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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1228655" data-attributes="member: 151">And I'm not telling you your experience is wrong, but it certainly doesn't match mine. What I am saying is that the idea that, mechanically, OD&D clerics were less generic than 3E clerics is a logical fallacy. That you play with unimaginative minmaxers and then use examples of creative non-rules clerical character RPing only reinforces my point. That has nothing to do with the game, and everything to do with the gamers. My experience with every edition of D&D has proven that to be true. The cleric and the fighter of OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D all were the same, and still very highly tied to their initial wargame conceits, as Henry and other note examples of above. I took a pass on 2e, as did every gamer I know, but I understand that specialty priests and some kits allowed for a level of variety that was quite satisfying to most. With 3e, you can make your cleric or fighter as varied as you desire. Now you have the option to build sub-optimal characters, instead of inventing role-playng reasons for them.  My cleric of Fharlangan is nothing like one of my player's clerics, who follows Pelor, neither of which are like another player's cleric of Boccob. My cleric is closer to a ranger, a travelling naturalist who cares for travellers. The follower of Pelor is a holy man, noble and expert on destroying the undead, which an emphasis on politics. The cleric of Boccob is almost a wizard, touchy, secretive and even slightly avaracious. The biggest difference between OD&D and 3e versions of them would be that under 3e, they are also MECHANICALLY different, not just different under some self-imposed RP restrictions.</blockquote>

Verification