Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Edena_of_Neith" data-source="post: 4338511" data-attributes="member: 2020">Ah yes, a very dim, ancient memory rekindled.&nbsp; 'Fighting man', the term for the fighter in OD&amp;D.&nbsp; I remember that.&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; There was another thread on elves and how different they are.&nbsp; I figure they must be very different.&nbsp; How could they stand living for 2,000 years, under the kind of duress humans are subject to, and not go mad?&nbsp; They are different indeed.&nbsp; When 1st edition came around, people played elves because it was fun.&nbsp; Why not?&nbsp; Elves offered the chance at multiclassing - fighter/magic-user, and other combinations.&nbsp; The greatest versatility, the greatest fun.&nbsp; One could debate the greatest power, but that wasn't always so.&nbsp; If gestalt had been a mainstream rule of 3.0, and hadn't come in at the very end of 3.5, I have to wonder if it would have replaced 1E and 2E multiclassing?&nbsp; And how it would have impacted elves?&nbsp; Of course, most of us played elves like humans, not elves.&nbsp; We the players are, after all, human.&nbsp; I saw very few elves played like, say, the elves of Rivendell in The Hobbit.&nbsp; (In fact, most elves I saw played were sorta Lawful Neutralish ...)&nbsp; -&nbsp; I understood the level limit rule, and why it was there.&nbsp; But I was never comfortable with it, and few others were either.&nbsp; It seemed too arbitrary, too unfounded, and so although it made sense in game balance terms, it made little sense In Game.&nbsp; So we bent and eventually abandoned the rule, and elves could advance into high levels, and high level wizards became common.&nbsp; &nbsp; Was there another, better answer?&nbsp; The game, at that time, did not offer one.&nbsp; It wasn't until much later that solid In Game reasons for elven weakness surfaced (what they would nowadays call the Fluff reasons for the mechanics.)&nbsp; Then 3E came out, and nobody could multiclass in the old sense, while everyone could be Jack-of-all-trades with assorted trade-offs.&nbsp; I must wonder, again, what would have happened if Gestalt characters had been a part of the core 3.0?&nbsp; If we do not alter the wizard (if she can still throw the original, mighty 1E Shapechange at 18th level) then could we have employed a different approach that kept the fun of elves while avoiding a glut of high level wizards?&nbsp; I think we could have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Edena_of_Neith, post: 4338511, member: 2020"] Ah yes, a very dim, ancient memory rekindled. 'Fighting man', the term for the fighter in OD&D. I remember that. :) There was another thread on elves and how different they are. I figure they must be very different. How could they stand living for 2,000 years, under the kind of duress humans are subject to, and not go mad? They are different indeed. When 1st edition came around, people played elves because it was fun. Why not? Elves offered the chance at multiclassing - fighter/magic-user, and other combinations. The greatest versatility, the greatest fun. One could debate the greatest power, but that wasn't always so. If gestalt had been a mainstream rule of 3.0, and hadn't come in at the very end of 3.5, I have to wonder if it would have replaced 1E and 2E multiclassing? And how it would have impacted elves? Of course, most of us played elves like humans, not elves. We the players are, after all, human. I saw very few elves played like, say, the elves of Rivendell in The Hobbit. (In fact, most elves I saw played were sorta Lawful Neutralish ...) - I understood the level limit rule, and why it was there. But I was never comfortable with it, and few others were either. It seemed too arbitrary, too unfounded, and so although it made sense in game balance terms, it made little sense In Game. So we bent and eventually abandoned the rule, and elves could advance into high levels, and high level wizards became common. Was there another, better answer? The game, at that time, did not offer one. It wasn't until much later that solid In Game reasons for elven weakness surfaced (what they would nowadays call the Fluff reasons for the mechanics.) Then 3E came out, and nobody could multiclass in the old sense, while everyone could be Jack-of-all-trades with assorted trade-offs. I must wonder, again, what would have happened if Gestalt characters had been a part of the core 3.0? If we do not alter the wizard (if she can still throw the original, mighty 1E Shapechange at 18th level) then could we have employed a different approach that kept the fun of elves while avoiding a glut of high level wizards? I think we could have. [/QUOTE]

Verification