Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7854316" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Ok, first point..."you can't really compare monster vs same monster name, because some monsters like orcs were bumped up. I.e., in 1e, an orc was a pretty close to a 1st level character, while in 5e, it's equivalent to a 2nd level character)"Why doesnt this apply to all aspects of the comparison? Why is AC highlighted by name to name differences fine and not subject to this same caveat?Second, one key difference in 5e to 1e is the deliberate design effort to pile and focus more of what a character needs to survive on the character, not in items. 5e has attunemrent restrictions. 5e was designed to not depend on magic items. Meanwhile 1e was not alone but a classic origin for the Christmas tree of magic items meme - ages before memes were called that. So, when we compare character to character "without items" it's an obvious mismatch slanting the outcomes.Third, in 1e, what was an adventuring day? How many encounters were its baseline? Was it six, two, twenty compared to 5e 6-8? Without knowing what the expected baseline was for a 1e game - how can any conclusion about the merits of the data to lethality based on an adventuring day be made?Finally, if this list was not cherry picked, why are there basically no casters? It seems mostly just sluggers. That was by accident?</blockquote>