I've introduced my 5th ed group to AD&D 2E

[James Gasik]

By the way, back to the Thief problem, I realized I'd discussed it previously, and if anyone is interested, here is that thread: D&D 2E - 2e Fighter vs Fighter/Thief vs Thief Play Balance

 

[Bacon Bits]

Well, people have done it. Matt Colville just ran a short 4E campaign on Foundry, IIRC. Unfortunately due to the GSL vs. OGL debacle I understand no one can really sell an automation package for a VTT, so people have to code all that stuff themselves if they want it. :/

It was Fantasy Grounds, one of the few VTTs that existed in 2007. Matt also supposedly added a lot the 4e stuff to FG himself. I'm not even sure how much FG sold for it; probably only what was actually in the GSL. If you look at the FG 4e forum, you can see a lot of people using community mods that add 4e Compendium content. The GSL and WotC's business plan put the game in a super weird spot for third party VTTs.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh definitely, and I tried to explain it, but the guy was inspired! So what could I do? I've seen dozens of pastiche characters come and go, or just "hey wouldn't it be neat if..." characters, and they all basically fall down the same well as poor Timmy.

You want to play Conan?

All your examples have in common characters which within their own narratives have the power of plot. The Flash in particular is an egregious example of a character whose power level varies tremendously from scene to scene as is needed by the plot, in a genre where power of plot dominates the story telling. (Which is why Supers RPGs have a notoriously hard time replicating the genre of the comic books.) You start gaming it and it's basically impossible to keep The Batman relevant in a world of Superman and The Flash, or to recreate any of the comics with the upper echelon of supes involved.

And Conan is fundamentally the same problem. Which of book Conan's attributes are below 12? In fact, Conan is the consummate example of a character who has 18 in every stat - he's strong, fast, hardy, whip smart, perceptive, and has a magnetic animal charisma that makes him instantly attractive to every woman and manly man he meets. He's good at everything he does from swinging a sword to leading an army. There is no skill he attempts that he fails at. And the same basic problem occurs with Drizzt Do'Urden. All the characters you are mentioning break the 1st rule of RPGs - "Thou shalt not be good at everything."

So when a player tries to build one of these uber characters that really don't need a party to succeed and who in the stories never fail at anything, they are going to quickly find that the rules by necessity prevent it. Even if the rules are flexible enough to allow the concept, what you end up with is not a character that is good at everything but a rather a character that is mediocre at everything and good at nothing.

This is not a failing of the game system. This is success in a game system.

Which isn't to say that the problem of "you can't build the character you imagine" isn't a huge failing of 2e, because it is. I'm only saying that in an RPG there are some characters from fiction that you shouldn't be able to import because they don't support the core aesthetics of gameplay in the game.

 

[James Gasik]

My worst D&D character. I was a huge Castlevania fan in high school, so naturally, I foolishly decided to make a whip-using Fighter. "Sure I only do d2 damage, but if I'm strong, that's not so bad!"

Turns out, whips suck. You think I would have recognized this fact right away, but....lol.

Then again, sometimes the rules actually allow for crazy builds to work, like dart specialists, elevating "throwing darts" as something low level Magic Users did to feel useful into an actually dangerous thing to do!

 

[Retreater]

My worst D&D character. I was a huge Castlevania fan in high school, so naturally, I foolishly decided to make a whip-using Fighter. "Sure I only do d2 damage, but if I'm strong, that's not so bad!"

Turns out, whips suck. You think I would have recognized this fact right away, but....lol.

Then again, sometimes the rules actually allow for crazy builds to work, like dart specialists, elevating "throwing darts" as something low level Magic Users did to feel useful into an actually dangerous thing to do!

Spiked chain in 3.x?
I think 4e Essentials also had an assassin build that used a whip/garrote/etc.
D&D (and most other TTRPGs I've seen) seem to work best when a concept is informed by the rules.

 

[Bacon Bits]

By the way, back to the Thief problem, I realized I'd discussed it previously, and if anyone is interested, here is that thread: D&D 2E - 2e Fighter vs Fighter/Thief vs Thief Play Balance

IMO, because the XP table had it so that you needed the same amount of XP that it took to get to level N in order to reach level N+1 (at least for the first 7-8 levels or so) multiclassing was just pretty universally the better option. Especially in 2e AD&D where racial level limits were raised, but even then multiclassing is how demihumans could utilize all that spare XP.

Being a Thief that could stop and put on real armor and draw real weapons when the situation demanded it -- especially with Fighter magic item equipment draw -- or otherwise stow the short swords and sling spells was just a better adventurer than trying to backstab, which was nearly impossible to pull off from my memory.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh yeah, well the spiked chain really came down to "here kids, a reach weapon that you can actually use in close combat"! If all reach weapons worked that way, the spiked chain would have been a footnote.

I never really grokked why it annoyed people so much though. For the first time, a Fighter could actually control enemies and keep them from attacking the back line...the thing that everyone said was their hat...and somehow, it was driving the early 3e DM's out of their skulls!

 

[Celebrim]

By the way, back to the Thief problem, I realized I'd discussed it previously, and if anyone is interested, here is that thread: D&D 2E - 2e Fighter vs Fighter/Thief vs Thief Play Balance

Nice thread.

I have several times thought of cleaning up the problems with AD&D 1e/2e including the problem that thieves are pointless, and that included brainstorming what it would take to make thief balanced with fighter, cleric, and M-U.

And I think at a minimum it would require something like:

a) Improve Thief THAC0 progression to the cleric standard.
b) Improving Thief savings throws by 2 versus petrification/polymorph, rod/staff/wand, and breath weapon.
c) Giving Thief the same 1 NWP per 2 levels that Fighters get.
d) Giving Thieves automatic advances in existing NWP every other level as if they had double/triple selected the NWP, thus, making them true skill monkeys.
e) Granting thieves multiple attacks per round as a specialized fighter of 1/2 their level.
f) Granting thieves the ability to improve Dexterity as a 1e Cavalier.
g) Making explicit that you can backstab any monster you surprise that has discernable anatomy.

And at that point, yeah, playing a thief might be fun and worthwhile.

 

[James Gasik]

IMO, because the XP table had it so that you needed the same amount of XP that it took to get to level N in order to reach level N+1 (at least for the first 7-8 levels or so) multiclassing was just pretty universally the better option. Especially in 2e AD&D where racial level limits were raised, but even then multiclassing is how demihumans could utilize all that spare XP.

Being a Thief that could stop and put on real armor and draw real weapons when the situation demanded it -- especially with Fighter magic item equipment draw -- or otherwise stow the short swords and sling spells was just a better adventurer than trying to backstab, which was nearly impossible to pull off from my memory.

By the rules, backstab was very hard. By the DM...it ranged from "oh yeah, sure go ahead" all the way to "if you can perform a triple backflip while on fire, and can reach the vital nerve area on the dragon's body 8' above you, there's a 23% chance you can backstab. Then the dragon will eat you. I think that's a fair ruling."

 

[Celebrim]

For the first time, a Fighter could actually control enemies and keep them from attacking the back line...the thing that everyone said was their hat...and somehow, it was driving the early 3e DM's out of their skulls!

It was mostly because of the trip combo where a player could soft lock opponents or abuse of the 5' step to stay permanently out of range of opponents that lacked reach.