Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6464586" data-attributes="member: 15700">By his logic, the vast majority of PC characters dealt with spells, since spells make up the vast majority of the page count.using page count as a basis of argument is extremely flawed for reasons already given.  And even if it were, the combat section in the DMG is only 20 pages long.no matter how you look at it, that argument falls apart.and now I am utterly convinced that he hasn't actually played or read AD&D by that post above.  It shows clear ignorance of how important CHA was in 1e.  Reactions, loyalty, and hirelings/henchmen were a huge part of 1e.  He keeps posting things that are untrue, and can be easily proven as such.. And to say that a monster manual proves it was all about combat because lots of stats?  That's a huge load of rubbish, and I hope you can see why without me needing to explain it.D&D has always had combat, sure.  But the game is not presented (at least 1e) as if that's what you'll be doing the vast majority of time.  And it most certainly wasn't played that way by most players.  Between xp for treasure, the NUMEROUS and repeated statements in the rules to avoid combat,extremely high fatality of combat even at high levels, plethora of information about world building, and you literally can't get any clearer that D&D hasn't always been about combatthe way 1e is written, it actually punishes you for combat if that's all you want to do.  There is almost no reward for it, but a hell of a lot of pain and death.. All it takes is one failed save.</blockquote>

Verification