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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4545789" data-attributes="member: 22779">See, this right there exactly illustrates my point.  I never saw D&D as bildungsroman in any form.  But, again this goes back to how we played.I played with xp for gp and a lot of modules.  This meant that the advancement that I saw in the games was pretty rapid in the single digit levels.  You could get name level in a year of play without too much difficulty playing that way.  So, most of the time, we were playing between 3rd and 9th with 1st and 2nd being something of a blip at the beginning and the low double digit levels being the final slog at the end.So, IME, you were fighting armies single handedly.  Heck, the GDQ series of modules sees you fighting armies of GIANTS at 6th level.  And winning.  Even at very low levels, something like Keep on the Borderland has encounters with dozens of opponents that you are expected to win at first level.To me, PC's were always well above the norm.  Normal man was 1d4 hit points and an AC of 8.  My fighter had twice (at least) as many hit points and an AC of 2 or 3 at first level (banded and shield and certainly chain and shield were not out of the question at 1st level in AD&D and a Dex of 15 got you a -1 AC.  Certainly nothing earth shattering there).  Again, to me, there has never been a time when the PC's were "just a bit stronger than the average Joe".  My first level character was already capable of wiping out a bar full of average Joes, and by 3rd level, I was getting 3 attacks per round against Joe Average.  (Gotta love going Mulinex mode on the under 1 HD crowd)Never mind using things like Unearthed Arcana to build a paladin with ALL the Cavalier powers PLUS paladin powers.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Now, before this turns into yet another edition war, I'M NOT SAYING DUNGEON DELVER IS WRONG.  HE'S NOT WRONG.  Let me restate that again, I DO NOT DISAGREE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, or FORM with Dungeon Delver.  What I'm saying is that the experiences that one person had when compared to the next person become extremely varied depending on a whole host of starting points.  That's why it can sometimes look like nostalgia talking.  It's not really.  I truly believe that people honestly had those experiences.  It's just that because 1e was generally kit bashed beyond all recognition by the majority of tables, that trying to draw any meaningful points of comparison is extremely difficult.</blockquote>

Verification