Unpopular opinions go here

[Dannyalcatraz]

Buying local is more a myth; they are set up in regions, and try to buy within a region to reduce costs.

I wouldn’t exactly call it a myth, given what I was looking at and the context of why I was looking at it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Does that have a ring of truthiness? Or have I glossed or misrepresented something major? Also checking with @Vaalingrade .

I do have to note that people being "okay" with fighters back then ignores the fact that people who found those fighters bland as hell tended to migrate away from D&D, not just stay around and complain about it. That was part of why I was completely away from D&D for more than two decades.

 

[Faolyn]

Ok, now we need to be a bit more specific about which edition we're talking about. Again, fighters were fine in 1e and 2e because they were almost never getting overshadowed by casters - when your fighter is killing giants in one round, it's hard to overshadow him or her.

It becomes more of an issue in later editions, and a bigger issue at higher levels.

Oh, and let's not forget the absolute innundation of new spells into the game. AD&D had what, a quarter of the spell choices of 2e and 3e had twice as many again. And that's just in the PHB.

I'm a bit confused as to how a fighter could kill a giant in one blow. <pulls out 1e stuff>

OK, let's assume a completely average hill giant (HD 8 + 1-2--I'm assuming that means 8 HD + 1-2 hp, not 8 HD + 1-2 HD; it's just written weirdly), so... 37 hit points.

Let's also assume a fighter with 18/100 Strength, who does +6 damage, wielding a bastard sword +5 (2d8 damage). So... a maximum of 27 damage per round. Which rather suggests that it's only possible to kill a very weak, below-average hill giant in one blow, if your Strength and weapon are both maxed to the gills and you roll max damage. Were critical hits even a thing in RAW 1e? All I remember were ridiculously OP critical hit tables which had entries like "lower jaw knocked off, leaving tongue hanging." Am I missing something?

It's just not much to brag about how powerful fighters are if you're killing the hill giant equivalent of a 98-pound weakling. Especially since a 5th-level wizard could fireball that giant for a max of 30 damage in a... 2" sphere, whatever that meant in 1e; I've forgotten (huh; I guess it was 2e that introduced the dungeon-cleaner fireballs.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure. Super hearing, super scent, super with computers, flight, x-ray vision, etc... feel like they are great in lots of places! (If you have them).

That's only true if those give you as much spotlight time as the ability to throw a really wicked energy blast. Its actually fairly difficult to make that routinely true without making at least some of the characters nearly superfluous a big part of the time (I've said before that one of the reasons combat is such a central part of so many games is that even the marginally competent can contribute somewhat, something you can't reliable say in a lot of other fields of endeavor).

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I do have to note that people being "okay" with fighters back then ignores the fact that people who found those fighters bland as hell tended to migrate away from D&D, not just stay around and complain about it. That was part of why I was completely away from D&D for more than two decades.

I think it’s an attitude. We knew thieves were weak but they were cool. I liked playing clerics a lot because I liked being a holy prophet/force for good (or evil…evil clerics were fun

We were more into the role as a group back then. More abilities and widgets in 5e has been fun and I don’t think we will go back…but character differentiation happened more with roleplay for US back in the stone ages of late 80s…

So much of this thread is about the player orientation to the game in my opinion vs the game itself.

 

[Cadence]

I think it’s an attitude. We knew thieves were weak but they were cool. I liked playing clerics a lot because I liked being a holy prophet/force for good (or evil…evil clerics were fun

I mean, Clerics have been the coolest class to play for almost every edition...

...imho.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I mean, Clerics have been the coolest class to play for almost every edition...

...imho.

Ha! I must agree!

I got a 1e cleric to 10th level. And I did not recall it at first but he and my son share a first name…wow…not intentional!

Dropping flamesteike was so great!

I had no strength bonus but had a +2 mace…oh the joy!

I played a LN 5e arcana cleric of wee Jas yesterday…big difference but still super fun…

 

[Reynard]

I'm a bit confused as to how a fighter could kill a giant in one blow. <pulls out 1e stuff>

OK, let's assume a completely average hill giant (HD 8 + 1-2--I'm assuming that means 8 HD + 1-2 hp, not 8 HD + 1-2 HD; it's just written weirdly), so... 37 hit points.

Let's also assume a fighter with 18/100 Strength, who does +6 damage, wielding a bastard sword +5 (2d8 damage). So... a maximum of 27 damage per round. Which rather suggests that it's only possible to kill a very weak, below-average hill giant in one blow, if your Strength and weapon are both maxed to the gills and you roll max damage. Were critical hits even a thing in RAW 1e? All I remember were ridiculously OP critical hit tables which had entries like "lower jaw knocked off, leaving tongue hanging." Am I missing something?

It's just not much to brag about how powerful fighters are if you're killing the hill giant equivalent of a 98-pound weakling. Especially since a 5th-level wizard could fireball that giant for a max of 30 damage in a... 2" sphere, whatever that meant in 1e; I've forgotten (huh; I guess it was 2e that introduced the dungeon-cleaner fireballs.)

You are forgetting multiple attacks, which changes things a lot in a game where the monsters have far fewer hit points. As to criticals: i don't remember if there were actual rules but we always did max damage on a nat 20.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think it’s an attitude. We knew thieves were weak but they were cool. I liked playing clerics a lot because I liked being a holy prophet/force for good (or evil…evil clerics were fun

We were more into the role as a group back then. More abilities and widgets in 5e has been fun and I don’t think we will go back…but character differentiation happened more with roleplay for US back in the stone ages of late 80s…

So much of this thread is about the player orientation to the game in my opinion vs the game itself.

I get that was the way it was for some people, but I'll just note I felt the way I did in 1978 when I hopped out of D&D and didn't go back until the 3e era.

My point was that assuming people just shrugged about the inadequacies of D&D characters rather than going and finding other games is a little tunnel-vision.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I wouldn’t exactly call it a myth, given what I was looking at and the context of why I was looking at it.

Fair enough. The Golden Arches are an oft-overlooked investment option, hence my interest.