Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Garthanos" data-source="post: 8642027" data-attributes="member: 82504">If you are going to pretend to correct language In the verbage it was simply the fighter... no warrior was mentioned in 1e ( that is a 2e classification and included Paladin and Ranger.And the role was more Gygax saying this is what you are supposed to do ...&nbsp; without really giving mechanisms to be effective at it other than the DM deciding to play nice and have monsters target him instead of ignoring him and going for the squishier heavy hitters (yes a sleep spell at level 1 was a bloody bazooka compared to a pea shooter of the fighter) or very obligatory healers.LOL &quot;fighters&quot; did crap damage in 1e (and advanced in damage dealing slow as hell in it compared to the spell casters in spite of the differing advancement table ) ... I heard with some add ons particularly in late 2e that may have changed.&nbsp; A sympathetic DM providing swords of sharpness and the like could affect experience though but base line meh and triple meh. A 9th level fighter was already feeling like a wizards henchmen when he was supposed to be lord of men. The thief was also the king of useless and very problematic on many fronts even in the arena it was supposed to be good with micro-odds of&nbsp; success there were always gambits that made more practical sense than using thief abilities. It is a prime example of what happens when the ideas of roles have not yet been focused and why the Rogue is so completely different in every edition after 2.Our experiences differ</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Garthanos, post: 8642027, member: 82504"] If you are going to pretend to correct language In the verbage it was simply the fighter... no warrior was mentioned in 1e ( that is a 2e classification and included Paladin and Ranger. And the role was more Gygax saying this is what you are supposed to do ... without really giving mechanisms to be effective at it other than the DM deciding to play nice and have monsters target him instead of ignoring him and going for the squishier heavy hitters (yes a sleep spell at level 1 was a bloody bazooka compared to a pea shooter of the fighter) or very obligatory healers. LOL "fighters" did crap damage in 1e (and advanced in damage dealing slow as hell in it compared to the spell casters in spite of the differing advancement table ) ... I heard with some add ons particularly in late 2e that may have changed. A sympathetic DM providing swords of sharpness and the like could affect experience though but base line meh and triple meh. A 9th level fighter was already feeling like a wizards henchmen when he was supposed to be lord of men. The thief was also the king of useless and very problematic on many fronts even in the arena it was supposed to be good with micro-odds of success there were always gambits that made more practical sense than using thief abilities. It is a prime example of what happens when the ideas of roles have not yet been focused and why the Rogue is so completely different in every edition after 2. Our experiences differ [/QUOTE]

Verification