Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xanaqui" data-source="post: 3974930" data-attributes="member: 56394">edition comparisonI loved playing 1st and 2nd ed Thieves (and Assassins in 1E and Bards in 2E) largely because they got to higher levels more quickly; they were typically 1-2 levels above the rest of the party, which made up for quite a few of their problems (bad HP,poor chance to hit, abilities slowly overshadowed by magic, backstab topping out around LV 13).Note that the fighter in your example is doing over twice the damage of the thief, per attack. Also note that with Weapon Specialization (and high level), the Fighter's number of attacks per round increased, whereas the Thief didn't get this (although most min/maxed Thieves did use 2 weapons in 1E).However, I agree that everyone but a high-level Cleric (Harm) or Druid (Creeping Doom) or perhaps 1E Illusionist (Prismatic Spray) felt overshadowed by Wizards, other than at very low levels.I disagree. Other than at the highest levels, against weak opponents over 1 HD, their power decreased, particuarly compared to the powers of their opponents. A LV 13 or so fighter got a commensurate BAB to a 3rd edition one, but had 5/2 attacks with weapon specialization (all at full BAB, unlike the 3E one). If one used 2-weapon fighting (1st ed), or weapon mastery (Complete Fighter's handbook), and magic items from early standard modules (which seemed to love girdles of giant strength,and gave out magic weapons like candy), Fighters could do a lot more per non-sneak attack round than a Thief or Bard (even one with Gauntlets of Ogre power). Never mind the HP disparity, or that thieves in 1/2E had roughly the raw BAB of Wizards in 3E.I found being able to do nothing worse. For that matter, I think that's one of the nice things about Sneak attack - the ability to pierce DR through high damage.I agree on your last point. As GM, I end up having to deliberately put in creatures so that the Rogue can sneak attack them, or I'll end up with a combat ineffective rogue for long stretches of time.As far as bards are concerned, 3.5 nerfed one of their more effective 3.0 builds (Archer). Even as such in 3.0, one would still have been stronger as a Cleric (rather than a Bard) in virtually every way. I think that said class needs help, and likely a re-design.</blockquote>

Verification