Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Erechel" data-source="post: 6537111" data-attributes="member: 6784868">SirAntoine:Ok, I will try be swift in my answer. I liked a LOT AD&D (second ed). I have been a DM myself for quite a long time (15 years), and I liked a lot over 3º, 3.5 and 4th edition which, all because I didn't like the massive overpower of certain characters/builds. So, until the release of 5ed, I was playing three AD&D campaings. All of this doesn't matter a bit. The whole point in which you are constructing your argument is false. Or it's only a subjective matter, and a thing of personal taste, or it isn't. You are between this two points, switching for convenience. This is just "bad milk", like we said in Argentina when someone has bad intentions, OR just plain stupidity. If your posts were only guided by the "like factor" I wouldn't allow myself to even argue. But they're not: you are calling back to the "true D&D". This is not, by history, AD&D, that is a revamp of OD&D (the original!). Lets get this straight:1) You call "balanced" a system that has proven to be broken several times. Even by core. Look at the druid or the wizard; the wizard at least had slower XP progression. But the druid? Not a bit. Faster than most classes, it was a full caster with animal form (I remember the butterfly-elephant combo: fly over a fiend as a tiny bird, polymorph in a huge beast: instant death for most characters); and they had not a specially demanding requirements. Sure, you have to be a (relatively) high level character, but with the xp progression, a druid can poly between this forms at the same time that a wizard had a fireball. But yet, the wizard could take over a KINGDOM at level 1 (remember Charm Person? it used to last MONTHS for sub-par to average Intelligence characters: a little patience and ingenuity and you could easily rise an army, only by influence trading: you charm a lieutenant, and their men obey you; then you could charm a minister, and so on).2) All things considered, an army isn't even a big deal to a wizard/druid/cleric/paladin. But a specialized warrior could also charge and destroy orcs at level 6-8 as if they were made from grass. The "balance" is not even a question here. There is no such thing as an army against a party that could plausibly had a chance: the PCs were just better than anything. It is the same mistake that they made too in 3rd 3.5, and 4ed: the players were just too big for anyone else. My brother played a Necromancer that overpowered a full squadron of fighters and paladins of higher level than him with just two spells: Lightning bolt and Ghoul's touch. And the list is bigger than that: just consider Fireball (3rd level, a wizard of medium level could wipe out almost anything), or Fire Rain (ok, a little higher level). Or almost any spell that deals massive damage in a wide AoE: the armies will just fall at the feeto of medium-level players.  In 5ed, such nonsense is dealed with: concentration, visible target, shield bonuses, more hp for the foes...: all magic is well balanced and overly underpowered in this edition. Yes, there are classes that are a lot stronger tha before (fighter, for example), but so are the enemies. The 5ed wizard is clearly a lot less powerful than a 2ed one (at least after level 2-3). A lot more "realistic" in your own terms. 3) There is nothing, i repeat, NOTHING realistic in AD&D. There are wizards, elves, miracle workers AKA clerics, orcs, gods, demons, and bizarre monsters in it. Not even the armors were realistic: a chainmail is by no means a "light" armor that a bard or a rogue could use. It's heavier than S.H.I.T: over 30 kg the Hauberk alone. It was the very definition of heavy armor during most Middle Ages. And the weapons... three attacks with a bow for a single swing of a blade? This is just plain ridiculous realisticly speaking. In the time that an archer charges the arrow and shoot, I give him three blows with my sword. It's just a fact: an english archer could fire 8-10 by minute, and a swordsman can attack over sixty times in that time, and a knife man even more. But you don't even mention the darts... The word that defines a fictional world is NEVER realistic. In Spanish we differentiate between "realistic" (tied to reality) and "verosímil" (similar to reality, plausible, credible in a context). I did not find a speciific word to relate to, but vraisemblance is akin to this.5ed empowered the numbers over the sheer power of one individual. A group of orcs, well used, can be a worthy challenge over a high level party. They can even defeat them (although with heavy losses on their side) So... no. No chance that it's unbalanced or overpowered compared with AD&D.If any, is clearer, more realistic, and balanced than previous editions. Yes, the classes have now more options. Yes, the bonuses are more frequent than in the "old days": but there are more options, more bonuses for every class in the game, including NPCs and monsters. You don't like the hp recovery? Go to the GDM: there are several options to make it harder. I use them, and the play is overall well tuned, fun, and more verosimile than any previous edition.</blockquote>

Verification