What is the essence of D&D

[Garthanos]

To be fair though, 2e fighters were the pinnacle of fighters in D&D. Capable of killing a troll in a single round at 1st level. Something they've never been allowed to to before or since.

Is that a critical hit kicking in or that weapon specialization people are mentioning or what?

 

[Coroc]

Honestly I liked each edition better as it went along... til 5e decided intelligence was a dump stat if you didnt use magic. And besides my edition isn't D&D remember not really even a roleplaying game just some skirmishing combat engine.... I don't belong here. Goodbye.

To branch of the main topic for a moment, I think you are right with the int dumpstat in 5e.
For bard int would not be an option, but, why do sorcerers have to be based on cha? Or warlocks maybe?
They really could have based one of these two classes on int to give more balance to the attributes.
The e2.5 sorcerer was based on intelligence.
They changed that to cha main stat only in 3e or 3.5e I think.

 

[Garthanos]

sorcerers have to be based on cha? Or warlocks maybe?

In 4e a Warlock could use con and channel his life force (and resist the pain or pleasure the magic induced to keep their focus while casting - its how I pictured it any way )

 

[Lanefan]

My concerns are pretty much about game play rather than game balance. Game play is all about the ability to make decisions that matter and impact your success or failure whereas game balance is more about equality of outcome. My primary beef with Fifth Edition is a game is that it makes concessions to game play in order to have a more balanced game.

It feels like every opportunity they sought to bring the skill floor and skill ceiling closer and closer together. This touches on all points of the game from class design to spell design to monster design. Concentration instead of Sustaining a Spell, Hit Dice instead of Healing Surges, Neovancian Casting instead of Vancian Casting, Split Movement instead of positioning, Weak Combat Maneuvers, Champion being nearly as good as a well played Battle Master, relying overly on Advantage and Disadvantage, and monsters that are big bags of hit points are a few of my least favorite things.

I get it. All this stuff makes the game more accessible, but by removing a whole host of interactions they have cut down on a skilled player's ability to punch above their weight class. One of my favorite parts of playing and running Fourth Edition was that you could play a Fighter well in the same way you could a Wizard well in previous editions. I would like a higher skill ceiling.

To me the TL;DR version of this quote comes down to "I want system mastery to be more of an advantage in play".

Cool for you. Not for me.

I'd rather the system on the player side be simple enough to a) make full system mastery so easily attainable that anyone can do it, and thus no advantage anywhere; and b) just get out of the way so as to let me follow the story and play my character in character without having to reference rules all the time.

 

[Lanefan]

Actually there were pretty harsh rules for magic item s breaking on failed saves and making item saving throws. It’s cool if he did it all the time and was consistent and not just because he got himself a staff of the magi. That was he knew up front they risk before blowing that kind of gold.

Oh we all know the risks! And the harsher item-breakage rules are something I quite like, particularly as a DM as I can then give out more neat things.

 

[Lanefan]

And throwing 7 per round. With Gauntlets of Ogre power.

I have one of those active in my game right now: Hobbit Fighter spec. in darts with a girdle of giant strength and high Dex. Rate of fire is 4/round; and if she ever finds or commissions a bandolier of infinite dart production there'll be no stopping her.

 

[Maxperson]

Did you miss me mentioning IF you are using the speed factor rules? NOW I will show you the damage was better than 1D3 Darts have a speed factor of 2 a bastard sword 6 and a scimitar 4 and the like.

So they did nothing fast. So what. That fighter with the bastard sword probably had 7 hit points, assuming he rolled a 5 with a +2 con modifier. The wizard would have to hit all 3 times, maxing out two of the rolls to take the fighter down. More if the fighter rolled decently, the wizard would have to roll even better. After rolling a 16 or higher 3+ consecutive times.

Now let's give the mage max hit points and be generous and give him a +1 con modifier. He has 5 hit points and the fighter doesn't even have to roll average on a single hit with that bastard sword to take the wizard down.

So let's face off. Wizard with a 8-10AC vs. a fighter with a 5AC. You get 3 darts per round and I get a bastard sword. I'll won't even make you roll. You can go first and let's see who wins.

If you as a mage did something silly like toss a 17 on strength its 3d3+3

Oh. Just "toss" on a 17? Did you play 1e?

 

[Zardnaar]

We tried them once my DM liked fiddly bits, but the impact was nothing like Zards Dartmaster goo from 2e....

I got that idea from the forums circa 2002, we did use speed factor, throw darts and daggers even if non proficient.

We tried a lot if optional rules, speed factor was more or less default along with casting times.

 

[Lanefan]

So let's face off. Wizard with a 8-10AC vs. a fighter with a 5AC. You get 3 darts per round and I get a bastard sword. I'll won't even make you roll. You can go first and let's see who wins.

OK. What spells do I have memorized; 'cause if I'm going first you can bet the farm I ain't leading off with darts.

That, and why would a wizard not start out with staff as the first proficiency? d6 damage, has a bit of reach, has some non-combat uses, and you're all set if you ever happen to find a magical staff later. (and in some versions, wielding a staff - being a large-ish 2-handed weapon - in melee gave a point of AC as well)

 

[Maxperson]

Umm, no, they weren't actually. An AC of 4 or 5 meant chainmail or better and you generally didn't see that on too many 1HD or less monsters. And, guess what, at 1st level, the fighter and the wizard HAD THE SAME THAC0. :shock: Given a decent dex score, the wizard, at 1st level, was hitting pretty much as often as the fighter.

::: plink ::: ::: plink :::

Giant Ant: AC 2
Baboon: AC 7
Badger: AC 4
Fire beetle: AC 4
Bugbear: AC 5
Carrion Crawler: AC 7
Giant Centipede: AC 9 and finally one that averages those low hit points you mention below, but oh, it had save or die poison.
Crab: AC 3

Sorry bud. 4-5 AC is looking pretty common.

And, sure, they're doing d3 damage per hit. But, the bad guys are generally between 2-4 HP each. The wizard was pretty adept at killing 2-3 kobolds at 1st level, while the fighter could only swing his longsword once. 3/2 if you started using 2e specs.

You had a DM who went easy street on you.