Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gnarl45" data-source="post: 6529162" data-attributes="member: 6787695">I'm not sure what you're getting at with this post. But having mixed groups in AD&amp;D wasn't as bad as in 3e and later editions. I don't know if you remember, but all the non-combat aspect of AD&amp;D was more about player skill than character skill. This means that even if you're playing a 1st level character in a group of level 20s, you can still contribute and you're just as good as the others (minus the utility magic).Secondly, the number of XP you needed to gain a new level increases exponentially. If you need 2,000 XP for level 2, you need 4,000 for level 3, etc... So you're effectively only one level behind the others after a few sessions. This stops being true at higher levels but the power curve is flater after level 10 so it's not that bad. Your Thac0 is capped at 1, your AC at -10, your saves at 1, etc... Even spells have a slower progression. If you're tossing 10d6 fireballs and your big brother is tossing 10d6+10 ones (delayed blast), you're stilll in the same ball park.Thirdly, the mindset was different. You didn't have Excel to help you with the math and an online community that pretends they know anything about RPG-math. Math wasn't a religion back then. People also accepted that some characters were better than others because that's how it was in every single one of their favorite fantasy book.If you're going to compare an element of an edition with the other editions, you need to look at this element within the context. Starting at level 1 could work back then because of how the game was designed. In 3e, 4e, or 5e, it just doesn't work and they needed to find something else.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gnarl45, post: 6529162, member: 6787695"] I'm not sure what you're getting at with this post. But having mixed groups in AD&D wasn't as bad as in 3e and later editions. I don't know if you remember, but all the non-combat aspect of AD&D was more about player skill than character skill. This means that even if you're playing a 1st level character in a group of level 20s, you can still contribute and you're just as good as the others (minus the utility magic). Secondly, the number of XP you needed to gain a new level increases exponentially. If you need 2,000 XP for level 2, you need 4,000 for level 3, etc... So you're effectively only one level behind the others after a few sessions. This stops being true at higher levels but the power curve is flater after level 10 so it's not that bad. Your Thac0 is capped at 1, your AC at -10, your saves at 1, etc... Even spells have a slower progression. If you're tossing 10d6 fireballs and your big brother is tossing 10d6+10 ones (delayed blast), you're stilll in the same ball park. Thirdly, the mindset was different. You didn't have Excel to help you with the math and an online community that pretends they know anything about RPG-math. Math wasn't a religion back then. People also accepted that some characters were better than others because that's how it was in every single one of their favorite fantasy book. If you're going to compare an element of an edition with the other editions, you need to look at this element within the context. Starting at level 1 could work back then because of how the game was designed. In 3e, 4e, or 5e, it just doesn't work and they needed to find something else. [/QUOTE]

Verification