[1st Ed.] Did Gary hate fighters?

[vultureboy]

So I'm reading my 1st Ed. PHB, and finally find the section where "Attacks per round" are listed ( hidden after the Ranger entry. Why? Dunno, ask Gary ). And it clearly states:
"Note: This excludes melee combat with monsters of less than one hit die and non-exceptional ( 0 level ) humans and semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter ( my emphasis added ) to attack once for each of his or her experience levels.

Cool, so the Fighter gets some love.

Then, in Unearthed Arcana ( which oddly enough in which I found the "Attacks per Round" first, before in the PHB ) it corrects this statement to say:

Notes: These figures do not apply to melee comabe with monsters of less than one hit die and non-exceptional humans and semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit die. All of these creatures enable members of the listed classes ( referring to the above chart which is for Fighters, Cavaliers, and sub-classes thereof ) and sub-classes to attack once per round for each of his or her levels. These figures do not apply to fighters and rangers using weapons of specialization ( again, my emphasis added )


So here's the part blowing my mind. First, Fighters get the *shortest* write up on the PHB. But, they get this cool *beat down the low hit-die monsters* power ( hidden cleverly after the ranger entry )

Then Unearthed Arcana goes and neuters them, by giving out that power to Cavaliers, Barbarians, Ranger, and Paladins! WTF!

Plus, if you notice Weapons Specialization actually gives a fighter fewer attacks against sub-1 hit die creatures the higher he goes up! For instance, a 6th level fighter, who specializes in a weapons, can attack a kobold ( less than 1 hit die ) only 3/2 per the Specialization rules. However, if he uses his dagger ( no specialization ) he can hit that same kobold 6 times!

Seriously if you look at this change in Unearthed Arcana, and the addition of the Barbarian and Cavalier ( which would not be fixed until Dragon # 148 ), you start to wonder if Gary looked down his nose at the humble Fighter, who started out as the classic "Fighting Man" of OD&D fame.

[Zeea]

I think the second "these figures" doesn't refer to attacks against kobolds, but rather to the original figures. I don't have the book with me, but the way I think it is:

(Figures on attacking)
Exception 1: Attacking creatures with less than 1 HD. You get more attacks.
Exception 2: Using specialized weapons. You get more attacks.

You can use exception 1 where it's more beneficial, or exception 2 otherwise. Exception 2 is an exception to (Figures on attacking), not an exception to Exception 1.

I think.

[DeadZa]

The Fighter is the big dumb jock who picked on the brainy misunderstood smart kid who read about elves and hobbits and shit during lunch. The smart kid may seem like a wussy now but when he grows up he'll cast Fireball! And that so cool at first level Fighter better watch out.

[Smartmonkey]

Thats really weird.

I've always thought that fighters in older editions were pretty much the badasses. This comes mostly from having most of my 'old school' experience in running D&D Rules Cyclopedia, where fighters are whirling machines of death and destruction.

[Lord Crimson]

Belac is correct.

[Doodles]

Yes, the Fighter gets the short hand of the stick.

You'll notice that you just need 9 Strength to be one, though, and that you're not supposed to just magically come up with the stats for the character class you want, but roll the damn dice.

Now that said, a little more love for the Fighter in a houserule would be more than welcome, IMO. And the whole caveat of "less than d8 Hit Dice" for additional attacks always made me cringe.

[Sac2:Electric Bugaloo]

No. Gary did not hate fighters. He hated halflings.

[Akodo Daimyo]

He hated halflings.

Good man. :P

[Ithaeur]

The (donated) copy of UA at my university RPG club's storeroom is full of errata, ranging from single lines to entire tables. This is probably one of those errataed things.

As for the title question, I'd bet considerable sums of money that the answer is "Heck, no". Although wizards eventually trumped everyone else in 1e and 2e, the whole "fighter as the red-headed stepchild of character classes" thing is a 3e peculiarity.

[Jrrneiklot]

Fighters are supposed to get the short end of the stick. I asked Gary once why someone would play a fighter instead of a ranger or paladin if you qualified for those classes. His answer: "They shouldn't." Rangers. paladins, etc are simply better than fighters. If you were lucky enough to qualify for one, you get rewarded by getting to play a ranger. If, you roll 48 d6 to determine stats, then, there will be a ton of rangers, paladins, and very few fighters.

[Sac2:Electric Bugaloo]

Fighters are supposed to get the short end of the stick. I asked Gary once why someone would play a fighter instead of a ranger or paladin if you qualified for those classes. His answer: "They shouldn't." Rangers. paladins, etc are simply better than fighters. If you were lucky enough to qualify for one, you get rewarded by getting to play a ranger. If, you roll 48 d6 to determine stats, then, there will be a ton of rangers, paladins, and very few fighters.

See, I don't agree with that. Not that I'm disputing that that's what Gary told you, just the theory behind it.

There are plenty of other reasons to play a fighter even if your stat rolls were good enough to be a ranger or paladin. Just off the top of my head, some really significant reasons:

-better armor weapon selection than a ranger
-not limited to being a woodsman
-not limited to being a lawful-g human holy warrior.
-the ability to actually keep your treasure

[villagereaver]

So I'm reading my 1st Ed. PHB, and finally find the section where "Attacks per round" are listed ( hidden after the Ranger entry. Why? Dunno, ask Gary ). And it clearly states:
"Note: This excludes melee combat with monsters of less than one hit die and non-exceptional ( 0 level ) humans and semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter ( my emphasis added ) to attack once for each of his or her experience levels.

Cool, so the Fighter gets some love.

Then, in Unearthed Arcana ( which oddly enough in which I found the "Attacks per Round" first, before in the PHB ) it corrects this statement to say:

Notes: These figures do not apply to melee comabe with monsters of less than one hit die and non-exceptional humans and semi-humans, i.e. all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit die. All of these creatures enable members of the listed classes ( referring to the above chart which is for Fighters, Cavaliers, and sub-classes thereof ) and sub-classes to attack once per round for each of his or her levels. These figures do not apply to fighters and rangers using weapons of specialization ( again, my emphasis added )


So here's the part blowing my mind. First, Fighters get the *shortest* write up on the PHB. But, they get this cool *beat down the low hit-die monsters* power ( hidden cleverly after the ranger entry )

Then Unearthed Arcana goes and neuters them, by giving out that power to Cavaliers, Barbarians, Ranger, and Paladins! WTF!

Plus, if you notice Weapons Specialization actually gives a fighter fewer attacks against sub-1 hit die creatures the higher he goes up! For instance, a 6th level fighter, who specializes in a weapons, can attack a kobold ( less than 1 hit die ) only 3/2 per the Specialization rules. However, if he uses his dagger ( no specialization ) he can hit that same kobold 6 times!

Seriously if you look at this change in Unearthed Arcana, and the addition of the Barbarian and Cavalier ( which would not be fixed until Dragon # 148 ), you start to wonder if Gary looked down his nose at the humble Fighter, who started out as the classic "Fighting Man" of OD&D fame.

Someplace you can find the rules for "fighter classes attacking less than one HD monsters" . My books are in storage, so i can't direct you correctly, other than one attack per level against the mooks.

In Unearthed Arcana (or the Eratta), only fighters and Rangers can specialise ( +1 to hit, +2 to damage, extra attack every other round) and only fighters can double-specialise ( +3 to hit, +3 on damage, extra attack per round). Cavaliers and paladins got extra attack with their "weapons of choice" off of said chart with a slightly broken statement in the cavalier description.

[Daztur]

Rules Cyclopedia does the best to balance fighters againlst casters but in older editions in general fighters were better able to stand up against casters compared to 3.5ed because:

-They actually had pretty good saves.
-Monsters had less HPs so hitting things with swords worked better.
-Save or die/suck/lose spells were generally less useful (except for sleep at low levels)
-Having big hit dice mattered more since casters couldn't get nearly so many HPs from having high con.
-Thinner tunnels were more common in a lot of modules, which made it easier for the fighter to tank
-Different XP charts.
-Casters getting fewer spells.
-Harder to raise your AC so being able to wear a nice big suit of armor mattered more.

[Old Geezer]

No. Gary did not hate fighters. He hated halflings.

Gary did not hate halflings.

He hated HOBBITS!!!





Now, git offa the Proletariat's castle green.

[Quasar]

Gary did not hate halflings.

He hated HOBBITS!!!


Which I just never got from what I saw.

I mean, I'd read interviews with Gary where he'd said that he liked the Hobbit whilst he didn't much like LOTR. And then we have AD&D halflings which are Hobbits with the serial numbers filed off. And in the rules they never seemed much worse off than how Elves and Dwarves with treated with the whole level limits thing (which amusingly enough was rule zeroed by everyone I ever played with).

Was it simply due to Gary running afoul of Tolkien Enterprises?

[Booberry]

Gary did not hate halflings.

He hated HOBBITS!!!


Then why did he put them in his game?

[The Little Raven]

Then why did he put them in his game?

Peer pressure is a bitch.

[Scurrilous]

In answer to the original question, "not as much as he hated humans."

[The Little Raven]

In answer to the original question, "not as much as he hated humans."

That's a funny statement, considering he infers that people who play anything other than human are immature or attention seekers in one of the 1e DMG essays, as well as the fact that all classes and all levels are open to humans, in addition to the setting he created being primarily human.

[Old Geezer]

Peer pressure is a bitch.

This.

Gary really didn't like Lord of the Rings. But in 1972, it was at least as big as it was when the recent films were out... perhaps even bigger. WE all wanted Tolkien stuff.

[ANTImunchkin]

I think the second "these figures" doesn't refer to attacks against kobolds, but rather to the original figures. I don't have the book with me, but the way I think it is:

(Figures on attacking)
Exception 1: Attacking creatures with less than 1 HD. You get more attacks.
Exception 2: Using specialized weapons. You get more attacks.

You can use exception 1 where it's more beneficial, or exception 2 otherwise. Exception 2 is an exception to (Figures on attacking), not an exception to Exception 1.

I think.

This is how we operated. That is when we remembered the rule for Fighters #attacks against less-than-1HD foes.

[weasel fierce]

Fighters do have the advantage that you can act as you please, and they lack the restrictions of the other warrior types. They'll also advance faster as well.

B/X D&D is the true Fighters D&D though :)

[Crom]

Gary hates: Humans, the Tolkien estate, non-adventurers.

Gary loves: Bearded dwarf chicks, fighters, polearms, bearded dwarf fighter chicks with polearms.

[The Pugilist]

This.

Gary really didn't like Lord of the Rings. But in 1972, it was at least as big as it was when the recent films were out... perhaps even bigger. WE all wanted Tolkien stuff.

Oh btw, thanks Old Geezer for the goddamn Half-Elves. :mad:

(Just kidding, I love the spoony bardy bastards.) :o

[Dormammu]

-Different XP charts.

Fighters ... also advance faster as well.
In AD&D, Fighters did not have fabulous xp progression. Of the base classes, the xp needed for second level were:

Thief: 1,250
Cleric: 1,500
Fighter: 2,000
Magic-User: 2,500
Fighters need considerably more xp than Thieves and Clerics, although Clerics were close enough never to be more than one level ahead.

[weasel fierce]

In AD&D, Fighters did not have fabulous xp progression. Of the base classes, the xp needed for second level were:

Thief: 1,250
Cleric: 1,500
Fighter: 2,000
Magic-User: 2,500
Fighters need considerably more xp than Thieves and Clerics, although Clerics were close enough never to be more than one level ahead.

I was referring to the other warrior types actually

Fighter 2000
Ranger 2250
Paladin 2750
Barbarian 6000 (!)
Cavalier 2500

[OneEyedMan]

In AD&D, Fighters did not have fabulous xp progression. Of the base classes, the xp needed for second level were:

Thief: 1,250
Cleric: 1,500
Fighter: 2,000
Magic-User: 2,500
Fighters need considerably more xp than Thieves and Clerics, although Clerics were close enough never to be more than one level ahead.

That's true, although thieves were much less combat-worthy than the 3E rogue, so they never outshone the fighting-types in combat. Someone did an article once where they analyzed progression rates to see how the AD&D1E classes balanced up, and found that the theif would be about 19th level while a paladin was still at 13.

Of course, a 13th level paladin would pretty much pound a 19th level thief in combat, so that wasn't too big a deal.

-J

[Icon]

Go look at the saving throw and treasure tables.

[Yo! Master]

This.

Gary really didn't like Lord of the Rings. But in 1972, it was at least as big as it was when the recent films were out... perhaps even bigger. WE all wanted Tolkien stuff.

You just admitted it then! It's all your fault!

[Whitemagebishieboy]

Go look at the saving throw and treasure tables.

Hell the treasure tables specifically call out to the fact there a giant pile of fighter love.

[blizack]

Fighters do have the advantage that you can act as you please, and they lack the restrictions of the other warrior types. They'll also advance faster as well.

B/X D&D is the true Fighters D&D though :)

Rules Cyclopedia fighters are pretty nuts, too. Especially if you're using Weapon Mastery. :D

[Monkey King]

Fighters are supposed to get the short end of the stick. I asked Gary once why someone would play a fighter instead of a ranger or paladin if you qualified for those classes. His answer: "They shouldn't." Rangers. paladins, etc are simply better than fighters. If you were lucky enough to qualify for one, you get rewarded by getting to play a ranger. If, you roll 48 d6 to determine stats, then, there will be a ton of rangers, paladins, and very few fighters.
The rules clearly expected you to randomly roll your stats first, then choose whatever class fit those rules, but I really wonder how many people actually played like this. I always thought it was standard for everyone to cheat on their ability rolls back then.

[Crazy Jerome]

The rules clearly expected you to randomly roll your stats first, then choose whatever class fit those rules, but I really wonder how many people actually played like this. I always thought it was standard for everyone to cheat on their ability rolls back then.

We played by the book all the time with Basic and 1st ed. We always rolled up characters as a group, or at least replacements as a group, with the rule that the character with the highest Int had to play the wizard.

Our one concession was that sometimes players would swap characters after they had been rolled up but before play started. :)

[The Little Raven]

Oh btw, thanks Old Geezer for the goddamn Half-Elves. :mad:

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZER!

I never liked "half-races." I much prefer the Tolkein method: you choose to take after one parent or the other (Elrond was an Elf, his brother was a Man).

[shortforbob]

The rules clearly expected you to randomly roll your stats first, then choose whatever class fit those rules, but I really wonder how many people actually played like this. I always thought it was standard for everyone to cheat on their ability rolls back then.

Nope. We rolled and hoped we qualified for something good. Even when we did 4d6, it was still rolled strictly in order, so you could very well end up with no healers, or thieves, or whatever it is you needed. That was one of the good things about Unearthed Arcana when it came out: you picked the class you wanted and rolled enough dice that you were bound to qualify. Humanocentrism for the win!

shortforbob

[OneEyedMan]

The rules clearly expected you to randomly roll your stats first, then choose whatever class fit those rules, but I really wonder how many people actually played like this. I always thought it was standard for everyone to cheat on their ability rolls back then.

We never did, but we also found Stat-cheaters to be worthy of mockery, because they weren't simply adjusting a stat here or there a tad. They wound up with Paladins who had 18's in everything except for INT, which was a 16.

I've played characters with no bonuses whatsoever before, and had a grand old time.

-J

[Galadrin]

Wait, who is Old Geezer exactly, and what claim to fame does he have?

[Akodo Daimyo]

Wait, who is Old Geezer exactly, and what claim to fame does he have?

Old Geezer is a member of the forum who used to play with, and was a friend of, Gygax and Arneson when D&D was first created.

[villagereaver]

We never did, but we also found Stat-cheaters to be worthy of mockery, because they weren't simply adjusting a stat here or there a tad. They wound up with Paladins who had 18's in everything except for INT, which was a 16.

I've played characters with no bonuses whatsoever before, and had a grand old time.

-J

Maybe they just used Rogues Gallery ( a supplement for first edition).

[The Pugilist]

Old Geezer is a member of the forum who used to play with, and was a friend of, Gygax and Arneson when D&D was first created.

He's also the guy who pestered Gary into allowing Half-Elves.

Hence my good-natured yet snarky remark.

;)

[Bradford C. Walker]

Yes, the Fighter was the class you got if you couldn't get into anything better. Not much in the way of rules to learn, because everything you did as a Fighter was just the stuff that every PC got to do, which is why Fighters were the Newbie Class in pre-3.X D&D editions. The Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger are all upgrades built upon the basic Fighter chassis; if you qualified for one of them, you were expected to take it- this is why "demote to a Fighter" was a punishment.

[Old Geezer]

Yes, the Fighter was the class you got if you couldn't get into anything better.

Or unless you liked fighters, which quite a few of us did.

[Christopher V. Brady]

He's also the guy who pestered Gary into allowing Half-Elves.

Hence my good-natured yet snarky remark.

;)

Also, the creator of the dreaded Gelatinous Cube!

[Christopher V. Brady]

Or unless you liked fighters, which quite a few of us did.

I love the concept of the Fighter, but pre-4e, I would not have been caught DEAD playing one. Especially if I rolled well enough to be a Ranger or a Paladin. Hell, even Thieves and Magic-Users were more fun, and had more options. There was nothing Fighter specific that the other classes couldn't do, other than specialization, even then, that wasn't exactly all that great during the 2e phase of AD&D.

YMMV

[Akodo Daimyo]

He's also the guy who pestered Gary into allowing Half-Elves.

Well, I didn't want to go into everything he's done for D&D; my wrists can only take so much typing. :)

[Old Geezer]

I love the concept of the Fighter, but pre-4e, I would not have been caught DEAD playing one. Especially if I rolled well enough to be a Ranger or a Paladin. Hell, even Thieves and Magic-Users were more fun, and had more options. There was nothing Fighter specific that the other classes couldn't do, other than specialization, even then, that wasn't exactly all that great during the 2e phase of AD&D.

YMMV

Never having played 2nd Ed, I can't comment.

[weasel fierce]

I love the concept of the Fighter, but pre-4e, I would not have been caught DEAD playing one. Especially if I rolled well enough to be a Ranger or a Paladin. Hell, even Thieves and Magic-Users were more fun, and had more options. There was nothing Fighter specific that the other classes couldn't do, other than specialization, even then, that wasn't exactly all that great during the 2e phase of AD&D.

YMMV

Well..

In original AD&D:
Compared to the ranger:
Fighters get a D10 for hit points and +3 per level after 9. Rangers only get D8 and +2 (though they do start with 2D8)
Multiple attacks sooner.
An extra weapon proficiency (which comes in handy if you want to specialize)
Faster XP progression up to level 8 (then it switches for a few levels, before going back to being faster again)
No limit on alignment
Gets a small army of followers
May have hirelings and henchmen at any level
May own as much stuff as he pleases

Compared to the paladin:
An extra weapon proficiency
Weapon specialization
Far better XP progression
No limit on alignment OR behaviour
Can hire and associate with whoever they want
Can keep as much money as they want
Gets followers
Can have as many magic weapons and suits of armour as they can stand


Of course, in BX D&D, if using weapon mastery (and even without it, at level 9 and up) fighters will destroy pretty much everything in their path :)

[Quasar]

Also, the creator of the dreaded Gelatinous Cube!

So how did that happen? I mean the idea behind it? Ditto lurkers, trappers, etc, etc.

[Whitemagebishieboy]

Also, the creator of the dreaded Gelatinous Cube!

Really?

Thanks geezer!

[Sac2:Electric Bugaloo]

See, I don't agree with that. Not that I'm disputing that that's what Gary told you, just the theory behind it.

There are plenty of other reasons to play a fighter even if your stat rolls were good enough to be a ranger or paladin. Just off the top of my head, some really significant reasons:

-better armor weapon selection than a ranger
-not limited to being a woodsman
-not limited to being a lawful-g human holy warrior.
-the ability to actually keep your treasure

I'm going to repeat this, due to the number of responses after this of people saying there is no reason to play a fighter if one had the rolls to be a Paladin or ranger.

D&D is a role-playing game, and being a fighter offers so much more flexibility to role-play over a ranger or paladin, both of which have significant restrictions and are much more "canned" into archetypes.

[Bradford C. Walker]

I'm going to repeat this, due to the number of responses after this of people saying there is no reason to play a fighter if one had the rolls to be a Paladin or ranger.

D&D is a role-playing game, and being a fighter offers so much more flexibility to role-play over a ranger or paladin, both of which have significant restrictions and are much more "canned" into archetypes.
Flexibility is something of a shibboleth, especially in a game that focuses play around a team of professional specialists like the various D&D editions do, with the result that generalists suck compared to specialists.

[shortforbob]

Early-edition parties could be huge by modern standards. How many rangers do you need in a party? (Wasn't there a limit on this anyway?) How many paladins butting heads with the rogues? Generalists weren't wasted in a good-sized party, if role-playing one fit your preference.

shortforbob

[Old Geezer]

And some people played fighters because they wanted to play fighters.

* crickets chirping *

[Old Geezer]

Flexibility is something of a shibboleth, especially in a game that focuses play around a team of professional specialists like the various D&D editions do, with the result that generalists suck compared to specialists.

Not EVERYBODY plays the game extracting every twentieth decimal point of optimization out of party composition.

In fact, in 36 years I NEVER played with anybody who did. Within what the dice generated, people played whatever the fuck they wanted.

Shocking, isn't it.

[shortforbob]

And some people played fighters because they wanted to play fighters.

* crickets chirping *

Exactly. I've done it myself. Fighters have more fun!

shortforbob

[David J Prokopetz]

Not EVERYBODY plays the game extracting every twentieth decimal point of optimization out of party composition.

In fact, in 36 years I NEVER played with anybody who did. Within what the dice generated, people played whatever the fuck they wanted.

Shocking, isn't it.Well, yeah, but your preferred style of play involves going out of your way to avoid getting into situations where you have to rely on your mechanical traits to succeed, because if the die hit the table you're generally already hosed. Which class has more mechanical bennies isn't as important in that context. Different basic assumptions, eh?

[Old Geezer]

Well, yeah, but your preferred style of play involves going out of your way to avoid getting into situations where you have to rely on your mechanical traits to succeed, because if the die hit the table you're generally already hosed. Which class has more mechanical bennies isn't as important in that context. Different basic assumptions, eh?

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say "if the dice hit the table you're generally already hosed."

I WILL say that we went out of our way to guarantee that any fight was on our own terms, yeah. Having a wandering monster surprise you was about the worst thing that could happen.

[David J Prokopetz]

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say "if the dice hit the table you're generally already hosed."It's the phrase "save or die" that does it for me. If a game is such that you're likely to wind up in situations where the first roll you're allowed to make is also the one that determines whether you get to keep playing, or whether you have to go sit in the penalty box for five minutes (or however long it takes to roll up a new character), I'm necessarily going to treat the invocation of the mechanics as punitive in itself. I don't actually have a problem with playing that way, but when I do, my natural inclination is going to be to zero in on problem-solving approaches that the rules simply don't address - I can't be handed a time-out by a dice roll that doesn't exist.

[Old Geezer]

It's the phrase "save or die" that does it for me. If a game is such that you're likely to wind up in situations where the first roll you're allowed to make is also the one that determines whether you get to keep playing, or whether you have to go sit in the penalty box for five minutes (or however long it takes to roll up a new character), I'm necessarily going to treat the invocation of the mechanics as punitive in itself. I don't actually have a problem with playing that way, but when I do, my natural inclination is going to be to zero in on problem-solving approaches that the rules simply don't address - I can't be handed a time-out by a dice roll that doesn't exist.

Ah, right, I see what you mean.

Yeah, we went out of our way to avoid anything we could, and to stack the odds heavily in our favor before we fought. You're absolutely right.

Also, in OD&D there really IS no mechanical advantage to stats. The only real difference between a fighter with Str 3 and Str 18 is the bonuses they get on experience.

[David J Prokopetz]

Also, in OD&D there really IS no mechanical advantage to stats. The only real difference between a fighter with Str 3 and Str 18 is the bonuses they get on experience.True enough. I think that if OD&D as a text (as opposed to OD&D as an activity) has one key flaw, it's that it relies upon oral tradition to communicate some pretty critical assumptions about how the rules expect you to play. I prefer game texts that whack you upside the head with their design assumptions. :D

[Old Geezer]

True enough. I think that if OD&D as a text (as opposed to OD&D as an activity) has one key flaw, it's that it relies upon oral tradition to communicate some pretty critical assumptions about how the rules expect you to play. I prefer game texts that whack you upside the head with their design assumptions. :D

Well, I can whack you upside the head with my AD&D DMG if you like...

(I'd offer to whack you upside the head with my copy of OD&D but the box is too fragile after all these years.)

EDIT: That, by the way, is one of the things I loved about Pendragon 5th Ed: Greg Stafford's essay on "What I was trying to do and how I tried to do it".

[David J Prokopetz]

Well, I can whack you upside the head with my AD&D DMG if you like...That's another thing that bugs me, actually. The DM resources for older editions of D&D often do a reasonable job of explaining the design rationales and gameplay assumptions behind many features of the rules - but then they go and forbid the players from reading them! Boggles my mind.

I suppose a lot of that stuff came after Mr. Gygax's direct involvement had ceased, tho' - I don't readily recall if his early material was big on the "secret DM knowledge" thing.

[Old Geezer]

That's another thing that bugs me, actually. The DM resources for older editions of D&D often do a reasonable job of explaining the design rationales and gameplay assumptions behind many features of the rules - but then they go and forbid the players from reading them! Boggles my mind.

I suppose a lot of that stuff came after Mr. Gygax's direct involvement had ceased, tho' - I don't readily recall if his early material was big on the "secret DM knowledge" thing.

Well, back then, the game was about DISCOVERY. We didn't KNOW how many Hit Dice a Chimera had, or an Ogre, or an Invisible Stalker.

It was thought that giving too much information to the players would make the game less fun for the players.

It's a minority viewpoint these days, to be sure, but there WAS a reason for it other than "neener neener neener!"

[David J Prokopetz]

Well, back then, the game was about DISCOVERY. We didn't KNOW how many Hit Dice a Chimera had, or an Ogre, or an Invisible Stalker.

It was thought that giving too much information to the players would make the game less fun for the players.

It's a minority viewpoint these days, to be sure, but there WAS a reason for it other than "neener neener neener!"Oh, I don't mean monster stats and whatnot - I'm referring to the practice of tucking those rambling-yet-informative "this is what the game is about" essays away in the DM's-eyes-only sections along with everything else.

[Old Geezer]

Oh, I don't mean monster stats and whatnot - I'm referring to the practice of tucking those rambling-yet-informative "this is what the game is about" essays away in the DM's-eyes-only sections along with everything else.

THAT, we can ascribe to Gary's "stream of consciousness" style of writing. Somebody here once described him as having the organizational ability of a butterfly on crystal meth.

I was very, very fond of him, and he was immensely creative, but his writing was not always tightly disciplined.

[Fenris]

And some people played fighters because they wanted to play fighters.

* crickets chirping *

*raises hand*

Luckily I liked playing fighters, since no one else did and we'd have been stuck without one. I like the good ol' fashioned fighter in those games. While I went through many phases-thieves, clerics, spellcasters of all types, hybrids-and still will play about anything given my inspiration- I often find myself always coming back to a fighter(or at least something close-most recent character is a barbarian/fighter going to be Iron Vanguard in 4e.)

[Sac2:Electric Bugaloo]

I guess different people have different experiences. Shocker, I know. In my experience in 1e, I knew several players who would rather play a fighter over a paladin or ranger simply because it offered a lot more freedom, and fighters were much much easier to play when dividing out magical items. Unless you had a DM who modified a lot of magic items to be specific to the party, fighters were the ones who usually were outfitted with weapons and armor first.

[NathanS]

THAT, we can ascribe to Gary's "stream of consciousness" style of writing. Somebody here once described him as having the organizational ability of a butterfly on crystal meth.

I was very, very fond of him, and he was immensely creative, but his writing was not always tightly disciplined.

Reminds me of a something I've heard about the internet, but could easily apply to a small independent operation. I goes something like this: The greatest advantage of the of the internet is that there are no editors. The greatest disadvantage of the internet is that there are no editors.

Well an editor can stifle a writer a good editor is priceless.

[weasel fierce]

I guess different people have different experiences. Shocker, I know. In my experience in 1e, I knew several players who would rather play a fighter over a paladin or ranger simply because it offered a lot more freedom, and fighters were much much easier to play when dividing out magical items. Unless you had a DM who modified a lot of magic items to be specific to the party, fighters were the ones who usually were outfitted with weapons and armor first.

the extra weapon proficiency helps there too.

[weasel fierce]

It's the phrase "save or die" that does it for me. If a game is such that you're likely to wind up in situations where the first roll you're allowed to make is also the one that determines whether you get to keep playing, or whether you have to go sit in the penalty box for five minutes (or however long it takes to roll up a new character), I'm necessarily going to treat the invocation of the mechanics as punitive in itself. I don't actually have a problem with playing that way, but when I do, my natural inclination is going to be to zero in on problem-solving approaches that the rules simply don't address - I can't be handed a time-out by a dice roll that doesn't exist.

I forget if I read this from Gary or Mentzer on Dragonsfoot but the intention was pretty much that the saving throw was for "you screwed it up, but we'll throw one last chance at you"

[Whitemagebishieboy]

Well, back then, the game was about DISCOVERY. We didn't KNOW how many Hit Dice a Chimera had, or an Ogre, or an Invisible Stalker.

It was thought that giving too much information to the players would make the game less fun for the players.

It's a minority viewpoint these days, to be sure, but there WAS a reason for it other than "neener neener neener!"

Not so much a minority viewpoint as an unsustainable one.
The discovery phase only lasts so long, both as a player and as a community.

[Dirk Desiato]

Not so much a minority viewpoint as an unsustainable one.
The discovery phase only lasts so long, both as a player and as a community.

I'm going to disagree on this as I have been able to sustain that sense of discovery and the unknown in my games for 26 years now.

[Tequila Sunrise]

...can attack a kobold ( less than 1 hit die ) only 3/2 per the Specialization rules...
Ya know what I never figured out; how exactly does one attack three times in two rounds? Do you take two attacks the first round and one attack the second round, or vice versa? When you take two attacks in the same round, are they simultaneous, or is the second one delayed?

[Old Geezer]

Do you take two attacks the first round and one attack the second round, or vice versa? When you take two attacks in the same round, are they simultaneous, or is the second one delayed?

Usually, two attacks first round. Or roll a d6, 1-3 one attack, 4-6 two.

Simultaneous.

[Old Geezer]

I'm going to disagree on this as I have been able to sustain that sense of discovery and the unknown in my games for 26 years now.

This.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Usually, two attacks first round. Or roll a d6, 1-3 one attack, 4-6 two.

Simultaneous.
Was that printed somewhere, or was that how most players decided to resolve the issue? Because I had most of my AD&D PHB memorized at one point, and I don't remember a hint of such a rule [or any rule regarding 3/2 attacks per round] anywhere. Just curious.

[David J Prokopetz]

I'm going to disagree on this as I have been able to sustain that sense of discovery and the unknown in my games for 26 years now.I think he's talking about the notion that the discovery phase is sustainable by means of making sections of the published books off-limits to players. I don't think it is - any given published "secret" is only good for one use before an attentive player puzzles it out. That's why I'm not big on dividing the actual game rules and other mechanical content into open and "GM only" sections; it plays havoc with your ability to organise the material in a logical fashion, and you don't really accomplish anything in the long run by doing so.

I mean, unless you're seriously asserting that there are rules in the core book that your players haven't figured out in twenty-six years, in which case I'd like to meet your players. :p

[Old Geezer]

Was that printed somewhere, or was that how most players decided to resolve the issue? Because I had most of my AD&D PHB memorized at one point, and I don't remember a hint of such a rule [or any rule regarding 3/2 attacks per round] anywhere. Just curious.

I don't think it was printed anywhere. We did it that way because that's how Gary did it when we were playing Tractics (where certain weapons had a fire rate of 1 1/2).

[Sablewyvern]

The rather arcane initiative rules for AD&D state that a character with two attack routines automatically attacks first and last (checking initiative against opponents who also have two attack routines). Three attack routines goes first, last, and checks initiative against characters with a single attack in the middle; etc...

Personally, I don't like this rule, only because it can become very unintuitve to determine orders of action when you have character A attacking character B attacking a magic-user attempting to cast a spell.

While there are some people who have managed to turn AD&D initiative into what they consider a cohesive whole, based on their understanding of the btb rules, I see initiative (and, much of the DMG combat section in general) as a series of discrete guidelines for various different situations that aren't necessarily designed to all function together.

The PHB mentions that the DMG will contain rules for "duels and important single combats". These never eventuated, but I have cherry-picked some of the DMG rules that I don't use in general play, including the multiple attack routine iniatiative rules, and use them in my own system for single combats.

For reference, the rule in question can be found at the very bottom right of p62 of the DMG.


Regarding when multiple attacks are taken for characters with a rate of 3/2, it is stated somewhere (in the PHB, I believe) whether it goes 2-1 or 1-2. I believe it's 2-1, although I could be mistaken. I do know that monks use the reverse to a fighter (ie, if a fighter takes his additional attack at the beginning of the sequence, then the monk takes his at the end, or vice versa).

[Dirk Desiato]

I think he's talking about the notion that the discovery phase is sustainable by means of making sections of the published books off-limits to players. I don't think it is - any given published "secret" is only good for one use before an attentive player puzzles it out. That's why I'm not big on dividing the actual game rules and other mechanical content into open and "GM only" sections; it plays havoc with your ability to organise the material in a logical fashion, and you don't really accomplish anything in the long run by doing so.

I mean, unless you're seriously asserting that there are rules in the core book that your players haven't figured out in twenty-six years, in which case I'd like to meet your players. :p

The rules that I use (B/X and OD&D) have nothing for the players to figure out as the "GM only" section is in my brain. So yes, nothing in the core book, but as I use it as a guide the players will always have something to surprise them.:D

[mindstalk]

Not so much a minority viewpoint as an unsustainable one.
The discovery phase only lasts so long, both as a player and as a community.

Particularly when GMs become players and vice versa.

OTOH, it's easy to have surprise on things like "how many hit dice does a chimera have", just change the stats and powers and such.

[Sac2:Electric Bugaloo]

Particularly when GMs become players and vice versa.

OTOH, it's easy to have surprise on things like "how many hit dice does a chimera have", just change the stats and powers and such.

"Stats" (monster HD, character skills, etc) are only one part of the discovery phase in D&D. A small part. Storytelling, innovative opponents, unexplored areas--those are larger parts of the game.

I suppose if someone says that the discovery phase of D&D is unsustainable after a period of time, I tend to assume that their play style is simply to regurgitate published material in a very linear fashion. Half the fun of D&D, for me at least, is making stuff up on the fly to keep the characters challenged or to add twists. See my recent KotBL thread (a module where nearly everyone has memorized) where the party ended up making an unplanned alliance with the orcs, and now face the challenge of breaking their word with the orcs (because the Castellan wants them dead), or disobeying the Castellan and the keep that just got done celebrating the party's success in rescuing the prisoners.

[Dirk Desiato]

"Stats" (monster HD, character skills, etc) are only one part of the discovery phase in D&D. A small part. Storytelling, innovative opponents, unexplored areas--those are larger parts of the game.

I suppose if someone says that the discovery phase of D&D is unsustainable after a period of time, I tend to assume that their play style is simply to regurgitate published material in a very linear fashion. Half the fun of D&D, for me at least, is making stuff up on the fly to keep the characters challenged or to add twists. See my recent KotBL thread (a module where nearly everyone has memorized) where the party ended up making an unplanned alliance with the orcs, and now face the challenge of breaking their word with the orcs (because the Castellan wants them dead), or disobeying the Castellan and the keep that just got done celebrating the party's success in rescuing the prisoners.

This!:D

[David J Prokopetz]

I suppose if someone says that the discovery phase of D&D is unsustainable after a period of time, I tend to assume that their play style is simply to regurgitate published material in a very linear fashion.Again, that comment was made in the context of the assertion that having walled-off "GM secrets" in the core book is what makes the discovery phase possible. Accepting this assertion for the sake of argument, it's pretty obvious that the kind of discovery-based play fostered by the "GM secrets" approach is unsustainable.

[Bradford C. Walker]

Again, that comment was made in the context of the assertion that having walled-off "GM secrets" in the core book is what makes the discovery phase possible. Accepting this assertion for the sake of argument, it's pretty obvious that the kind of discovery-based play fostered by the "GM secrets" approach is unsustainable.
Indeed, it is unsustainable as you state it. The same problem is behind the issue of well-known settings becoming fossilized through over-familiarity, such as is the case of the pre-D&D4 Realms and the Star Wars Galaxy. This, I see, is a strong incentive for reorienting the publishers away from supporting a commercial RPG setting in lieu of publishing extensive tools for homebrewing content. GMs that roll their own stuff can extend the Exploration phase of play indefinitely.

[Sac2:Electric Bugaloo]

Again, that comment was made in the context of the assertion that having walled-off "GM secrets" in the core book is what makes the discovery phase possible. Accepting this assertion for the sake of argument, it's pretty obvious that the kind of discovery-based play fostered by the "GM secrets" approach is unsustainable.

If that's the argument, then I agree with you. Personally, I can't see how anyone could make the argument that discovery based play is dependent on having 'walled off' GM information. Unless you plan on banning your players from ever owning or looking through the information.

It's just anecdotal, so take if for what it's worth, but I saw a shift in game play styles soon after 2e came out with it's plethora of boxed sets. DMs stopped making their own maps and settings and relied upon these boxed sets that everyone and their grandma's dog had already read through at one point. Therefore there wasn't nearly as much discovery as there was prior. DMs became too reliant on following what was already written rather than adapting to the players.

[Biohazard]

As usual I can't really comment on 1st Ed. But for 2nd:


The Fighter issue:

The ranger had a major drawback, which was lack of armour. Also, no specialisation.

The Paladin had his code, no specialisation and would have his best value in Charisma (depends if you allowed switching of attributes).

Specialisation with its +1/+2 was a major issue. If your sword does a measly d8 (4.5 average), the +2 really increases your damage output. Also more attacks ...

In my campaigns, we didn't have too many Paladins. Naturally because of the incredible rolls you needed to make, but also because I had only one player willing to play them. The rest didn't care about the alignment, or preferred a fighter with Str 17.


In regards to number of attacks: In 2nd there are rules for this. You start with one. In the next round you have two. First in initiative order, second after all 'first attacks'.

[val21]

Statwise the PHB said the fighter was the boobie prize, but the class was perfectly viable and fun to play.

The fighter is one of the more popular classes in our 1e AD&D groups. Complete freedom of action, don't have to worry about alignment restrictions, great at dealing and taking damage, no worries about spellbooks or spell slots.

OTOH, Paladins were almost universally disliked. If you said you were playing a Paladin there would be quite a bit of eye rolling, grumbling and probably one or two of the other players would petition the DM to force you to change to another class.

[David J Prokopetz]

If that's the argument, then I agree with you. Personally, I can't see how anyone could make the argument that discovery based play is dependent on having 'walled off' GM information. Unless you plan on banning your players from ever owning or looking through the information.Many games from the mid-80s and later do seem to make the assumption that it's possible and desirable to prevent players from ever reading the "GM secrets" bits or owning the "GM only" books, yes.

(As an aside, this is the source of one of the big jokes in Paranoia; huge chunks of the rulebooks - including the text that describes the core dice-rolling mechanic! - are designed "GM secrets", but it's assumed as a matter of course that players will have read them anyway. Actually displaying knowledge of their contents as a player is worth Treason Points, so you're explicitly encouraged to find ways to exploit metagame knowledge without letting on what you're doing. :D )

It's just anecdotal, so take if for what it's worth, but I saw a shift in game play styles soon after 2e came out with it's plethora of boxed sets. DMs stopped making their own maps and settings and relied upon these boxed sets that everyone and their grandma's dog had already read through at one point. Therefore there wasn't nearly as much discovery as there was prior. DMs became too reliant on following what was already written rather than adapting to the players.There were also many fewer players in the early days. I'm not convinced that the number of GMs willing to write their own material has decreased in absolute terms; rather, I suspect that the plethora of pre-fab settings managed to capture a larger audience of folks who lack the inclination to write their own stuff.

[Old Geezer]

There were also many fewer players in the early days. I'm not convinced that the number of GMs willing to write their own material has decreased in absolute terms; rather, I suspect that the plethora of pre-fab settings managed to capture a larger audience of folks who lack the inclination to write their own stuff.

This.

[Christopher V. Brady]

Statwise the PHB said the fighter was the boobie prize, but the class was perfectly viable and fun to play.

The fighter is one of the more popular classes in our 1e AD&D groups. Complete freedom of action, don't have to worry about alignment restrictions, great at dealing and taking damage, no worries about spellbooks or spell slots.

OTOH, Paladins were almost universally disliked. If you said you were playing a Paladin there would be quite a bit of eye rolling, grumbling and probably one or two of the other players would petition the DM to force you to change to another class.

If anyone had done that to me when I played my Paladins (all of 2, yay for random rolling) I would have walked right out of that game, and probably stop talking to them. Which I have. Once. Over a thief character that was more of a team player than they were, and they still whined to the GM. That shows a severe lack of trust and respect. And besides. What part of Lawful GOOD is missing?

[Sablewyvern]

If anyone had done that to me when I played my Paladins (all of 2, yay for random rolling) I would have walked right out of that game, and probably stop talking to them. Which I have. Once. Over a thief character that was more of a team player than they were, and they still whined to the GM. That shows a severe lack of trust and respect. And besides. What part of Lawful GOOD is missing?

If you're playing btb 1E, a paladin in the group is a tremendous asset, but also means no druids or assassins, and severely restricts the behaviour and alignment options of the entire party.

Why exactly should one player be able to arbitrarily enforce those restrictions on everyone?

[David J Prokopetz]

If you're playing btb 1E, a paladin in the group is a tremendous asset, but also means no druids or assassins, and severely restricts the behaviour and alignment options of the entire party.Well, that or playing Weekend at Bernie's every session to make sure the paladin is kept in the dark about 80% of what the party gets up to.

[Sablewyvern]

Well, that or playing Weekend at Bernie's every session to make sure the paladin is kept in the dark about 80% of what the party gets up to.

Not that it's ever actually come up in one of my games, but IMO, a paladin who remains utterly oblivious to the moral failings of his closest friends over months and years of adventuring is going to suffer some holy displeasure.

That protection from evil, all by it self, is a huge asset. The group can't make use of that benefit and then get to use a comedy routine to subvert the class's restrictions on permanent associations with neutral characters.

[David J Prokopetz]

Not that it's ever actually come up in one of my games, but IMO, a paladin who remains utterly oblivious to the moral failings of his closest friends over months and years of adventuring is going to suffer some holy displeasure.

That protection from evil, all by it self, is a huge asset. The group can't make use of that benefit and then get to use a comedy routine to subvert the class's restrictions on permanent associations with neutral characters.Oh, I'm not saying it's consistent with the spirit of the rules - I'm just saying it's an approach I've encountered with some frequency over the years.

[Sablewyvern]

Oh, I'm not saying it's consistent with the spirit of the rules - I'm just saying it's an approach I've encountered with some frequency over the years.

Yeah, I didn't get the impression you thought highly of that technique, but in a thread about whether or not fighters are viable, I thought it worth mentioning that it's not really a legitimate btb work-around for paladin restrictions.

[Sac2:Electric Bugaloo]

If you're playing btb 1E, a paladin in the group is a tremendous asset, but also means no druids or assassins, and severely restricts the behaviour and alignment options of the entire party.



No assassins is obvious, but why no druids?

[Sablewyvern]

Druids must be True Neutral.

A paladin can never associate with evil characters, and may only associate with characters not of good alignment on a short-term basis when working towards a specific, important objective. So, druids and paladins in the same group are fine for a one-shot or short, focused campaign, but not for any extended game, and certainly not a sandbox style campaign.

[mindstalk]

No... druids? Paladins couldn't hang out with neutral characters? No wonder people are bitter.

[Sablewyvern]

No... druids? Paladins couldn't hang out with neutral characters? No wonder people are bitter.

From a flavour/background perspective, a paladin is a character who has dedicated his life to Good first and Law second (if we presume the association restrictions are indicative of the weight given to each) above all other things, in return for significant power. If he wants to spend his time supporting and working with someone for whom good and evil, law and chaos, are either irrelevant or of equal value, he is clearly not all that dedicated. And keep in mind that we're talking about long term associations here, and traditionally in sand-box environments where there is no great quest to defeat evil overriding other concerns.

From the mechanical perspective, a paladin's protection from evil provides a +2AC and a +2 to all saves vs evil creatures to everyone with 10' (including the paladin himself). In addition, no summoned, conjured or extra-planar creature of any alignment may come within 10' (possibly breachable by creatures with magic resistance). At first level, this makes clerics, paladins, rangers and fighters in the group (who invested in armour instead of a longbow) and within the circle practically untouchable by kobolds, goblins and other evil creatures of less than 1HD.

The paladin gains +2 to all saves (already using the fighter's good save progression; this may also stack with the bonus from PFE depending on your interpretation), detects evil at will, can lay on hands, turn undead and cast clerical spells, gains an intelligent, strong, loyal mount, can dispel magic at will if he gets his hands on a holy sword, is immune to all disease, can cure diseases in others, and on top of all that can do pretty much anything a fighter can. He gains each level a little later then the fighter, but doesn't actually start to fall behind by more than a single level until they've both hit the teens.

IMO, there's absolutely nothing to be bitter about. Either you're willing to walk the difficult path of the paladin and reap the vast rewards, or you play another class.



"Is the Dark Side stronger?"

"Stronger? No. Quicker, easier, more seductive."

[mindstalk]

Actually I meant other players being bitter about paladins warping party dynamics.

The restriction seems kind of dickish in general and counter-productive for Good's objectives, e.g. outreach and community building and conversion-by-example.

[David J Prokopetz]

IMO, there's absolutely nothing to be bitter about. Either you're willing to walk the difficult path of the paladin and reap the vast rewards, or you play another class.Or, depending on the GM, walk the difficult path and get screwed out of the vast rewards because you got tricked into a letter-over-spirit alignment violation by an innkeeper who secretly put human flesh in the stew or something.

Not that I'm bitter. :p

[weasel fierce]

Actually I meant other players being bitter about paladins warping party dynamics.

The restriction seems kind of dickish in general and counter-productive for Good's objectives, e.g. outreach and community building and conversion-by-example.

I think thats more the clerics thing though. Paladins are there to slay shit

[Sablewyvern]

Actually I meant other players being bitter about paladins warping party dynamics.

Ah, fair enough.

The restriction seems kind of dickish in general and counter-productive for Good's objectives, e.g. outreach and community building and conversion-by-example.

Well, again, context is important. The rule is for PCs, who were primarily envisaged as adventurers that mostly hang out with other adventurers.

I, personally, wouldn't have a problem with a paladin striking up a friendship with the Chaotic Neutral barkeep at his local hang-out and spending many a long night debating philosophy, as long as the paladin isn't being drawn into chaotic thinking.

Becoming a joint-owner of the establishment with said barkeep would be a problem, however, since the paladin now has obligations he must meet to this ethically wayward individual.

Or, depending on the GM, walk the difficult path and get screwed out of the vast rewards because you got tricked into a letter-over-spirit alignment violation by an innkeeper who secretly put human flesh in the stew or something.

I do actually believe in applying consequences for breaches of the vow beyond the paladin's control, but -- depending on the severity and the degree to which the paladin could reasonably be held culpable -- would start with a very mild "immediate atonement is necessary, but there will be no penalties as long as you do so," and work up from there.

In the event that the paladin has no way of even knowing he has broken his vow, some very minor penalty is probably in order just to bring to his attention that something is amiss. You then have the potential for some interesting RPing possibilities as the paladin tries to discover who has screwed him and why. In fact, this can actually work to the paladin's benefit, turning the tables on his adversary, with the paladin suffering a minor inconvenience in return for a heads-up while his foe thinks himself cunning and unknown.

Overall, I think the paladin is a much more interesting class if things beyond his control, or decisions that are legitimately in the best interests of his cause but technically against the vow, do come with consequences. The trick is to ensure that those consequences aren't simply spiteful and crippling, but add to the game.

[Old Geezer]

Actually I meant other players being bitter about paladins warping party dynamics.

The restriction seems kind of dickish in general and counter-productive for Good's objectives, e.g. outreach and community building and conversion-by-example.

There are also game balance issues. The Paladin's bonuses have to be counterbalanced, and since the bonuses can affect other party members, they also have to have counterbalances.

[David J Prokopetz]

The trick is to ensure that those consequences aren't simply spiteful and crippling, but add to the game.The GM in question would pre-emptively hose paladins (and sometimes clerics) every time he wanted to run a mystery scenario in order to take Detect Evil out of the picture. Fun, or spiteful? ;)

[Sablewyvern]

The GM in question would pre-emptively hose paladins (and sometimes clerics) every time he wanted to run a mystery scenario in order to take Detect Evil out of the picture. Fun, or spiteful? ;)

I take option 3: Ignorant as to how detect evil was intended to function (perhaps with a dash of asshat). :cool:


It is important to make a distinction between character alignment and some powerful force of evil or good when this detection function is considered. In general, only a know alignment spell will determine the evil or good a character holds within. It must be a great evil or a strong good to be detected. Characters who ore very strongly aligned, do not stray from their faith, and who are of relatively high level (at least 8th or higher) might radiate evil or good if they are intent upon appropriate actions. Powerful monsters such as demons, devils, ki-rin and the like will send forth emanations of their evil or good. Aligned undead must radiate evil, far it is this power and negative force which enables them to continue existing.

He couldn't come up with a mystery that didn't hinge on the PCs failing to identify an individual who happened to be strongly aligned with evil, did not stray from the path of evil, was at least 8th level, and who was intent on evil actions (rather than, say, intent on simply appearing inconspicuous) when the PCs first meet him?

Even if he did, for some reason, need to include such a character in order for his mystery to function, it's worth noting that this collection of traits "might" cause the bad guy to radiate evil.

[Christopher V. Brady]

For the record, it was the 2e Paladin, there were no Druid fans in the group, and the GM was more lenient with the various racial and class restrictions, as House Ruling was the way she liked it.

I never understood the hate for the Pally. I always played it like a Knight, a Hero, and a tolerant one at that. Oh, a couple of disapproving stares when the rest of the party were suggesting some not so nice things, but never a 'holier than thou' bitchfest. You have no idea how effective telling your fellow friends and adventurers that you won't stop them if they proceed, but you ARE dissappointed. :)

We had fun, and we were more for the 'spirit' of the rules, rather and 'law', which does change things. We also winged it a lot.

[Old Geezer]

For the record, it was the 2e Paladin, there were no Druid fans in the group, and the GM was more lenient with the various racial and class restrictions, as House Ruling was the way she liked it.

I never understood the hate for the Pally. I always played it like a Knight, a Hero, and a tolerant one at that. Oh, a couple of disapproving stares when the rest of the party were suggesting some not so nice things, but never a 'holier than thou' bitchfest. You have no idea how effective telling your fellow friends and adventurers that you won't stop them if they proceed, but you ARE dissappointed. :)

We had fun, and we were more for the 'spirit' of the rules, rather and 'law', which does change things. We also winged it a lot.

On the other hand, the people I play with never had any trouble with "you can't simply do anything that you want."

[val21]

There are also game balance issues. The Paladin's bonuses have to be counterbalanced, and since the bonuses can affect other party members, they also have to have counterbalances.

*thumbs up*

So Paladins seem to have been put in their place.

Rangers? Not quite a fighter, not quite a thief, not quite a cleric/druid. Their special abilities only apply under the right circumstances. Going by memory on that. I recall picking the Ranger class when I wanted to get my Strider roleplaying fix and not because of any apparent game mechanic advantage.

Someone mentioned Fighters as having the advantage of versitility and being generalists. Certainly true that they have flexibility, but I consider Fighers to be specialized in combat. Paladins and Rangers bring plenty of other benefits to the table and are more well rounded, at the expense of not being quite as good as a fighter in combat. Assuming the Paladin's SV bonus isn't needed. ;)

[Quasar]

Druids must be True Neutral.


There were loopholes I seem to recall, like Druid/Rangers being allowed to be Neutral Good. Or maybe that was just a houserule we used to allow me to play druids alongside paladins.

[Sablewyvern]

There were loopholes I seem to recall, like Druid/Rangers being allowed to be Neutral Good. Or maybe that was just a houserule we used to allow me to play druids alongside paladins.

AFAIK, druid/ranger was never a legal combination when playing by-the-book. I had a hunt through UA, because I had a feeling it might have been mentioned there, but couldn't find anything. That leads me to believe that it was a relatively common houserule, but never official.

[David J Prokopetz]

AFAIK, druid/ranger was never a legal combination when playing by-the-book. I had a hunt through UA, because I had a feeling it might have been mentioned there, but couldn't find anything. That leads me to believe that it was a relatively common houserule, but never official.A number of the AD&D computer games allowed half-elven ranger/druids (Menzoberranzan springs readily to mind), but that may have been a variant rule for the computer games - I seem to recall that they all came packaged with the same abbreviated rulebook, so they probably all used the same set of rules.

[weasel fierce]

A number of the AD&D computer games allowed half-elven ranger/druids (Menzoberranzan springs readily to mind), but that may have been a variant rule for the computer games - I seem to recall that they all came packaged with the same abbreviated rulebook, so they probably all used the same set of rules.

Wasnt that 2nd edition though?

[Bradford C. Walker]

Wasnt that 2nd edition though?
Dragon #100, IIRC, allowed that and D/R/MU, for AD&D1e.

[weasel fierce]

Gotcha. Thanks!

[Quasar]

Dragon #100, IIRC, allowed that and D/R/MU, for AD&D1e.

Dragon is probably where it came from. I remember having quite a few articles providing info on playing druids. Tips for various Druid spells, using natural poisons, etc.

I was a bit of a druid fanatic for a time, only playing druids. Or occasionally rangers. :)

[villagereaver]

Not so much a minority viewpoint as an unsustainable one.
The discovery phase only lasts so long, both as a player and as a community.

I purposefully do not own either (all 3 yet?) 4E Monster Manuals so I can no longer just rattle off stat blocks like I did for 1E. I know my current DM likes this. We were talking about it before our weekly session last week.[/derail]

In my opinion Gary did not. It seemed that most classes had their places (Magic-users and Illusionists to the back of the bus until we hit about 7th-8th level!)

[Asen_G]

That's a funny statement, considering he infers that people who play anything other than human are immature or attention seekers in one of the 1e DMG essays, as well as the fact that all classes and all levels are open to humans, in addition to the setting he created being primarily human.

Now I need a link or a quote of this:D!

[Sablewyvern]

Now I need a link or a quote of this:D!

I believe that The Little Raven is referring to "The Monster as a Player Character" on page 21 of the DMG. As the title suggests, it's mainly about monsters (specifically, dragons, demons, vampires and other inherently powerful beings) rather than normal PC options, however.

While this essay does highlight the humanocentric nature of 1E, and indicates that demi-humans are likely to fall from the spotlight as the game progresses to high levels, the implication of immaturity is limited to players who seek to play monsters as characters on a long-term basis -- the assumption is that they do so mainly because they think it will make them more powerful, and are unable to see the drawbacks of playing monsters. I can only assume he was speaking from personal experience.

He actually supports allowing an inquisitive player to take on the role of monstrous character for a while, if only to allow their curiosity to be sated.

[Asen_G]

I believe that The Little Raven is referring to "The Monster as a Player Character" on page 21 of the DMG. As the title suggests, it's mainly about monsters (specifically, dragons, demons, vampires and other inherently powerful beings) rather than normal PC options, however.

While this essay does highlight the humanocentric nature of 1E, and indicates that demi-humans are likely to fall from the spotlight as the game progresses to high levels, the implication of immaturity is limited to players who seek to play monsters as characters on a long-term basis -- the assumption is that they do so mainly because they think it will make them more powerful, and are unable to see the drawbacks of playing monsters. I can only assume he was speaking from personal experience.

He actually supports allowing an inquisitive player to take on the role of monstrous character for a while, if only to allow their curiosity to be sated.

Thank you, that's going to be ... useful:D!
Well, I like humanocentric settings:). Never played 1e, but I guess I might have liked the basic assumptions;).