Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 9258211" data-attributes="member: 6779310">That sounds like you're playing AD&D 2e or later; Core D&D before then was largely devoid of new abilities by level other than 1st and 9th... but constant increase for extant ones. Exception being Monks (even in OE). The AD&D 1e had paladins with several levels getting new abilities, but not every level; UA moving them to Cavalier subclass didn't much change that; Barbarians and Cavaliers are almost as special ability heavy as monks. Until late in 1E, there were no core rules nonweapon skills other than the thief, monk, and assassin specials; the "secondary skills" option is essentially a background career, and you don't get new ones in play.And, weapon skills were VERY limited. With pretty notable non-proficiency penalties.But also, under AD&D 1E PHB/DMG/MM (no expansions) and OE, Holmes, BX, BECMI, and Cyclopedia, Normal people are 1HD in all the PC races... Noting that skills are added in M of BECMI and are thus in Cyclopedia. In AD&D, they're added in OA, WSG, and/or DSG... The Grayhawk setting folio has some kings as low as 5th level, perhaps lower. QFT.But there's a bit of an oversimplification - if one shallows the curve, the growth can start higher on it for the same duration...Only in later editions - OE, Holmes, BX, BECMI, BBB+Cyclo+Wrath all presume and suggest only 3d6 in order... AD&D1e presumes that, but lets the GM (and only the GM) decide to use the other, higher, starting points. The AD&D[1e] Grayhawk boxed set has some kings being only 5th level (ISTR 3rd for one or two)...The thing is, D&D before 2E was intended to be essentially demi-god level heroes in a world of fragile humanity... the issue isn't so much that mid to high levels are too powerful nor that level 1 is so incompetent as that level 0 is so incompetent - the normals are fragile. Too fragile.3.X, by introducing NPC classes and making most of the population actually having classes, really changes the baselines. No longer are 1st level hero classes better than the average NPC being on the street... and the average being on the street is still a fragile level 1...3.X also is the point where every class was getting something new every other level or so. 4e and 5e have something every level.The issue in D&D isn't the growth paradigm, it's the normal man paradigm.5E normal men are actually considerably more competent than prior editions, simply due to the way checks work. Still, they're fragile - not as fragile as early editions - a non combatant OE/AD&D 1e/BX usually having 1-4 HP... vs 1d6 or more in 5E...To quote one of my players last night, "Even with a Con bonus, rolling a 1 on a HD really sucks!" (We're doign Cyclo+Gaz+Wrath).They didn't start incompetent at 1st level 16 weeks ago - they started competent; capable of facing any normal human or ork with a slight edge (all PC's start with the same tohit as fighter 1 - but normals are fighter 0 - 2 points less competent. The wizard with sling and staff is a better than normal man fighter. The problem is that the default "0-level" is so incompetent, not that the level 1 is weak by comparison - because they're not weak. And it takes a swarm of rats to do significant damage. The hyperbole doesn't do the rhetorical position much good.</blockquote>

Verification