Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7029674" data-attributes="member: 29398">I disagree, to at least some extent.  I think in some ways it did work well, and in others - the parts that weren't done right - it failed.  The MUs depended on the Fighters to keep them upright, the Fighters depended on the Clerics to keep *them* upright, the Clerics depended on both the Fighters and MUs to do the heavy work, and the whole lot depended on the Thieves* to get them past the traps and hazards in order to even get to the battleground.* - niche protection for Thieves in 1e is very poor; the right combination of Cleric and MU spells could mostly substitute. Yeah, strength in numbers and all that; but there's not many players out there who would be content with playing the 'warm body' character long term.  So...Where I don't mind situations where one player or character takes the stage and just does their thing for a while...as long as it's entertaining. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  And this can be both on the short-term (the party 'face' does the negotiating while the rest of us [try to] shut up) and the long-term (the Illusionist is nigh-useless against all the undead in this adventure but will be the party MVC against all the ogres we're up against next trip out).True that, but it's invariably much more fun!  Give me low-level wobbles over high-level ones any day! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Completely agreed in principle.  For me the sweet-spot numbers are about 3rd-9th in 1e and 3rd-12th in 3e.  And it's pretty easy to fix Polymorph in 3e by just substituting the 1e versions with all their attendant risks and limitations.On behalf of those of us who find 1st-level play to usually be a blast: yuck!Good thing DMs can spin the dial on advancement speed. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Or, they're guessing the majority of campaigns (and thus, the majority of the market) just don't last long enough to get to those levels...?Re: 3.xeThe 3e (later 3.5e after an on-tye-fly system change) game I was in was very much the same - the one quasi-powergamer had long since been made to see the light, so it was a reasonably mellow group - but at about 14th it wobbled right off the rails mostly (I think) because the DM was burning out trying to come up with new ways to reasonably challenge the party.Same DM's got a PF game going now on the very-slow-advance track - 4 (or 5?) years in and they just got to 8th-ish level.  So far all seems well.Can't speak to 4e in play but going from my readings of various published adventures I can mostly understand where you're at here.Lan-"brilliant comeback with the 'decomposing' line, by the way, which is why the 'laugh' on the post"-efan</blockquote>

Verification