Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 9159802" data-attributes="member: 2209">The paladin had the same martial advantages as the fighter in 1e. 1e paladins were supernatural martials. So what you describe was a martial versus non martial split, not a mundane martial compared to others split.It was only in 2e that you had single class fighters being the only ones to be able to get weapon specialization while paladins and rangers and multiclass fighters did not (and then there were work arounds for some non-fighters later as sourcebooks were developed). Weapon specialization with bonus attacks, hit bonus, and damage bonus was a decent mundane martial only benefit in 2e.The old school warrior versus others split on attacks mostly meant that while fighter types stood out in combat, it was mostly in outshining thieves who thought backstab and blades meant they could do melee. Heavy armor clerics could tank even with slightly lower than fighter HD, THAC0, and blunt weapons that did less damage. They could still decently front line it and do magic on top of that in return for silver medalling to fighters on physical attacks and hp. Magic users were always back line special effects artillery who avoided melee combat like the plague. Thieves were basically only slightly better at physical combat than MUs with no spells, tough to pull off backstab, and leather armor, usually better off as back line missile fire than as an attempt at a Gray Mouser mobile fencer type.</blockquote>

Verification