Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8255951" data-attributes="member: 82106">I beg to differ. I played and ran D&D and AD&D for 25 years, 1000's and 1000's of hours. The supposed 'synergies' are overrated on the whole. Clerics as healbots changes nothing either, I am assuming in my assessment you would be insane to vary from 4x CLW at level 1, period. MAYBE, you might sub in a Bless or Protection From Evil if you have specific reasons. I suppose any of the other level 1 spells might also be useful if you can anticipate the specific use (IE going in with a specific plan). All that does is increase their utility. As healers a level 1 cleric represents a spare 4.5x4 = 18 hit points, roughly doubling the melee endurance of the ENTIRE party (assuming a 5 PC party). Their fighting capacity is better than 80% of a fighter at level 1 (they are exactly 1 hit point shy of being a fighter, though they probably do a bit less damage, maybe the fighter gets a STR bonus to-hit, etc.). And yes, 3rd level, where they get all their 2nd level spells, including bonus spells for WIS, is a BIG power increase. Think about it this way though. You would virtually ALWAYS be better off building a party with clerics subbed in for fighters. Yes, damage output will go down slightly, but not much, and total party hit point endurance, plus general spell casting, will improve greatly. Fighters are pretty good at lower levels, but nothing like vital. Clerics are vital. To the point that dropping in a half-elf that has a cleric 2nd class at party creation is practically a standard optimization tactic! (making the thief a MC'd thief/M.U. being another, elves are better thieves anyway).Right, and those are the ones that are high risk where you have to have that added power to win. Again, this is why standard optimization tactics for a 1e party is to sub in elf fighter/M.U., or clerics, or HE cleric/MU, etc. to get the extra spell power is so excellent a strategy. (at least at low levels) having all Magic Users won't work, but you could easily go half-and-half clerics and Magic Users, that is pretty optimum, particularly if one of the Magic Users is also a fighter, so 2 clerics, 2 magic users, and a magic user/fighter MC. Lots of spell power, plenty of melee when you need it. Remember, melee is a failure condition in 1e anyway, so what you need is the ability to survive that mistake now and then.No, but if they cannot deal damage effectively, they are greatly reduced in value. Also, certainly at low levels, thieves are terrible scouts! Their thief ability check numbers are rotten, unless they are elves, who can already sneak better than any thief! So why not be an elf magic user? Or even elf magic user/thief? See my point? Now you begin to understand why elves were made to be less desirable by level caps!Yes, but I have no idea how that effects considerations of class design, which cannot really be based on what might happen in some specific case. Obviously you could have a 4th level fighter with 4 hit points. I've seen stuff like that, it is pretty sad. It isn't a reflection of the class though, particularly. Though I must say that a 4th level MU with 4 hit points will grumble and be in some extra danger, but it isn't going to cripple him...Again, I am not sure how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. Level titles have no mechanics associated with them, and I'm not sure why they would matter in terms of how the XP tables are organized.Sure, but that still leaves the question whether that made the game fun or not. Nobody can answer that for anyone else. I always thought the whole training thing was an interesting idea, but not well-thought-through nor especially appealing. I guess most people agreed.</blockquote>

Verification