Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7726212" data-attributes="member: 29398">This sort of thing always catches my interest...but what I'd really like to know is how much of that data is tainted by multiclassing.&nbsp; Anyone know if there's a version of this data that either strips out multiclass characters or gives a % of each total that comes from multis?I'm surprised to see Druid so underplayed.&nbsp; Too weak due to design-level over-reaction to CoDzilla in 3e, maybe?But Human Fighters for the win!&nbsp; Yeah, baby! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - Fighters are supposed to be simple.&nbsp; Failing that, there needs to be another core class that is simple and basic and mechanics-light to mechanics-none* for people like me to play when we just want to hit things and not think about it, and not fuss with feats or mechanics or anyhting else beyond plusses to hit and damage.* - yet still vaguely capable of contributing as much to the game/party as more complex characters.And some things never change.&nbsp; Even back in 1e there were articles etc. suggesting the expected split would be roughly 40-30-20-10 where 40% of the PCs would be Fighters (or subclasses), 10% would be Magic-Users (or Illusionists), 20% would be one of Cleric or Thief and 30% would be the other - I can never remember which order those two go in.&nbsp; Doesn't account for Monks.Long-term data from our own 1e games shows closer to a 40-25-15-15-5 split Fighter-Cleric-Thief-MU-Other.Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7726212, member: 29398"] This sort of thing always catches my interest...but what I'd really like to know is how much of that data is tainted by multiclassing. Anyone know if there's a version of this data that either strips out multiclass characters or gives a % of each total that comes from multis? I'm surprised to see Druid so underplayed. Too weak due to design-level over-reaction to CoDzilla in 3e, maybe? But Human Fighters for the win! Yeah, baby! :) [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - Fighters are supposed to be simple. Failing that, there needs to be another core class that is simple and basic and mechanics-light to mechanics-none* for people like me to play when we just want to hit things and not think about it, and not fuss with feats or mechanics or anyhting else beyond plusses to hit and damage. * - yet still vaguely capable of contributing as much to the game/party as more complex characters. And some things never change. Even back in 1e there were articles etc. suggesting the expected split would be roughly 40-30-20-10 where 40% of the PCs would be Fighters (or subclasses), 10% would be Magic-Users (or Illusionists), 20% would be one of Cleric or Thief and 30% would be the other - I can never remember which order those two go in. Doesn't account for Monks. Long-term data from our own 1e games shows closer to a 40-25-15-15-5 split Fighter-Cleric-Thief-MU-Other. Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification