Community

EDITION #4 - 6: OD&D, 1E, 2E

It may seem strange to lump these three editions together, but I do so for one simple reason - I don't have a lot to say about them. I missed most of 1E, I never owned any of the books for instance though I knew people who did, and OD&D was so distant that I didn't even really know about it until much later. I did play a lot of 2E in high school and afterward, but I never gained a real strong attachment to any particular classes. I mostly stuck with Thieves and Fighters though there was a period where I found the Psionicist very attractive, but that may have been influenced by the fact that it was totally broken as a class. The Psionicist benefited from TSR being wishy-washy on whether or not magic could cancel or defend against it. I think they eventually addressed that somewhere (Tome of Magic?), but by then the belief that Psionics made you god was set-in-stone in my group. So I'll change this up a bit and talk a little about the classes I did like and a little about the classes I didn't.

CLASSES I LIKED (all 2E):

Thief

Not a lot to say here as anything that applies to my time as a 2E thief was probably said under BECMI. For me the "play experience" of the Thief didn't change all that much between Basic and Advanced. You still slinked around in the darkness looking to Backstab people, had the same percentile skills (though I percentiles may have been different, I'll have to look that up), and generally took it in the rump mechanically. That never stopped me from being a front line fighter (at least in Minneapolis) even if it wasn't the best idea. Then again the party consisted of three characters, none of which was a Cleric. Instead we had a Bard, a Fighter, and my Thief. Sometimes we also had Booray the Sorcerer and guy who wanted to play a Tailor. No you didn't read that wrong. Still wouldn't trade being a Thief for anything.

Fighter

There's some joy in simply hitting stuff and not having to worry about anything else. I don't play a Fighter a lot, but I always found it a good way to get use to a new group. You see, the Wizard has to make some important decisions in spell selection and deployment. The Cleric needs to be good at rationing the healing and managing his spell slots. The Fighter only has to worry about hitting bad guys when they show up, and keeping them off the squisher team members. In other words, even if you don't know the group dynamic you know what you are supposed to do for the group. Fighting always comes in handy. That's what's most important to me about the Fighter and hope that makes it to 5E.

Psionicist

Totally broken. Way over powered depending on how you have it interact with magic. And yet strangely appealing. I never played one (though I had the splatbook), but my friend Scott did. I don't remember all his Psionic characters just the 9 y.o. boy who wouldn't tell the other party members he was a Psionicist nor would he do anything that would give away his secret when using his powers (other than staring). This led to the arguement of why the rest of the party would hang around with a 9 y.o. who didn't (seem) to contribute anything to the group. Good times ...

Wild Mage

Never played one of these either, but the concept seemed pretty cool. I love random, chart-driven effects so this was up my alley.

CLASSES I DIDN'T LIKE:

Elf (OD&D)

Sometimes I'm a Fighter, and sometimes I'm a Wizard. But I'm not both! At least not at the same time, I'm not. I understand that Gary intended D&D to be Human centric and used level limits to discourage demi-human use, and I also understand that OD&D assumed you'd be using Chainmail's combat system which used character type to determine hit probability. Being both a Wizard and a Fighting-Man (Hero) would have caused problems under that system, and the utility boost would have made Elves more attractive than Gary wanted. It still sucks.

Bard (Any)

I've just never seen the point. Plus over the course of the various editions there's seems to be some indecision about what this class is supposed to be archetype-wise. None of the Bards I've ever played with seemed to work well mechanically, but I've never seen 4E's in action so maybe it's fine.

That's it. Next I move on to what I want in 5E. Or I'll just ramble. One of the two anyway ...