Unpopular opinions go here

[Lanefan]

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.

You're forgetting UA's weapon specialization, which is going to give +3 to damage and (depending on level) faster attack rates.

Also, there were specific weapons designed for giant-slaying which did double damage against them. And a two-handed sword does 3d6 against Large, so I make the max. 18 + 3 (spec.) + 6 (strength) + weapon (2-h. swords go to +3 if memory serves); and if that thing's a giant-slayer, double it all.

Yeah, there's a reason I beefed up Giant hit points a very long time ago.

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?

Not by RAW but there may have been a very minor system introduced in an early Dragon - something like double damage on 5-6/d6 on a nat. 20.

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.

A lot of 1e's major monsters really were glass cannons. Dragons are the poster child.

The bright side is that combats were always short.

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.)

Nope, 1e fireballs also expanded to fill the volume of that 20' radius sphere; which worked out to about 33 10x10 cubes. (very useful when using 10-wide x 10-high passages and rooms with 10'-high ceilings!)

 

[Lanefan]

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

They're certainly the safest class to play, at any rate.

Everyone wants to keep the Cleric upright and functional, 'cause without it you've lost your in-field healing and (at higher levels) revival.

 

[Lanefan]

Serious question: should the tools that make your "martial healer" or "martial controller" be class locked?

Healing in general should be class-locked, and nowhere near as ubiquitous as the WotC editions would have it.

In other words,is there any defensible, in fiction reason why the wizard can't load up on herbs and bombs and then be even better?

The wizard can load up on herbs but it still takes a Ranger (or in some cases, Druid) to have much of a clue how to use/apply them. As for bombs, aren't those what the wizard is supposed to be casting instead of fiddling about with herbs?

And if we arbitrarily decide these mundane and grounded tools are only available to.a specific class, aren't we just back at "casters" minus the pointy hats?

Not sure what you mean here. Elaborate?

 

[Lanefan]

Well, it's about the results. If the approach produces bad results, it's bad. Starting from the fiction, i.e. deciding everything that's true in the world first, then trying to design classes (or any other element for that matter) will give you nothing new. You'll just get the same old same old every time.

Maybe you don't need anything new.

If starting from the fiction and working back gives you the same design you had before, that tells me in no uncertain terms that the original design is working as intended and doesn't need any fundamental changes. So don't spend any more time on it, other than minor tweaks around the edges if needed.

Again, mechanics then fiction. Why? Because, again, if you start from the fiction you established years ago you're artificially restrained to following that fiction, i.e. nothing new gets to happen because it doesn't follow the old fiction. That's bad.

No, that's good.

It's called internal consistency and backwards compatibility, two things that are vastly undervalued in all things IMO.

Only if they produce good results. The only thing that matters is the results. Does your approach produce nothing new? Then it's bad.

Why?

It seems you're after "new for the sake of new" here, and what's the point of that?

 

[overgeeked]

Maybe you don't need anything new.

You might not. I do.

Do you run your AD&D game raw or have you built up house rules and subsystems and added classes and spells over time?

Why? Maybe you don't need anything new. The answer to that is likely the same as my answer to your questions.

If starting from the fiction and working back gives you the same design you had before, that tells me in no uncertain terms that the original design is working as intended and doesn't need any fundamental changes. So don't spend any more time on it, other than minor tweaks around the edges if needed.

Or it's a sign of stagnation.

It's called internal consistency and backwards compatibility, two things that are vastly undervalued in all things IMO.

You don't need backwards compatibility in an RPG. At all. Internal consistency within an edition of a game, sure. Internal consistency across every edition of the game? No thanks. At that point there's no reason to make anything new. But maybe that works for you as you're still rocking AD&D. That doesn't work for me. I want something a bit more recent and updated.

Why?

Because stagnation is bad.

It seems you're after "new for the sake of new" here, and what's the point of that?

No, new for the sake of interesting things to do and play. I've been playing AD&D for almost 40 years. I'm tired of it. I've played 5E from the playtest until a few months ago. I'm tired of it. Better mechanics. Newer inspirations. Not something half stuck in the past, unable to change and grow and evolve.

 

[Older Beholder]

Unpopular opinion: roleplaying games are an artform

That last session you played: Art
Your character's backstory: Art
That world you built as a DM: Art

The maps you draw, the minis you paint, the stories you tell, these are all works of art.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

Franchising can be a gold mine or it can ruin you. I personally knew a guy with his hands in several 7-11s, and the guy who owns most of the Cici’s Pizza in my local area was one of my Dad’s patients.

OTOH, I also know of someone who lost nearly a third of his net worth- multiple millions of dollars- on his fast food investments due to factors beyond his control.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Franchising can be a gold mine or it can ruin you. I personally knew a guy with his hands in several 7-11s, and the guy who owns most of the Cici’s Pizza in my local area was one of my Dad’s patients.

OTOH, I also know of someone who lost nearly a third of his net worth- multiple millions of dollars- on his fast food investments due to factors beyond his control.

True. But I was referring to stock. McDs is pretty solid on the long haul.

 

[Hussar]

I'm a bit confused as to how a fighter could kill a giant in one blow.

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.)

Round. I said round. Not blow.

2e fighter with long sword and short sword and weapon specs gets three attacks every other round. D12+d12+d8+4+3xStr bonus can pretty quickly end a 7hd monster.

 

[Hussar]

Ah, yes. It's on a different table so it wasn't immediately obvious.

Still, you need to be 7th level to get 3/2 attacks, versus being a 5th-level magic-user...

Or you used the Unearthed Arcana and got multiple attacks at 1st level with +3 to hit and damage.