it comes to character optimization) and video games strive for THE ULTIMATE BALANCE, especially those MMORPG's.
Some people argue this, others reject it. It should be asked what's wrong with looking at potential examples of good game design, and if something seems like a good idea, why not give it a try? I don't play any MMORPGs, so I don't know if D&D 4e resembles them or not, but the same criticisms were directed towards 3e. I think that it's good to consider balance, just so that you don't need to sacrifice flavour for power, but I don't think it's the most important factor in a game (unless it is highly competitive).
I suspect in the future they will make all Table Tops where every class is of equal power and equal balance. I play all of the classes and enjoy all of the classes but I wonder if eventually all games will head in the same direction.
-Yeah I know
Maybe games that heavily feature tactical combat may approach that balance, but If you mean all RPGs, then I highly doubt that.
|
|
Excellent points vuron
1)a/b - while true, in older editions there were balancing factors to contain this, less spells, spells had more drawbacks/danger to the caster and spells were much more difficult to cast. As an isolated point, this "traditional" class paradigm could still work for a 3rd edition. Again, if it was the sole issue it wouldn’t be a problem.
2)a/b - Agree 100%. Was the case in older editions but saves were much better plus spells were less plentiful. Increased castings per day, plus DC boost manipulation being the biggest problems with this issue. Again, SoDs being what they are, DC/save manipulation just didn't really exist in older editions.
3)a/b - Agree, was always the case with other editions now casters just get more: more uses per day + their own form of specializations (Domains or specialist wizards). There was a little bit of this in 2nd, but the number of spells/day were much lower vs. 3rd.
4)a/b - Yeah...can't disagree with anything you wrote. Seems like fighters got locked into standing still while casters are free to run. Almost a reversal in combat flexibility from earlier editions (wizards in back, fighters owning the battlefield). Sucks
5)a - Agree with this, but I see 3rd/PF giving some out of combat ability to non-casters, just not very much. Fighters don't get default tactics or leadership abilities (as maybe they should) but there are some opportunities via the skill system.
b - This has always bothered my about any version of D&D. Find/Remove traps, et al in my opinion, sucked. Too much dipping into other classes specialties. I think the increase availability of spell use has made it worse in 3rd. Ex - AD&D had limited spell slots so that means fewer would pick utility spells (Charm is multipurpose) unless they absolutely had to. With the increase in spells/day it just makes it worse.
Good format and presentation of the issues vuron.
Part of the problem is that the rate of advancement and obvious campaign end point changed dramatically between the transition from 1e-2e to 3e.
Instead of having a natural campaign endpoint at name level (levels 9-12 for the most part) you now have an expected endpoint of 20 (assuming you don't incorporate the relatively shoddy ELH ruleset). This changes alot of factors.
This is combined with the extremely fast advancement rate of 3e characters in which a year per 1-20 progression is pretty much assumed. In contrast 1 year of play might net you 9th level in 1e with continued advancement coming at a relatively glacial rate.
So even though the linear-geometric issue was around in 1e-2e it was less noticeable to most people because many campaigns never got into the levels that wizards are throwing around wish. 2e Clerics were healbots/buffers almost exclusively so never really developed into quadratic characters.
Discussions about 3.x almost always revolve around mid to high level caster dominance because at a certain point the full casters surge ahead in terms of gameplay impact. Combined with issues with high level play in general and it seems obvious why variations like e6,e8,e10, etc have all been purposed to limit the caster imbalance. Chopping off the high end of the caster power curve around the same point at which the caster surpass the noncasters seems to be a solution some people like.
Of course if you cap casters at sixth level for instance (the low end of when casters begin to rock) you still have the issue of most casters being crap tier early on...
|
|
I think Wizards are for people who like casting spells, whereas pure melee classes are for those who don't.
But more seriously. The OP is right. Wizards are great assuming you (a) have spells left and (b) have the right spells. If (a) or (b) don't apply then a Wizard isn't as much use as the 'always ready" Fighter.
As a DM I make sure my adventures don't promote the 15-min adventuring day. 1e Teleport was too risky to use each day just to rest and Teleport Without Error was 7th level. Bring back some 1e sensibility into spell casting I say.
S.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With PF there is good Balance
Melee vs wizard at range- Melee dies
Wizard vs Melee in close- wizard dies
That's Balance :)
Heh. True perhaps. But wizard is better equipped to keep the fighter at bay, than fighter is at closing in with wizard. :-)
Nevertheless I like playing melee types. They can go at it all day and night, while wizards are feeling sleepy after every encounter or two ;-)
Funny. Without a cleric or a ton of potions, fighters can't go long at all...
But more seriously. The OP is right. Wizards are great assuming you (a) have spells left and (b) have the right spells.
The thing is, as players get better, the probability of A and B being true approaches 100%.
No flame wars here. It's obvious that encounters usually start at range, so theres some closing in to do. Also there are several spells to slow your opponent or get away from her.Beorgnar the Invulnerable Rager Says: Running is for Cowards! Chaarrrrge!!!! (Runs up and buries his Greataxe into your overly large cranium) Take THAT Mage!
But that was only an illusion of the mage. He's actually flying and invisible. Now you get to pull out your subpar bow and play 3D battleship while the wizard twiddles his thumbs/summons help.
|
|
But that was only an illusion of the mage. He's actually flying and invisible. Now you get to pull out your subpar bow and play 3D battleship while the wizard twiddles his thumbs/summons help.No flame wars here. It's obvious that encounters usually start at range, so theres some closing in to do. Also there are several spells to slow your opponent or get away from her.Beorgnar the Invulnerable Rager Says: Running is for Cowards! Chaarrrrge!!!! (Runs up and buries his Greataxe into your overly large cranium) Take THAT Mage!
Fly + Greater Invisibility + Projected Image = a bunch of dead mundane types.
Sorry wraithStrike, did not get to check the post again until now.
I see many good points. I also did not want to come across as bashing 4th Edition. I have played 4th edition and there were features that I did like but it seemed that every step forward they took 3 steps back (to me at least).
I also know that when people post on these issues it rarely comes across in an actual game session. I have play wizards and can I was definitely not prepared for every encounter, in fact very few encounters I am typically completely prepared for when I play casters.
When I play a fighter now however, I think they are a great martial class compared to what was offered in the past. I think they have been scaled up very well and I tend to play melee classes in general more. Maybe it is always that sense of wonder when you get those new spells every two levels.
I always like the idea of being able to develop my fighter through feats because you get such a large amount. I can increase my saving throws, archery abilities, or any number of options depending on how you want to go.
I was just wondering on what other peoples thoughts/opinions were on the issue and I have read your posts and they give me a better perspective.
The confusion was because you posted under two different names. Sometimes people start what I like to call a flamebait thread and then sit back and watch the show. After I went to your profile I realized you were posting under a different name, than the one you started thread with. I was just a little, well honestly very, suspicious. I see you are contributing or at least still around so it is all good now.
edit:(much later) Thanks. I was glad I could help. I will add that trying to get info will help you be more prepared with your casters. Having scrolls is also a great idea. I do agree that the fighter got an upgrade. He can now take two different paths as far as fighting styles go.
Well, i see that 3.x Edition made spellcasting far easier (a lot, actually) than previous editions. For me, honestly, i don't want to come back on those days of AD&D 2nd Edition, when playing a wizard from 1st level was quite frustrating, to say the least. But i see the point of those who state that spellcasters can easily outshine meleers in later levels.
Maybe an alternative rule can appeal those who think that spellcasting is still too easy. Instead of treating concentration checks as caster level checks, you can treat spellcasting as a Will saving throw, subject to the standard DC's presented in PF Core Rulebook.
Well, just an idea.
Before I get into my rant as to why it isn't important which wins spell caster vs. melee I would like to point out a couple of things.
I have seen a 1st level wizard single handedly best an entire gaming session. That same wizard was basically useless for the next 2 sessions either having the wrong spells prepared or running out of useful ones without them working, the third session he resorted to throwing daggers and basically shot himself in the foot, hit an ally, and tried to enter combat with similar results (since he had no other decent options at that point.)
I have seen a fighter run through 3 encounters taking 2 rounds to dispatch all the opponents in each encounter (6-7 creatures Challenging difficulty.) Said fighter has also spent 3 rounds failing to land a hit. In my mind she is probably the strongest member of the party even with 3 full casters in the party.
Both characters were able to shine and both characters have had moments when they felt weak. Strength is situational and also luck dependant.
Now when people engage in pissing contests between classes the only thing that seems to come from them is general hostility and a cloud of smug. The game is designed in such a way that victory or defeat is entirely dependant on one player the GM. The game mechanics exist so that even though you can create a godlike avatar there is the possibility of failure giving you a sense of achievement when your character succeeds even though the situation is entirely contrived. This is make-believe for grown ups, instead of saying "bang bang your dead" "nuh-uh you missed" you can attempt to hit your opponent with an attack roll and you succeed if you beat the AC.
Instead of asking who is more powerful the wizard or the fighter why not ask what you want to accomplish and which class can help you do this.
Honestly I think the fighter and wizard are closer in power then they where in 3.5. After all the fighter really is the king of damage in pathfinder and he can keep it up all day long. To me all the fighter really needed was some more defensive abilities at higher levels, better saves, and the ability to shake off some of the most common magic effects (slows, stuns and charms). With those changes he may not be as Versatile as a wizard but he would certainly contribute to the party.
Ultimately if there is a pathfinder 2nd edition I think one way to balance the classes is to give the non-spellcaster (and hybrids) offensive and defensive abilities that automatically overcome common enemy tactics while spellcaster would have to prepare and cast spells to overcome those same tactics. It wouldn't be perfectly balance but classes like the fighter/barbarian/monk would be still be useful at higher levels.
I wonder if anyone here ever played final fantasy 10. It had a unique system where all enemies where strong to certain characters attacks, like Lulu's offensive element magic, but where weak against others like Auron's heavy weapons attacks. It was a nice little rock paper scissors system for keeping every character interesting without having a true roles system.
|
|
Add back in the 10 or 15 mins (can't remember exactly wich) per spell level for re-learning spells and it make s huge difference. Also, as I've said numerous times, put back in "if you are hit, you auto-lose the spell". This alone would help the melee classes feel less threatened by the casters.
Your average 18th level Mage ends up taking about a week or so to re-learn every spell they could cast!
S.
No flame wars here. It's obvious that encounters usually start at range, so theres some closing in to do. Also there are several spells to slow your opponent or get away from her.Beorgnar the Invulnerable Rager Says: Running is for Cowards! Chaarrrrge!!!! (Runs up and buries his Greataxe into your overly large cranium) Take THAT Mage!
If running is for cowards how are you charging? I presume slowly ;D