Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6075054" data-attributes="member: 22779">Look, I see it like this.&nbsp; The first major player supplement AD&amp;D got was the Unearthed Arcana.&nbsp; The AD&amp;D UA effectively doubled the offensive output of fighters and rangers.&nbsp; The Fighters went from a single attack per round at 1st level with a melee weapon to 3/2 per round with +3 to hit and damage.&nbsp; And that's not even close to the offensive output of paladins.&nbsp; Now, do you think they did this because fighters were a top tier class that was more powerful than other classes?&nbsp; Or was it perhaps the recognition, even in the early 80's, that the non-caster classes needed a lot more oomph to keep up with the casters.&nbsp; 2e went even further.&nbsp; Between two weapon fighting and weapon specs, you could make a 1st level fighter, without any ability bonuses, that could drop a 4 HD creature in a single round.&nbsp; Fighters and rangers were damage GODS in 2e.&nbsp; The 3 fighter types, cleric, wizard, thief archtypal party was freaking deadly because your fighter types could obliterate just about anything.&nbsp; Heck, they were so good that this is why the casters got bumped so much in 3e.&nbsp; It was to bring them up to par with the fighter types.&nbsp; Only problem is, they went too far.&nbsp; The fighter types didn't really get much of a bump from 2e to 3e, and, because the monsters did get huge bumps, they actually slid way down the scale.&nbsp; There's no way a 1st level 3e fighter is killing an ogre in a single round in 3e.&nbsp; Or at least, it's extremely unlikely.&nbsp; So, because the baddies got a heck of a lot stronger, and the non-casters didn't, the non-casters fell behind.&nbsp; Then the casters got massive bumps - easier to cast spells, easier to choose spells, more spells, more spell choices (well, a LOT more spell choices) and so on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6075054, member: 22779"] Look, I see it like this. The first major player supplement AD&D got was the Unearthed Arcana. The AD&D UA effectively doubled the offensive output of fighters and rangers. The Fighters went from a single attack per round at 1st level with a melee weapon to 3/2 per round with +3 to hit and damage. And that's not even close to the offensive output of paladins. Now, do you think they did this because fighters were a top tier class that was more powerful than other classes? Or was it perhaps the recognition, even in the early 80's, that the non-caster classes needed a lot more oomph to keep up with the casters. 2e went even further. Between two weapon fighting and weapon specs, you could make a 1st level fighter, without any ability bonuses, that could drop a 4 HD creature in a single round. Fighters and rangers were damage GODS in 2e. The 3 fighter types, cleric, wizard, thief archtypal party was freaking deadly because your fighter types could obliterate just about anything. Heck, they were so good that this is why the casters got bumped so much in 3e. It was to bring them up to par with the fighter types. Only problem is, they went too far. The fighter types didn't really get much of a bump from 2e to 3e, and, because the monsters did get huge bumps, they actually slid way down the scale. There's no way a 1st level 3e fighter is killing an ogre in a single round in 3e. Or at least, it's extremely unlikely. So, because the baddies got a heck of a lot stronger, and the non-casters didn't, the non-casters fell behind. Then the casters got massive bumps - easier to cast spells, easier to choose spells, more spells, more spell choices (well, a LOT more spell choices) and so on. [/QUOTE]

Verification