Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 4217632" data-attributes="member: 5100">You aren't.&nbsp; I think I only played one pre-2e game that ran past name level -- and that one involved the PC ascending to godhood and retiring.&nbsp; There just wasn't much point to it.&nbsp; All the monsters had been scaled to fit a &quot;retire at name level&quot; paradigm and there were only so many demon princes a PC could slay without stretching the credulity of even a twelve-year old.Second edition was better about providing foes for high level, but I also think it was the beginnings of the broken math.&nbsp; The PC classes weren't re-aligned to change how they behaved at higher levels.&nbsp; Mages tended to rule the day and fighters were little more than meat shields by 15th level (if not before).&nbsp; Third edition only exasperated this.Yes, in 1e the wizard was a pansy at low levels.&nbsp; But, he was openly and unabashedly so.&nbsp; You didn't really need a wizard (or a cleric, which I'm not sure I ever saw played in 1e) to have a successful group.&nbsp; The people who played the wizard were those who wanted a bit more challenge and thoughtfulness in the game.My experience, and that of most of the &quot;old school&quot; players I've gamed with is that the standard party is a couple of fighters (probably substitute a ranger, paladin, or some Dragon/third-party class -- like duelist or archer-ranger for one of the fighters), a rogue, a magic-user (or illusionist, witch, death master, alchemist, etc.), and then tack on some extras.&nbsp; Monk was as likely as cleric and druid was probably more likely.&nbsp; Those players and I really haven't adapted to the forced paradigm of needing the cleric and such.&nbsp; My hope with 4e is that the re-balancing of the math makes it possible to play sans cleric and primarily with sword-slingers.&nbsp; So far, it looks pretty good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 4217632, member: 5100"] You aren't. I think I only played one pre-2e game that ran past name level -- and that one involved the PC ascending to godhood and retiring. There just wasn't much point to it. All the monsters had been scaled to fit a "retire at name level" paradigm and there were only so many demon princes a PC could slay without stretching the credulity of even a twelve-year old. Second edition was better about providing foes for high level, but I also think it was the beginnings of the broken math. The PC classes weren't re-aligned to change how they behaved at higher levels. Mages tended to rule the day and fighters were little more than meat shields by 15th level (if not before). Third edition only exasperated this. Yes, in 1e the wizard was a pansy at low levels. But, he was openly and unabashedly so. You didn't really need a wizard (or a cleric, which I'm not sure I ever saw played in 1e) to have a successful group. The people who played the wizard were those who wanted a bit more challenge and thoughtfulness in the game. My experience, and that of most of the "old school" players I've gamed with is that the standard party is a couple of fighters (probably substitute a ranger, paladin, or some Dragon/third-party class -- like duelist or archer-ranger for one of the fighters), a rogue, a magic-user (or illusionist, witch, death master, alchemist, etc.), and then tack on some extras. Monk was as likely as cleric and druid was probably more likely. Those players and I really haven't adapted to the forced paradigm of needing the cleric and such. My hope with 4e is that the re-balancing of the math makes it possible to play sans cleric and primarily with sword-slingers. So far, it looks pretty good. [/QUOTE]

Verification