Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 8983812" data-attributes="member: 2209">I disagree. The bell curve results of AD&amp;D stats meant that differences in rolls could have huge impacts. And since five out of the six methods were designed to give good stats those top of the bell curve results were an issue.In 2e I played a fighter with a 17 strength. This gave a +1 to hit and damage.Another guy in the same game was playing a fighter with an 18/92 strength. +2 to hit and +5 to damage.Against low level humanoids he would automatically one shot enemies it would usually take me two hits to put down.This was very noticeable and frustrating to me to do the same thing but just objectively worse all the time.I thought they were quite poor mechanically and later editions stood out better. I felt thieves were poor at their thief abilities with fairly terrible chances of success for a large part of the game, then when others are powerhouses of combat and magic they become OK at their niche skills while still being terrible at combat with no magic until they can use scrolls at 10th level.From B/X on I always saw combat as something central to D&amp;D that all characters do.Thieves I saw as being based on the Grey Mouser who was a master fencer and they should have represented quick light deadly warriors. AD&amp;D thieves were terrible combatants, unless successfully sneaking up on a single guard without a ton of hp.I wish they had been based on fighters instead of magic-users and traded armor and big weapons for thief skills. And that their thief skills just worked instead of being terrible percentages.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Voadam, post: 8983812, member: 2209"] I disagree. The bell curve results of AD&D stats meant that differences in rolls could have huge impacts. And since five out of the six methods were designed to give good stats those top of the bell curve results were an issue. In 2e I played a fighter with a 17 strength. This gave a +1 to hit and damage. Another guy in the same game was playing a fighter with an 18/92 strength. +2 to hit and +5 to damage. Against low level humanoids he would automatically one shot enemies it would usually take me two hits to put down. This was very noticeable and frustrating to me to do the same thing but just objectively worse all the time. I thought they were quite poor mechanically and later editions stood out better. I felt thieves were poor at their thief abilities with fairly terrible chances of success for a large part of the game, then when others are powerhouses of combat and magic they become OK at their niche skills while still being terrible at combat with no magic until they can use scrolls at 10th level. From B/X on I always saw combat as something central to D&D that all characters do. Thieves I saw as being based on the Grey Mouser who was a master fencer and they should have represented quick light deadly warriors. AD&D thieves were terrible combatants, unless successfully sneaking up on a single guard without a ton of hp. I wish they had been based on fighters instead of magic-users and traded armor and big weapons for thief skills. And that their thief skills just worked instead of being terrible percentages. [/QUOTE]

Verification