Quote from: The Butcher;847530Hit points are often not as plentiful in WotC editions as they are in TSR/OSR versions, and level advancement is slower to boot.

Getting +1d6 permanent HP is a big deal.

Sure, magic-users and thieves get +1d4, but then they also get better at their specific schticks with every level.

Now, imagine having a Fighter type and seeing that the Thief or Magic User/Cleric got something, and all you did was roll your die.  Not everyone is cool with that.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847501I love playing OD&D fighters.  I can do anything I want related to fighting, instead of looking at a god damn character sheet full of restrictions.

Anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.  The OD&D fighter is the most fun to play because he can do anything.

The magic-user and the cleric can do the same thing--and, a few times each day, can tell the laws of physics and the All-Powerful DM to sit down, shut up, and acquiesce to the written word.

Now, in OD&D, BX and BECMI, this is less of an issue due to the very short spell lists. When you hit AD&D/3E's "Magic Can Do Anything and Everything" philosophy, the fighter starts looking a lot paler in comparison.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;847534The magic-user and the cleric can do the same thing--and, a few times each day, can tell the laws of physics and the All-Powerful DM to sit down, shut up, and acquiesce to the written word.

Now, in OD&D, BX and BECMI, this is less of an issue due to the very short spell lists. When you hit AD&D/3E's "Magic Can Do Anything and Everything" philosophy, the fighter starts looking a lot paler in comparison.

very true after all what would the fighter look like if he had a few shiny red buttons to push?

my guess is he would not look nearly as under powered

Quote from: Christopher Brady;847532Now, imagine having a Fighter type and seeing that the Thief or Magic User/Cleric got something, and all you did was roll your die.  Not everyone is cool with that.

I reckon that's become a big issue because the MU isn't facing the original probability of being dead instead. Hit points are understandably 'meh' if they've been made irrelevant rather than the thin line between good to go and in the grave. The cleric's old powers are not so flashy, and while it starts out as "a fighter plus" -- albeit less so at 1st level in Original or Basic --  the fighter shines later.

Quote from: Phillip;847536I reckon that's become a big issue because the MU isn't facing the original probability of being dead instead. Hit points are understandably 'meh' if they've been made irrelevant rather than the thin line between good to go and in the grave. The cleric's old powers are not so flashy, and while it starts out as "a fighter plus" -- albeit less so at 1st level in Original or Basic --  the fighter shines later.

I've never played D&D prior to 2e AD&D and from what I've gathered, MU was a difficult class to play due to the difference between them and other classes. In that light, HP is a far bigger deal and a lot more helpful to those who go through their HP like Fighters do.

In later editions, like 3e and PF, wizards are far easier to play by sheer amount of spells they have access to. Not only do they get a LOT of spells but their lower level ones still hold relevance because they scale with caster level. The fighter, on the other hand, might get some feats and a bonus to hit but when the attack progression remains constant to CR, you know by then that your first attack will have a 60-70%,chance to hit, your second attack will have a 45-55% chance to hit and the third (or fourth) is more or less hoping for a crit chance.

Quote from: Phillip;847536I reckon that's become a big issue because the MU isn't facing the original probability of being dead instead. Hit points are understandably 'meh' if they've been made irrelevant rather than the thin line between good to go and in the grave. The cleric's old powers are not so flashy, and while it starts out as "a fighter plus" -- albeit less so at 1st level in Original or Basic --  the fighter shines later.

I never found that, in the admittedly few games of Red Box I played.  If anything, once all the henchmen were down, odds are the party wiped pretty quickly at lower levels.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;847538I never found that, in the admittedly few games of Red Box I played.  If anything, once all the henchmen were down, odds are the party wiped pretty quickly at lower levels.

Whatchutalkinbout, Willis? No apparent coherent relation to what I'm talking about.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;847532Now, imagine having a Fighter type and seeing that the Thief or Magic User/Cleric got something, and all you did was roll your die.  Not everyone is cool with that.

Don't play a fighter?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;847534The magic-user and the cleric can do the same thing--and, a few times each day, can tell the laws of physics and the All-Powerful DM to sit down, shut up, and acquiesce to the written word.

They have never been able to do that in ANY RPG I have ever ran. Of course, I inform all potential players up front that the rulebooks are merely guidelines for the GM in any game I run. No player can successfully tell me "to sit down, shut up, and acquiesce to the written word" of the rules. Not even a Tier 1 character in 3.x. In my games, the GM far outranks the game designer and his rulebooks. Those who object are free to find another game. I advise all GMs to run their gamers this way -- that way they do not need to put up with min-maxers and rules lawyers.

QuoteNow, in OD&D, BX and BECMI, this is less of an issue due to the very short spell lists. When you hit AD&D/3E's "Magic Can Do Anything and Everything" philosophy, the fighter starts looking a lot paler in comparison.

The length of the spell list isn't the real limitation, it's the fact that characters only have access to the spells they find in the game in older versions of D&D. There can be thousands of spells in the rulebooks (and I believe there were in 2e by the time all the splat books were published), but only those the GM places in the campaign world can be found and used by the PCs. Also, there are many other limitations on spell-casters in TSR D&D that the designers of 3.x eliminated (foolishly, IMHO). Change saving throws to work like they did in TSR D&D, remove "concentration" from the game so that spell-casters who are hit in combat loose the spell they were trying to cast, prohibit spell-casters from moving if the are casting (no free 5 foot step), and the like (as it was in TSR D&D) and spell-casters would no longer so dominate the game.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;847538I never found that, in the admittedly few games of Red Box I played.  If anything, once all the henchmen were down, odds are the party wiped pretty quickly at lower levels.

This is probably true if they are attacking everyone and everything they encounter.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;847532Now, imagine having a Fighter type and seeing that the Thief or Magic User/Cleric got something, and all you did was roll your die.  Not everyone is cool with that.

I can absolutely understand not liking that. If people don't enjoy it, I have no issue. I think where I get annoyed is this insistence I sometimes see where people either expect you to share their exasperation or agree with them that it is just objectively bad for a game to do that. I like that fighters don't get a lot of buttons. I also like the old way of having mages progress slowly so there is a time investment trade off. Not for everyone but those are aspects of the game I see as a feature not a bug.

Quote from: The Butcher;847546Don't play a fighter?

Or play a version where the fighter suits your needs??

Quote from: RandallS;847557This is probably true if they are attacking everyone and everything they encounter.

Bree-yark, s'all I gotta say on that.  And ow.  Lot's of ow.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;847561I can absolutely understand not liking that. If people don't enjoy it, I have no issue. I think where I get annoyed is this insistence I sometimes see where people either expect you to share their exasperation or agree with them that it is just objectively bad for a game to do that. I like that fighters don't get a lot of buttons. I also like the old way of having mages progress slowly so there is a time investment trade off. Not for everyone but those are aspects of the game I see as a feature not a bug.

Oh, I agree.  Personally, I like some buttons to play with when I'm playing a Fighter, but I can totally see that it's not for everyone.  And quite frankly, I've played games in which everybody gets a myriad of buttons (as you call them) to play with, some of those work, some do not.

It's really a matter of taste, and I respect that.

Quote from: Batman;847566Or play a version where the fighter suits your needs??

The choice of system not always being the player's, I can concede that this may be an impossibility. In fact, I've had to specifically tell a couple players that they could feel free not to attend our OD&D sessions, because the lethality was so frustrating to them.

Me, I enjoy being the biggest lump of meat in the room.

That didn't come out right, now, did it.

Quote from: The Butcher;847530Hit points are often not as plentiful in WotC editions as they are in TSR/OSR versions, and level advancement is slower to boot.

I don't think this says what you meant to say.