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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5503118" data-attributes="member: 18280">That tells me quite a bit, thank you.  It tells me that you are not actually reading all of the responses to your posts.  For example, the post directly above the one to which you replied.I am not sure if you simply didn't read, or if, reading, you didn't understand, but either way, that tells me something about your position.Yes, I know that you think that.Let's take a look at the post you either didn't read or didn't understand again, shall we?It is also blindingly obvious that the DM can choose to have that turnip farmer, at any time in the future, become a FTR 1 as a result of in-game events, and progress as far, or farther, than the PC FTR 1.So, again, no, the system doesn't determine his potential.  The DM, and the logic of the shared fictional space do.Snark?  That was benefit of the doubt!  There must be a difference, or there is a difference when you are playing?  Are you really unable to imagine a game in which a Ftr 1 might be a turnip farmer, or are you stating a preference?  It certainly seems, still, when I go back and read your earlier posts, that you were saying that having a PC Ftr 1 be a farmer fresh off the turnip wagon was playing the game wrong.  And you still seem to think it is objectively wrong.I was trying to figure out some rational reason why, after all those posts you ignored responding to, you were still clinging to the idea that a Ftr 1 cannot be a turnip farmer (or vice versa).Now I have another answer:  You either failed to read or failed to understand those posts.  Now, since you've answered my questions, let me return the favour.In 1e, it never came up.  The highest level character in our group was a 16th level wizard; the second highest, a 14th level fighter.  They were both played by the same player.  The player had his fighter murder his wizard because, when it came down to it, he didn't need him, and the fighter was more fun to play.In 2e, it never came up.In 3e, IMHO, the game is designed to make you prefer getting your eyes gouged out with hot pokers rather than play in a campaign over 6th level.  As a consequence, it never came up.2e and 3e were systems that made me drop D&D, though, because (again, IMHO, YMMV) they proved less fun to play.  As a result, my high-level experience is pretty weak with those systems.But, from the playtests, I can tell you something about how this issue was handled in RCFG, and how it plays out, if you are interested.  Fighters and rogues predominate in the playtests because, apparently, they are viewed as the most powerful and/or interesting characters.  I rewrote the Tomb of Horrors using RCFG materials, and bumped it up to 10th level.  Even in that module, the mundane characters had as much to contribute as the magical ones. Obviously, if you want to have a lower-magic world, confining yourself to lower levels is a good idea.  That said, though, you'd have to tell me exactly what you mean by high-level.I've played a high-level 1e wizard with a DM who didn't understand the rules, and let anything go.  Because he'd frontloaded information into his intended epic campaign, we were able to resolve the entire mess in a single session.  It was fun, but I think it was a bit of a shock to him to see how effective high-level characters could be.  Admittedly, we almost all died, too, in order to achieve our goal.  And we had a lot of fun doing it.In 1e, different characters dominate different scenes, IME.  I don't think that you quite appreciate how few spells a caster might have, and how much might get accomplished in a game session.  I also think that you don't understand the limitations of spells in a 1e game.  On another thread, as I recall, we went through the T1 Moathouse, and I listed all of the encounters, and where the magic-user's sleep spell would, and would not, work, and what the outcome for our magic-user would be in all the encounters where sleep would be partially effective, using the EN World die roller.And in the end, after our magic-user was demonstably folded, spindled, and mutilated far more often than not, you were still unable to admit that sleep wasn't an auto-win button.But, no, I've never had to tell the players, in any version of D&D, to hold back.And in some cases, higher stats, and in other cases, NPCs can reach higher levels than PCs (see demi-human level limits for examples).Ritual casting appears in 3e.Six-second combat magic is not a feature of 1e.  I think you really need to go back and take a look at casting times in that edition.  Also, the standard round is 1 minute.2e included rules for devising thief characters with mixed abilities, specifically so that one could make a Mouser-like character.  Moreso if you used the Players Option books.The Dragon used to include a column (Giants in the Earth), where the D&D (1e) counterparts of fictional characters were presented.  Of course, these were never exact replicas of the characters in question.....largely due to differences in magic systems.  For example, the magic system in A Wizard of Earthsea makes for great reading, but it would be cumbersome to list all of the possible side effects that occur in addition to the spell effect you desire, and to then administer them.  At least, with 1e, there was a sense of risk involved with casting many of the more powerful spells.RC</blockquote>

Verification