Stumbled across this headscratcher in Reddit, of course.
This does not sound remotely like how any of them have described play.
QuoteIt's been described to me by people who used to play with Gygax himself on a few occasions and DM'd for me a few times. They're older guys and would describe a party of 3 clerics and a rogue who could essentially dominate most dungeons they came across by having a cleric for healing, one for buffing, one for doing damage, and a rogue for checking for traps and doing sneak attacks and other rogue stuff.
I don't know if this is a meme in the older editions, couldn't find evidence of it on google, or maybe it's an inside joke between Gary and some old dudes who played with him back in the day.
My overall question is: Have you heard of it and how viable is it in most published/played campaigns?
https://new.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1dv456r/the_three_clerics_and_a_rogue_hypothetical/ (https://new.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1dv456r/the_three_clerics_and_a_rogue_hypothetical/)
Back in the early campaigns a group of only four was very small and would likey be deemed too few to be successful regardless of the classes involved. 6-8 actual PCs with associated retainers & hirelings was more common. The core party of four wasn't really introduced as a typical group size until 3rd edition.
Back when Gary was running games the "Rogue" was called a "Thief". So I suspect that this is more of a newfangled strategy.
Yeah it comes across as a complete fabrication.
This only matters if RPGs only mean dungeons.
In our games we don't use dungeons unless there is a good reason. They're illogical. Treasure isn't buried in mazes full of traps, and bad guys don't stay in their room until you get there.
If somebody has a magic sword, their leader has it on their hip.