New Legends and Lore:Head of the Class

[Hussar]

Yes please do.

As far as I recall, a golem required a magical weapon to hit. Thus a fighter without such a weapon would be just as ineffective as the thief, and if both were armed with magic weapons then they could both participate fully.

Golems in 1E AD&D also had immunity to all but a few spells meaning that casters without the specific magic to use were in the same boat as martial characters without magic weapons.

The very nature of a golem made it more than just a monster. Depending on the experience and preparedness of the party, it could serve as a nasty deathtrap to be avoided, a really tough opponent in combat, or just a plain old monster.

Sigh. Do we really have to dredge this up again?

Fighter and rogue both have magic weapons capable of hitting Mr. Golem. Fighter is getting multiple attacks doing standard damage. IOW, he's just as effective fighting the golem as he is fighting a troll. He has not lost anything.

Mr Rogue, OTOH, is doing his base weapon damage. His primary contribution to combat - Sneak Attack - doesn't work. He has lost most of his effectiveness.

Thus, choice of monster sidelines one class while in no way affecting another.

Is that elaborate enough?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Sigh. Do we really have to dredge this up again?

Fighter and rogue both have magic weapons capable of hitting Mr. Golem. Fighter is getting multiple attacks doing standard damage. IOW, he's just as effective fighting the golem as he is fighting a troll. He has not lost anything.

Mr Rogue, OTOH, is doing his base weapon damage. His primary contribution to combat - Sneak Attack - doesn't work. He has lost most of his effectiveness.

Thus, choice of monster sidelines one class while in no way affecting another.

Is that elaborate enough?

Who mentioned Mr. Rogue? I'm talking about Mr. Thief.

The thief class was not primarily about combat. Why would we expect a specialist in stealth, lockpicking , and trap removal to be as effective in combat as a fighter?

Attempting to make every class all about combat effectiveness was the beginning of Justice League D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Thus, choice of monster sidelines one class while in no way affecting another.

I'm glad that doesn't happen in the new game, but, still, the logic went that a rogue who couldn't fight could still do 100 other things -- perhaps Bluff the golem's master, perhaps Sneak past it, perhaps Climb up where the golem can't reach and Jump over it.

Sure, the Rogue couldn't sneak attack it. But the fighter couldn't hit the ethereal ghost, and the wizard couldn't touch the magic-immune demon, and everyone had moments where they needed to fall back on other skills to do their job, overcome the obstacle, and achieve victory.

Don't get me wrong, I want a game where everyone can contribute to every challenge, but the sidelining was there so that you could use different ways of overcoming the challenge, or at least let someone else shine for a little while.

 

[Hussar]

KM - yeah, I know what the argument was. I just never really bought into it. There's a reason people called it "falling on the cleric bomb".

When you have rigidly defined capabilities for classes, with little overlap, anytime the DM doesn't contrive the situation so that everyone has something to do, someone's riding the pines. IMO, it puts too many limitations on adventure design to make sure that there's something for everyone.

I'd much rather just design an adventure and it shouldn't matter what classes go through it - they should all be able to complete the adventure, just in different ways.

I've done the 3 fighter types, 1 cleric, 1 wizard, 1 thief approach to party building for a long time. I'm rather tired of it by now. I'd much rather play a game where 3 thieves, a wizard and two clerics is every bit as capable of getting through the adventure.

 

[Mark CMG]

Sigh. Do we really have to dredge this up again?

Dude, you're the one who dredged it up.

Is that elaborate enough?

It's not even what was being asked. The area I was asking Saeviomagy to elaborate was in regard to if Saeviomagy truly felt the *only* reason newer D&D combats are longer than the older D&D combats (I went with non-edition-specific terms precisely to avoid edition warring) was because of Saeviomagy's stated opinion that some classes couldn't participate.


Seriously, Hussar. You cherrypick an edition war, you mess up the terminology, you reframe the discussion to shoehorn in the old edition war saw you prefer, you dismiss the counter argument that everyone knew would be coming, then you accuse the person who joined you in the mud of being the one to "dredge" up the edition war. I think we all know by now that one side is going to frame the argument to specifically limit meaningful action in combat situations to combat actions while the other side is going to bring up how those who cannot take combat actions can do other things even during combat. One side is going to claim that this constitutes being sidelined and the other side is going to suggest that the focus on combat in the rules is problematic when playing an RPG, or some other thing we've all read before. Look, I'm not even put off by your edition warring anymore. I think everyone who has heard the fable of the fox and the scorpion understands at this point that it's just your nature. But you're showing a decided lack of effort these days and that is disappointing. Please, if you are going to force an edition war into a thread where others are trying to rationally discuss design differences without edition warring, at least show a little leg. Make it worth our reading effort. These days, it just feels like you're phoning it in.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's not even what was being asked. The area I was asking Saeviomagy to elaborate was in regard to if Saeviomagy truly felt the *only* reason newer D&D combats are longer than the older D&D combats (I went with non-edition-specific terms precisely to avoid edition warring) was because of Saeviomagy's stated opinion that some classes couldn't participate.

I think perhaps I misstated. I meant that in prior editions in D&D, most classes turn in combat came down to "I hit it with my <weapon>". There was very little in terms of tactical choice except for the spellcasters, who would spend 2-3 times as long as the rest of the party combined selecting a spell, checking they could cast it, then going through all the mechanics to resolve it.

And 4e makes everyone a spellcaster.

 

[rogueattorney]

Considering that earlier editions only awarded xp if you KILLED the opponent, while 3e and 4e award it if you DEFEAT the opponent, I'm really not sure where you're getting this.

This is not accurate. It depends on the edition.

The original rules, (Vol.1, Men & Magic, pg 18) says "defeat."

The 1e PHB and DMG both specify, "slay."

The 1981 Basic rules says, "kill or overcome by magic, fighting, or wits."

 

[Lilaxe]

Hang on - so it's plausible that my dwarf can hack a giant to death with a hand axe, but I can't push it back? There seems to me to be variable thresholds of plausibility being applied).

All good discussions here but thought I'd mention that I could chop a tree down with a hand axe, but I could never push it over. An axe does not use the same laws of physics as the weight of a dwarf vs weight of a giant.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Yes please do.

As far as I recall, a golem required a magical weapon to hit. Thus a fighter without such a weapon would be just as ineffective as the thief, and if both were armed with magic weapons then they could both participate fully.

Golems in 1E AD&D also had immunity to all but a few spells meaning that casters without the specific magic to use were in the same boat as martial characters without magic weapons.

The very nature of a golem made it more than just a monster. Depending on the experience and preparedness of the party, it could serve as a nasty deathtrap to be avoided, a really tough opponent in combat, or just a plain old monster.

Yes. It made it
a) an insta-kill monster
b) a tough monster or
c) a monster.

Yay for variety. Sorry, but not seeing it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes. It made it
a) an insta-kill monster
b) a tough monster or
c) a monster.

Yay for variety. Sorry, but not seeing it.

Not seeing what?