Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mister Doug" data-source="post: 4296001" data-attributes="member: 66623">I remember that adventure, though AD&amp;D had been out for many years before &quot;zero-level&quot; rules were published, and those rules were very much a novelty.But no matter how experienced zero-level PCs were, they never gained a level. Heck, they didn't have ability scores generally, and a fighter could attack one for every fighter level he had, meaning that a tenth level fighter could easily kill ten level zero guards, but only one of their level 1 fighter sergeants. If this isn't superheroic, then I don't get the definition of the word.4e doesn't support some builds. A PC minion (what's the mechanical difference between 5 hp and 1 hp? Darned near none) doesn't work in the system. It isn't about playing minions. Feature, not a bug.D&amp;D has never supported all options. How do I build a nebbish bookwork adventurer who can't fight or cast spells but whose intelligence, research abilities, and good luck allow him to survive adventures in any edition of D&amp;D? (The answer, you can't. This isn't even an Expert PC since they fight too well. A wizard with more skill points and no spells? You would have to house rule it.)Back in the 80s, I left AD&amp;D based on the class system (too narrow and restrictive), hit points (too unrealistic), the lack of a skills system and rules (too abstract and focused on combat.) Over the years, I have decided that many if not most of those things were the strengths of D&amp;D, and not the weaknesses of the game, and that one of the problems of 3e is that it built of &quot;solutions&quot; to these problems that muddied the strong points of the D&amp;D game such as simplicity and abstraction without really addressing issues of verisimilitude. &quot;Fixing&quot; these problems (and I suspect that for many people, these were problems in play over time) would require deciding which way to go -- since D&amp;D was trying to be several types of contradictory games in the 3e period, it seems likely to choose a direction and do it really well.Of course, doing that will alienate customers who thought the mechanics I thought were muddy were actually an acceptable compromise between competing interests. This also seems reasonable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mister Doug, post: 4296001, member: 66623"] I remember that adventure, though AD&D had been out for many years before "zero-level" rules were published, and those rules were very much a novelty. But no matter how experienced zero-level PCs were, they never gained a level. Heck, they didn't have ability scores generally, and a fighter could attack one for every fighter level he had, meaning that a tenth level fighter could easily kill ten level zero guards, but only one of their level 1 fighter sergeants. If this isn't superheroic, then I don't get the definition of the word. 4e doesn't support some builds. A PC minion (what's the mechanical difference between 5 hp and 1 hp? Darned near none) doesn't work in the system. It isn't about playing minions. Feature, not a bug. D&D has never supported all options. How do I build a nebbish bookwork adventurer who can't fight or cast spells but whose intelligence, research abilities, and good luck allow him to survive adventures in any edition of D&D? (The answer, you can't. This isn't even an Expert PC since they fight too well. A wizard with more skill points and no spells? You would have to house rule it.) Back in the 80s, I left AD&D based on the class system (too narrow and restrictive), hit points (too unrealistic), the lack of a skills system and rules (too abstract and focused on combat.) Over the years, I have decided that many if not most of those things were the strengths of D&D, and not the weaknesses of the game, and that one of the problems of 3e is that it built of "solutions" to these problems that muddied the strong points of the D&D game such as simplicity and abstraction without really addressing issues of verisimilitude. "Fixing" these problems (and I suspect that for many people, these were problems in play over time) would require deciding which way to go -- since D&D was trying to be several types of contradictory games in the 3e period, it seems likely to choose a direction and do it really well. Of course, doing that will alienate customers who thought the mechanics I thought were muddy were actually an acceptable compromise between competing interests. This also seems reasonable. [/QUOTE]

Verification