Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 7562665" data-attributes="member: 6777737">Yeah, but it's worth noting that, if you're actually playing 1e/2e fairly, 18/00 strength should see play perhaps once in a player's lifetime (in my 30 years of experience, I've seen it rolled exactly once).&nbsp; Percentile strength is broken.&nbsp; Full stop.&nbsp; 18/00 puts you so wildly far above anything else the game is capable of (except mid and late game magic-user spells) that it's not a reasonable game mechanic.&nbsp; It's a bad system to look at in terms of balance, and comparing the heavily optimized essentially unique 1e/2e character to what any character in 5e can accomplish is unfair.Our very well-equipped and pretty heavily optimized 13th level party in Into the Abyss included a Fighter, Fighter/Rogue, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue (but the last was basically a non-combatant). Everybody had at least a magic weapon, and we easily took down a Balor in 1 round. As in it did not even get a chance to act. At 14th level, the same party took down 2 Balors in 3 rounds. Now, the fire and detonate abilities did hurt and knocked several of us unconscious, but it was no contest at all in terms of damage. 260 hp looks impressive, but when PCs alpha strike they do massive amounts of damage.No, I don't agree with that at all. The game works perfectly fine without the -5/+10 mechanic, and, indeed, I'd argue the game would be better off without the -5/+10 mechanic. I think it's bad for the game and would recommend replacing the -5/+10 mechanic entirely. The PCs can do more than enough damage without it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 7562665, member: 6777737"] Yeah, but it's worth noting that, if you're actually playing 1e/2e fairly, 18/00 strength should see play perhaps once in a player's lifetime (in my 30 years of experience, I've seen it rolled exactly once). Percentile strength is broken. Full stop. 18/00 puts you so wildly far above anything else the game is capable of (except mid and late game magic-user spells) that it's not a reasonable game mechanic. It's a bad system to look at in terms of balance, and comparing the heavily optimized essentially unique 1e/2e character to what [I]any[/I] character in 5e can accomplish is unfair. Our very well-equipped and pretty heavily optimized 13th level party in Into the Abyss included a Fighter, Fighter/Rogue, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue (but the last was basically a non-combatant). Everybody had at least a magic weapon, and we [I]easily[/I] took down a Balor in 1 round. As in [I]it did not even get a chance to act[/I]. At 14th level, the same party took down [I]2[/I] Balors in 3 rounds. Now, the fire and detonate abilities did hurt and knocked several of us unconscious, but it was no contest at all in terms of damage. 260 hp looks impressive, but when PCs alpha strike they do [I]massive[/I] amounts of damage. No, I don't agree with that at all. The game works perfectly fine without the -5/+10 mechanic, and, indeed, I'd argue the game would be better off [I]without[/I] the -5/+10 mechanic. I think it's bad for the game and would recommend replacing the -5/+10 mechanic entirely. The PCs can do more than enough damage without it. [/QUOTE]

Verification