Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 8853856" data-attributes="member: 3400">Based on my experiences, the idea that players explored to avoid combat because they got more XPs from treasure tends to be overstated. At most tables I played at, people still engaged in combat because it would get you more XPs than just making off with the treasure.Thieves in AD&amp;D were underpowered. They had saving throws that tended to be terrible (they were the only class with a category that stayed about 10 at best value). They had a bad THAC0 that hampered them in any fight in which they weren't successfully backstabbing. Backstab itself was kind of weak because it required surprise and had significant limitations on what could be affected - both of which many DMs ignored to make it more useful. The only thing they really had going for them was a fast XP progression table but good luck managing to get the rest of your party to leave a dungeon to let you level-up faster. That is IF you had the cash for it in the first place.Exploration spells were also problematic in the sense that they tended to auto-accomplish what thieves had to roll to do - and roll with a lot of luck for lower level thieves. In AD&amp;D, this wasn't a huge problem but once the magic item creation rules came around in 3e and wizards could relatively cheaply make wands/scrolls of utility spells, that thief niche really sucked. Thankfully, their combat abilities&nbsp; had increased substantially.For my money, the best improvement in making exploration oriented utility spells more worthwhile has been 5e's spell prep rules. Not having to devote specific spell slots with prepped spells, I can have a little more freedom to respond to needs that come up while still having a few options prepped. This is one reason I'm very much NOT in favor of OneD&amp;D's play test rule changes about spell prep so far.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 8853856, member: 3400"] Based on my experiences, the idea that players explored to avoid combat because they got more XPs from treasure tends to be overstated. At most tables I played at, people [B]still[/B] engaged in combat because it would get you [B]more[/B] XPs than just making off with the treasure. Thieves in AD&D [B]were[/B] underpowered. They had saving throws that tended to be terrible (they were the only class with a category that stayed about 10 at best value). They had a bad THAC0 that hampered them in any fight in which they weren't successfully backstabbing. Backstab itself was kind of weak because it required surprise and had significant limitations on what could be affected - both of which many DMs ignored to make it more useful. The only thing they really had going for them was a fast XP progression table but good luck managing to get the rest of your party to leave a dungeon to let you level-up faster. That is [B]IF[/B] you had the cash for it in the first place. Exploration spells were also problematic in the sense that they tended to auto-accomplish what thieves had to roll to do - and roll with a lot of luck for lower level thieves. In AD&D, this wasn't a huge problem but once the magic item creation rules came around in 3e and wizards could relatively cheaply make wands/scrolls of utility spells, that thief niche really sucked. [B]Thankfully[/B], their combat abilities had increased substantially. For my money, the best improvement in making exploration oriented utility spells more worthwhile has been 5e's spell prep rules. Not having to devote specific spell slots with prepped spells, I can have a little more freedom to respond to needs that come up while still having a few options prepped. This is one reason I'm very much NOT in favor of OneD&D's play test rule changes about spell prep so far. [/QUOTE]

Verification