Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6348764" data-attributes="member: 87792">With or without weapon specialisation?&nbsp; Because that made a huge difference.Starting out the worst and ending up the best.Right.&nbsp; Let's unpick this.The fighter gained an advantage over other classes for having a constitution of 17 or higher.&nbsp; In other words vanishingly rare if you used the recommended methods of rolling.The&nbsp; strength bonus to hit and damage was not capped for non-fighters.&nbsp; It&nbsp; was simply that fighters got to roll for exceptional strength (assuming&nbsp; they had a natural 18 strength) and no one else did.&nbsp; If a cleric wears Gauntlets of Ogre Power they gain the full advantage of the Strength 18/00 they are granted.The two examples you mention require in order a 17 Con and an 18 Str to trigger.<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?201122-Computers-beat-up-my-role-player/page3&amp;p=3657389&amp;viewfull=1#post3657389" target="_blank">Gygax has said on these boards</a>&nbsp; that Weapon Specialisation and the other UA fighter variants (like the&nbsp; Cavalier) were deliberately to try and balance the fighter against the&nbsp; casters.&nbsp; Before that, even despite the fact they gained an army at&nbsp; level 10, they just weren't strong enough.And the fighter might&nbsp; get advantage out of magic greatswords, but isn't generally much better&nbsp; with a Girdle of Giant Strength and Hammer of Thunderbolts than the&nbsp; Cleric (remember Clerics can wield hammers), meaning that due to&nbsp; opportunity cost that combination should go to the Cleric...Agreed.&nbsp; The oD&amp;D/AD&amp;D Thief was terrible.Unless&nbsp; the fighter had miraculously managed a Con of 17 (which I will admit&nbsp; happened far more than chance would indicate) you had a grand total of&nbsp; 1hp/level less than the fighter - and you levelled up faster, meaning&nbsp; that roughly 25% of the time you had one more hit dice than the&nbsp; fighter.&nbsp; Your damage was comparable with a sword and board fighter&nbsp; until you started facing Large monsters (i.e. seldom in the&nbsp; first few levels) - and outside the first few levels you got a fairly&nbsp; decent number of spells.&nbsp; So while I agree that the cleric wasn't fun&nbsp; because everyone leeched their spells (unless they worked on a ransom&nbsp; model) they certainly weren't underpowered compared to the pre-UA&nbsp; fighter.More like pre-UA you wanted as many clerics as you could get your hands on - and they would all&nbsp; have more fun if there were more of them because they'd have slots that&nbsp; didn't need to be spent on healing.&nbsp; But that's in many ways a very&nbsp; different group makeup to almost all fighters.They failed with that on the Rogue...Players of 2e not 1e.&nbsp; Had they been 1e players they wouldn't have taken the fighter's army away.Hardly ironic.&nbsp; Feedback and money both talk.&nbsp; And you get much better feedback in an MMO when you can see what people actually do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6348764, member: 87792"] With or without weapon specialisation? Because that made a huge difference. Starting out the worst and ending up the best. Right. Let's unpick this. The fighter gained an advantage over other classes for [I]having a constitution of 17 or higher[/I]. In other words vanishingly rare if you used the recommended methods of rolling. The strength bonus to hit and damage was not capped for non-fighters. It was simply that fighters got to roll for exceptional strength (assuming they had a natural 18 strength) and no one else did. If a cleric wears [I]Gauntlets of Ogre Power[/I] they gain the full advantage of the Strength 18/00 they are granted. The two examples you mention require in order a 17 Con and an 18 Str to trigger. [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?201122-Computers-beat-up-my-role-player/page3&p=3657389&viewfull=1#post3657389"]Gygax has said on these boards[/URL] that Weapon Specialisation and the other UA fighter variants (like the Cavalier) were deliberately to try and balance the fighter against the casters. Before that, even despite the fact they gained an army at level 10, they just weren't strong enough. And the fighter might get advantage out of magic greatswords, but isn't generally much better with a Girdle of Giant Strength and Hammer of Thunderbolts than the Cleric (remember Clerics can wield hammers), meaning that due to opportunity cost that combination should go to the Cleric... Agreed. The oD&D/AD&D Thief was [I]terrible[/I]. Unless the fighter had miraculously managed a Con of 17 (which I will admit happened far more than chance would indicate) you had a grand total of 1hp/level less than the fighter - and you levelled up faster, meaning that roughly 25% of the time you had one more hit dice than the fighter. Your damage was comparable with a sword and board fighter until you started facing [I]Large[/I] monsters (i.e. seldom in the first few levels) - and outside the first few levels you got a fairly decent number of spells. So while I agree that the cleric wasn't fun because everyone leeched their spells (unless they worked on a ransom model) they certainly weren't underpowered compared to the pre-UA fighter. More like pre-UA you wanted as many clerics as you could get your hands on - and they would [I]all[/I] have more fun if there were more of them because they'd have slots that didn't need to be spent on healing. But that's in many ways a very different group makeup to almost all fighters. They failed with that on the Rogue... Players of 2e not 1e. Had they been 1e players they wouldn't have taken the fighter's army away. Hardly ironic. Feedback and money both talk. And you get much better feedback in an MMO when you can see what people [I]actually[/I] do. [/QUOTE]

Verification