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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6986017" data-attributes="member: 996">Well, it's never been precisely that - he'd've been AC 10 back in the day.  Change it from loincloth to platemail, though, and you'd've been OK.though, you may lose some of the gain in figuringoutwhateveryonejustshoutedatyouallatonce time.That's something D&D has always struggled with.  If you were to watch a fantasy movie in the 70s or 80s (not that the 70s had a lot of 'em), you wouldn't have seen everyone clomping about in heavy armor with a full helm covering their face (because actors hate that) most of the time.  But that's what the D&D of the day prettymuch required of a PC who was going to be fairly tough in melee.  D&D's traditional 'Vancian' magic resembled the magic of myth/legend, S&S or 'high fantasy' hardly at all.  The early class system and random stats gave players little chance to play the PC they wanted to.  Proliferation of build options in 3e just left a few 'Tier 1' choices & optimal builds to tease out, in place of the few class choices of the classic game.5e has somewhat more choice than the classic game, and some of them are sub-optimal.  Shoring those up would give more 'real' choice.  FWIW.   If no one really wants to play a melee-oriented martial type in a given campaign, it might be a non-issue.  If you don't try to 'fix' it upfront and someone at your table does pull a Gimli, though, you still could do things to keep him relevant other than changing the underlying rules of the game.  Like just happening to place heavy armor and magical axes rather than magic bows & arrows...</blockquote>

Verification