Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6627663" data-attributes="member: 42582">The bastard sword used one-handed has the same stats as a longsword.You are correct that a cleric cannot directly rival a two-handed weapon using fighter. But that is small comfort for the player of the sword-and-shield fighter, which is hardly an uncommon build (either today, or back in the heyday of AD&D).There are a range of options in 2nd ed AD&D to give non-warrior PCs multiple attacks.More generally, the fact that fighters get better than clerics over time doesn't change the fact that the cleric can overshadow the fighter. We've just had survey data from WotC indicating that the majority of campaigns are in the 1st-to-6th level zone.On the 1st ed AD&D attack tables a 5th level cleric (XP: 13,001) has the same THACO as a 4th level fighter (XP: somewhere between 8,001 and 18,000). With a 17 STR compared to a 16 STR fighter, the cleric will have a better chance to hit. 5d8 hit points is a marginally better average than 4d10, and if the cleric has a better CON score the difference might be genuinely noticeable.It does not stop this cleric overshadowing this fighter for what might be months of play to point out that, if or when the fighter reaches a higher level at some hypothetical future time, to hit bonuses and multiple attacks will get to a point that the cleric can't rival them.This is like saying because a horse is in some contexts tall (eg when I'm talking about animals or even mammals in general) but in some contexts not tall, or even short (eg when I'm trying to work out whether I can stable giraffes in the same building where I stable my horses) it is therefore a "logical no-no" to ever call a horse short (or tall).When someone says that die-rolled stats are unfair, they are not suggesting that the dice are biased. They are saying that, relative to the context and purposes of their game, it is unfair for one player to have a mechanically stronger PC than another - eg becaues that player thereby gains an unearned advantage - and that rolled stats open up that possibility. Whereas points buy stats or array close it down.That is not illogical. It's perfectly sensible. And is not rebutted by pointing out that from the point of view of gambling, the die rolling is fair because unbiased. The whole point of the critic's claim is that allocating starting positions via gambling, even a fair gamble, is unfair. There is nothing illogical about that claim. It's quite unremarkable.</blockquote>

Verification