Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="haakon1" data-source="post: 5978662" data-attributes="member: 25619">My experience with AD&D is a bit different in that regard.  Rangers were super effective at first level (my 1st level ranger did well in Hommlett with double anyone else's hit points), but for 9th level and above, my experience was:-- We didn't do a lot of play at "name levels" (9th or higher).  We never rose beyond maybe 11th level?  We just started over when things reached that level.-- The big adventure for our high level folks was with a group of ~9 characters of 7th-11th level.  We did the Giant series and the Drow series.  Most of the PC's survived it.  We were each playing more than one PC, and all had been grown from 1st level.  I had a Fighter (7th level elf - max level) and a Cleric (11th level human).  My Ranger was dead before that "super campaign", where we brought together all the high level PC's who'd survived, from all the campaigns we'd played, so I don't know how a Ranger would have felt at those levels.Nobody felt over or under powered -- my elf fighter was just fine, but he'd been very lucky with HP (61).  Some days of travel were one fight-a-day scenarios.  Others were long strings of adventure and combat, where we were being chased by giants, sneaking around the Vault of the Drow, infiltrating the Kuo-Toan city, etc. -- lots of small encounters with weak to medium powered stuff, which fighter types excell at, the opposite of the 15 minute work day since camping out really wasn't a safe option in hostile territory with a city full of enemies about.The coolest thing I can remember is when, on a random encounter while traveling, we got ambushed by mind flayers.  Every PC went down except my cleric.  He prayed for divine intervention.  The DM looked up the rules in the DMG -- roll a D20, roll high. I got a 00 and got my miracle zapping dead of the last illithid.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />I only played one 4e campaign, and only to 5th level.  My experience with a paladin was that he was very much weaker than I was used to (in AD&D and 3e) -- more or less the same HP, AC, and saves as everyone else, even though he was expected to take the bulk of the enemy attacks as the lineman, very much unlike earlier editions where the Fighter-types easily could have 2-3x the arcane caster's HP and much better AC.My combat experience was to usually miss, it took many many hits to make any progress (as opposed to weak foes doing down with 1-2 good hits in earlier editions), and he got knocked out frequently -- such that it usually made more sense to blow the encounter powers as quick as I could, before I went down again.  Lots of rope-a-dope wounded for 12 hp, regain 12 hp, hit the monster for 12 hp, it's still not bloodied yet in round 6 stuff . . . it felt like playing Chekov . . . Notably more effective than the rest of us were the Ranger archer and one of the arcane casters who did direct offensive spells.I take the opposite "vive la difference" view.  It'll be interesting to see if one game can make us both happy.</blockquote>

Verification