Oh I agree, its just what it is. Generic Fantasy doesn't appeal to me I'm willing to give each edition a try and see how it runs, but in the long haul, I won't be playing much of it regardless because I want to immerse myself in a rich stylistic world, and all I ever see from DnD is generic fantasy settings A, B and C. Which is fine. It's just not my thing
Looking through Appendix E, "Inspirational Reading", there's some interesting entries. You've got the usual suspects like Tolkien, Howard, and Vance, modern fantasy trash like Jordan and Sanderson, and a few weirdly recursive entries like Weis & Hickman (the Dragonlance books) and Rothfuss (who does publicity for D&D). But you've also got Poul Anderson's The High Crusade, H.P. Lovecraft's complete works, China Miéville's Perdido Street Station, and Philip Jose Farmer. Also Fritz Leiber, whose stories are a lot weirder and more subversive than their reputation suggests, and Terry Pratchett.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
5e allows me to roleplay Aang or anyone from Avatar with the way the Monk is done now... this alone makes it so awesome
To be fair, there are materials for playing Aang, and just about every other character you can imagine, somewhere in 3E's vast canon. But yeah, the "Way of the Four Elements" doesn't half wear its inspiration on its sleeve.
Yep, it is perhaps the best way to do MC/prestige classes (well not sure yet on MC, i mean it looks slick on theory, not sure yet on practice)
I think 5e looks really cool, actually, and that's from someone who can very nearly create epic level 3.5 characters from memory. Like I said, I'll probably pick up the three core books and run a game at the P&PI just to see what happens.
You know im always a bundle of hyperactive Nutella powered glibness whenever a new edition is up for a game in the P&PI so im asking auto in in advance XD.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
Oh I agree, its just what it is. Generic Fantasy doesn't appeal to me I'm willing to give each edition a try and see how it runs, but in the long haul, I won't be playing much of it regardless because I want to immerse myself in a rich stylistic world, and all I ever see from DnD is generic fantasy settings A, B and C. Which is fine. It's just not my thing
Looking through Appendix E, "Inspirational Reading", there's some interesting entries. You've got the usual suspects like Tolkien, Howard, and Vance, modern fantasy trash like Jordan and Sanderson, and a few weirdly recursive entries like Weis & Hickman (the Dragonlance books) and Rothfuss (who does publicity for D&D). But you've also got Poul Anderson's The High Crusade, H.P. Lovecraft's complete works, China Miéville's Perdido Street Station, and Philip Jose Farmer. Also Fritz Leiber, whose stories are a lot weirder and more subversive than their reputation suggests, and Terry Pratchett.
Lovecraft is great, but not really suited for high fantasy. Although, I could see a hybrid high fantasy/lovecraft style world where you have epic adventurers that are still ants in comparison to the elder gods.
A discworld style DnD experience I could get behind (or even an *actual* discworld DnD experience). It would take a fair amount of custom rules making, because the rules for magic and the way the world works are fairly well established in the series. Could Definitely get behind that though.
The game is fast. And not just from a 4E standpoint. For the past year or so I've been playing Pathfinder rather than 4E, and 5E runs a lot faster than that too.
First-level monsters are freaking lethal to first-level characters. Giant toad, CR 1, 2d10+2 damage with a bite. The party has hit points of 10, 11, and 12, and that puts them on the tanky side. The toad rolled a three both times it attacked (see what I said about fast combat), but if it hadn't...
At the end of one session, the party has already hit second level. This is partially because I'm using the 1E gold = XP rule (it suits the campaign theme), but even without that they almost got past the mark. Looking at the math, you're apparently supposed to blaze through the first two levels - I guess as a sort of "tutorial mode" - then the game really begins at three.
Roll20.net needs to update its die roller to handle 5E disadvantage, because the /r 2d20d1 notation doesn't work. In general, advantage/disadvantage is an awesome and intuitive mechanic on the tabletop, not quite so streamlined online.
The party is a fighter, a rogue, and a fighter/rogue. This isn't a comment on 5E, I just wanted to put it out there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First-level monsters are freaking lethal to first-level characters. Giant toad, CR 1, 2d10+2 damage with a bite. The party has hit points of 10, 11, and 12, and that puts them on the tanky side. The toad rolled a three both times it attacked (see what I said about fast combat), but if it hadn't...
First level characters are lethal to each other as well. Guiding Bolt, level 1 Cleric spell, deals 4d6 damage as a ranged spell attack. (Avg. 14 damage.) Magic Missile deals 3d4+3 without any attack rolls or saves. (Avg. 10.5 damage.)
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Well, it was still very unlikely the toad would have killed-them killed-them, right? If I'm reading all this correctly, it would have to deal enough damage to get them to negative thier total. Otherwise they would have to fail 3 50% saves to actually die. So, it seems very unlikely the toad would have killed any of them in 2 rounds of combat.
Maybe everything deals so much damage to make the fight go faster? Seems like the toad should have knocked one out and then died, all in 2-3 rounds.
The damage balances out to much more comfortable levels quickly. The first levels are a particularly lethal exception.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Well, it was still very unlikely the toad would have killed-them killed-them, right? If I'm reading all this correctly, it would have to deal enough damage to get them to negative thier total. Otherwise they would have to fail 3 50% saves to actually die. So, it seems very unlikely the toad would have killed any of them in 2 rounds of combat.
55%, actually, but basically what you're saying is correct. Like I said, though, these are tanky PCs. A wizard or sorcerer might only have 6 or 7 hp, and 2d10+2 can instakill that easily. Also, you don't have to fail three death saves consecutively to die, just three saves overall before three successes. So if you drop to 0 and you don't have a healer (or you are the healer), you are at serious risk.
The damage balances out to much more comfortable levels quickly. The first levels are a particularly lethal exception.
From everything I've seen, it really feels like the game is supposed to begin at 3rd level.
On the other end of the scale, how 'bout them 9th-level spells? I wasn't expecting the game to basically go into sandbox mode at 17. True polymorph the whole party into adult red dragons? Yes please!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
55% then -my mistake- but I didn't say "consecutively."
What you say about instalkilling a Wizard is true, but I won't expect a level 1 Wizard to be getting into melee combat with anything (unless TPK is immanent).
But -after reflecting on it further- I would agree it does seem weird they would have at level 1 damage well outweighing HP, especially after making the reverse true for forth edition. That was one of the complaints about 4th -however- was it not? That player's were too hard to kill?
I would *guess* they would expect the whole can't-die-unless-you're-instantly-reduced-to-negative-your-total to pad out low level deaths, but I also feel I don't know enough to make good guesses.
Lovecraft is great, but not really suited for high fantasy.
Depends on which Lovecraft stories you're reading. His Dreamlands stuff is definitely high fantasy.
Does anyone know how they're handing Forgotten Realms in this edition? Specifically: Are they retconning that ridiculous Spellplague?
Also, how are Asmodeus and the other devils characterized in this edition? Are they going with 3rd edition where they were the beings who displaced the Ancient Baatorians and took over, or are they doing this thing with them being fallen angels and making Asmodeus a full-on evil deity which I really don't like?
The damage balances out to much more comfortable levels quickly. The first levels are a particularly lethal exception.
There was exactly one thing I liked about 4E, and that was that they fixed the 'level 1 characters die when sneezed at' issue. Not a fan at all if that has been brought back.
I highly enjoyed 5th, I was running the beta playtest for my LGS the campains are good the balance is solid. I view it as an addition that has 2.0 + the the best of 3.5 and 4 sprinkled in. ITs VERY deadly game at low levels (which is good) encounters are balanced, Players can't always fight their way out,
Does anyone know how they're handing Forgotten Realms in this edition? Specifically: Are they retconning that ridiculous Spellplague?
No actual retcon, because Ed Greenwood is a colossal canon nerd and would never ever dream of suggesting that anything he's written about his fantasy world is anything less than Real True Fact. But they're novelizing some big event called "the Sundering" that sounds like it's fix-fic of some sort. I can't give you any details; the Realms really aren't my thing.
Also, how are Asmodeus and the other devils characterized in this edition? Are they going with 3rd edition where they were the beings who displaced the Ancient Baatorians and took over, or are they doing this thing with them being fallen angels and making Asmodeus a full-on evil deity which I really don't like?
The Monster Manual doesn't go into detail on their ancient history. It's up the the DM. And it probably doesn't matter much in most campaigns, anyway. The book covers the stuff more likely relevant to their interactions with PCs: their organization (exquisite), habits (litigious), and goals (tyrannical).
It does say Asmodeus "is the only creature in the Nine Hells with the powers of a lesser god" and is "worshiped as such in the Material Plane". This is interesting in that it implicitly relocates a number of other lawful evil deities, but I don't think it actually says anything new about Asmodeus. And for what it's worth, it squares with the way I've always run the Hells. It was nonsensical to treat the plane like an apartment complex for dark gods - it meant either these gods effectively answered to a landlord, which is stupid, or that Asmodeus tolerated different bits of Hell being under different management, which is also stupid.
It does say Asmodeus "is the only creature in the Nine Hells with the powers of a lesser god" and is "worshiped as such in the Material Plane". This is interesting in that it implicitly relocates a number of other lawful evil deities, but I don't think it actually says anything new about Asmodeus. And for what it's worth, it squares with the way I've always run the Hells. It was nonsensical to treat the plane like an apartment complex for dark gods - it meant either these gods effectively answered to a landlord, which is stupid, or that Asmodeus tolerated different bits of Hell being under different management, which is also stupid.
I actually didn't find that so unreasonable, as they did have devils running around who weren't Baatezu, like that city of Kytons. And I think it does make sense that deities would find their way at least to the first layer of Hell.
But that is interesting. I wonder if that means Tiamat found a new place of residence?
I actually didn't find that so unreasonable, as they did have devils running around who weren't Baatezu, like that city of Kytons.
I'm not sure what's up with the baatezu/non-baatezu distinction in 3E. In 2E, all devils are baatezu (the term was invented just as a substitute for "devil" to dodge the Satanic Panic of the time). And in 4E and 5E, a devil is a devil. Chain devils have a place in the infernal hierarchy just like everything else. And again, this makes a lot more sense to me.
And I think it does make sense that deities would find their way at least to the first layer of Hell.
Of course deities can get to Hell; it's just inconceivable to me that they would make their homes there, contenting themselves with a little fiefdom in somebody else's kingdom - somebody else who may not even be a god. Every god, or at least every pantheon, really needs their own plane to lord over. Don't try to cram them all into this Great Wheel cosmology; it's messy and it doesn't do justice to anyone involved. Hades ought to be Lord of the Underworld, not just Lord of Some Bit of the Underworld.
I've only played up to Lv. 2 so far, but my experience as a fighter has been that I feel kinda outclassed by the team Druid and Monk. I thought fighters were supposed to rock at early levels
By the numbers you should be either outdamaging or outtanking the monk depending on your choice of fighting style, and both outdamaging and outtanking the druid unless he blows a spell.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This week was the first time in more than ten years of playing D&D that I'd ever actually plotted a dungeon that had a dragon in it.
Naturally, the PCs ballsed everything up completely. But when some wandering buffoons start a freaking forest fire outside the lair, what's a dragon to do but come out and give them a Stern Talking-To?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I started off playing AD&D, which made the transition when most of my friends got into 3rd/3.5 a bit awkward. AD&D was an amazing system in my opinion. It may not have been the most intuitive system, but it kept everything balanced.
I found 3/3.5 to be a bit too heavy on the rules, and particularly catering to power gamers as opposed to role players. Furthermore, I found that it created a sense that the PCs had, or thought they had excessive amount of sway over the DM because of all the extra content.
I never played 4th edition, and adamantly refused to touch it.
5th Edition however, is a sorely needed breath of fresh air, as it made classes that were once completely useless, viable. It also fixed the morass of rules that existed in 3 and 3.5. The simplified skill system, along with proficiency, and advantage/disadvantage I think are very good additions. They allow for greater emphasis to be placed on roleplaying in game, as opposed to number crunching for half the game. I also find the stat caps, and general nature of the feats to be a boon, as it makes those elements run much more smoothly. Overall, I am really happy that it harkens back to AD&D, making the setting/system a bit more open to DM interpretation.
I started off playing AD&D, which made the transition when most of my friends got into 3rd/3.5 a bit awkward. AD&D was an amazing system in my opinion. It may not have been the most intuitive system, but it kept everything balanced.
Do you mean balanced between player and DM input? Because it sure as heck wasn't balanced in the sense of different classes and monsters being fair in power levels. (4E is by far the most balanced in that sense.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I started off playing AD&D, which made the transition when most of my friends got into 3rd/3.5 a bit awkward. AD&D was an amazing system in my opinion. It may not have been the most intuitive system, but it kept everything balanced.
Do you mean balanced between player and DM input? Because it sure as heck wasn't balanced in the sense of different classes and monsters being fair in power levels. (4E is by far the most balanced in that sense.)
What I mean by balanced is keeping everything at about a 70/30 ration in terms of DM/Player influence. This allowed for the DM to adjust as needed without the players feeling entitled in any fashion because "there is a book that I can use to get these skills to make this easy".
I also found the characters classes to be balanced, and this was largely due to the difference in Xp needed in order to level up.
There are indeed many changes, and they range from the necessary (classes like the Monk getting more stat bonuses than, say, wizards), to the understandable (bringing back stat caps), to the quite interesting (proficiency bonuses), to the maybe understandable from a gameplay standpoint but still puzzling (the fact that no race has stat detriments, making halflings as strong as humans now), to the outright nonsensical (dwarves have LOW LIGHT vision now? How the hell do they see in their caves? Do they light fires everywhere? They'd suffocate from the lack of oxygen.)
But the thing that really seems broken is the new death system, with the removal of HP below 0, and the three saves against death. Does anyone else think so?
This allowed for the DM to adjust as needed without the players feeling entitled in any fashion because "there is a book that I can use to get these skills to make this easy".
Players are entitled. It's our job as DM to make sure they're having fun. You don't have to give them everything they want, but you should listen to their desires and shape your campaign accordingly.
This allowed for the DM to adjust as needed without the players feeling entitled in any fashion because "there is a book that I can use to get these skills to make this easy".
Players are entitled. It's our job as DM to make sure they're having fun. You don't have to give them everything they want, but you should listen to their desires and shape your campaign accordingly.
I also found the characters classes to be balanced, and this was largely due to the difference in Xp needed in order to level up.
Hehehe no. And different advancement rates was a terrible idea.
I guess it boils down to each playgroup, and even individual, leaning towards a different idea of how the game should be balanced and play out. I find the DM having more influence to lead to a more enjoyable experience, largely due to the fact that it allows the players to become more immersed in their characters. I am not saying that the DM shouldn't make the campaign fun for the players. I am just saying that the DM has to hold more sway to ensure that the campaign does not get so derailed that it implodes on itself. This means that the DM just has the influence, not that they have to constantly apply it.
Also, if you look at the classes in AD&D, some of the classes are inherently more powerful than others at level 1, so it was absolutely necessary to have the different leveling rates. It added a level of challenge to playing as a mage, where, if they leveled too fast, they would easily get way too powerful too quickly. Fighters needed to level not so quickly as well, as they (along with Paladins, and Rangers) came with very powerful packages from the get go.
Looking through Appendix E, "Inspirational Reading", there's some interesting entries. You've got the usual suspects like Tolkien, Howard, and Vance, modern fantasy trash like Jordan and Sanderson, and a few weirdly recursive entries like Weis & Hickman (the Dragonlance books) and Rothfuss (who does publicity for D&D). But you've also got Poul Anderson's The High Crusade, H.P. Lovecraft's complete works, China Miéville's Perdido Street Station, and Philip Jose Farmer. Also Fritz Leiber, whose stories are a lot weirder and more subversive than their reputation suggests, and Terry Pratchett.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You know im always a bundle of hyperactive Nutella powered glibness whenever a new edition is up for a game in the P&PI so im asking auto in in advance XD.
Lovecraft is great, but not really suited for high fantasy. Although, I could see a hybrid high fantasy/lovecraft style world where you have epic adventurers that are still ants in comparison to the elder gods.
A discworld style DnD experience I could get behind (or even an *actual* discworld DnD experience). It would take a fair amount of custom rules making, because the rules for magic and the way the world works are fairly well established in the series. Could Definitely get behind that though.
Howard did that, except sometimes the ant got to kill the elder god, because **** being an ant.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The game is fast. And not just from a 4E standpoint. For the past year or so I've been playing Pathfinder rather than 4E, and 5E runs a lot faster than that too.
First-level monsters are freaking lethal to first-level characters. Giant toad, CR 1, 2d10+2 damage with a bite. The party has hit points of 10, 11, and 12, and that puts them on the tanky side. The toad rolled a three both times it attacked (see what I said about fast combat), but if it hadn't...
At the end of one session, the party has already hit second level. This is partially because I'm using the 1E gold = XP rule (it suits the campaign theme), but even without that they almost got past the mark. Looking at the math, you're apparently supposed to blaze through the first two levels - I guess as a sort of "tutorial mode" - then the game really begins at three.
Roll20.net needs to update its die roller to handle 5E disadvantage, because the /r 2d20d1 notation doesn't work. In general, advantage/disadvantage is an awesome and intuitive mechanic on the tabletop, not quite so streamlined online.
The party is a fighter, a rogue, and a fighter/rogue. This isn't a comment on 5E, I just wanted to put it out there.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First level characters are lethal to each other as well. Guiding Bolt, level 1 Cleric spell, deals 4d6 damage as a ranged spell attack. (Avg. 14 damage.) Magic Missile deals 3d4+3 without any attack rolls or saves. (Avg. 10.5 damage.)
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Maybe everything deals so much damage to make the fight go faster? Seems like the toad should have knocked one out and then died, all in 2-3 rounds.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
That's definitely why they did it.
From everything I've seen, it really feels like the game is supposed to begin at 3rd level.
On the other end of the scale, how 'bout them 9th-level spells? I wasn't expecting the game to basically go into sandbox mode at 17. True polymorph the whole party into adult red dragons? Yes please!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What you say about instalkilling a Wizard is true, but I won't expect a level 1 Wizard to be getting into melee combat with anything (unless TPK is immanent).
But -after reflecting on it further- I would agree it does seem weird they would have at level 1 damage well outweighing HP, especially after making the reverse true for forth edition. That was one of the complaints about 4th -however- was it not? That player's were too hard to kill?
I would *guess* they would expect the whole can't-die-unless-you're-instantly-reduced-to-negative-your-total to pad out low level deaths, but I also feel I don't know enough to make good guesses.
Does anyone know how they're handing Forgotten Realms in this edition? Specifically: Are they retconning that ridiculous Spellplague?
Also, how are Asmodeus and the other devils characterized in this edition? Are they going with 3rd edition where they were the beings who displaced the Ancient Baatorians and took over, or are they doing this thing with them being fallen angels and making Asmodeus a full-on evil deity which I really don't like?
There was exactly one thing I liked about 4E, and that was that they fixed the 'level 1 characters die when sneezed at' issue. Not a fan at all if that has been brought back.
The Monster Manual doesn't go into detail on their ancient history. It's up the the DM. And it probably doesn't matter much in most campaigns, anyway. The book covers the stuff more likely relevant to their interactions with PCs: their organization (exquisite), habits (litigious), and goals (tyrannical).
It does say Asmodeus "is the only creature in the Nine Hells with the powers of a lesser god" and is "worshiped as such in the Material Plane". This is interesting in that it implicitly relocates a number of other lawful evil deities, but I don't think it actually says anything new about Asmodeus. And for what it's worth, it squares with the way I've always run the Hells. It was nonsensical to treat the plane like an apartment complex for dark gods - it meant either these gods effectively answered to a landlord, which is stupid, or that Asmodeus tolerated different bits of Hell being under different management, which is also stupid.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But that is interesting. I wonder if that means Tiamat found a new place of residence?
Of course deities can get to Hell; it's just inconceivable to me that they would make their homes there, contenting themselves with a little fiefdom in somebody else's kingdom - somebody else who may not even be a god. Every god, or at least every pantheon, really needs their own plane to lord over. Don't try to cram them all into this Great Wheel cosmology; it's messy and it doesn't do justice to anyone involved. Hades ought to be Lord of the Underworld, not just Lord of Some Bit of the Underworld.
As she's the focus of the introductory 5E adventure line, I suspect that question will be answered (if it hasn't been already).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Naturally, the PCs ballsed everything up completely. But when some wandering buffoons start a freaking forest fire outside the lair, what's a dragon to do but come out and give them a Stern Talking-To?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I found 3/3.5 to be a bit too heavy on the rules, and particularly catering to power gamers as opposed to role players. Furthermore, I found that it created a sense that the PCs had, or thought they had excessive amount of sway over the DM because of all the extra content.
I never played 4th edition, and adamantly refused to touch it.
5th Edition however, is a sorely needed breath of fresh air, as it made classes that were once completely useless, viable. It also fixed the morass of rules that existed in 3 and 3.5. The simplified skill system, along with proficiency, and advantage/disadvantage I think are very good additions. They allow for greater emphasis to be placed on roleplaying in game, as opposed to number crunching for half the game. I also find the stat caps, and general nature of the feats to be a boon, as it makes those elements run much more smoothly. Overall, I am really happy that it harkens back to AD&D, making the setting/system a bit more open to DM interpretation.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What I mean by balanced is keeping everything at about a 70/30 ration in terms of DM/Player influence. This allowed for the DM to adjust as needed without the players feeling entitled in any fashion because "there is a book that I can use to get these skills to make this easy".
I also found the characters classes to be balanced, and this was largely due to the difference in Xp needed in order to level up.
There are indeed many changes, and they range from the necessary (classes like the Monk getting more stat bonuses than, say, wizards), to the understandable (bringing back stat caps), to the quite interesting (proficiency bonuses), to the maybe understandable from a gameplay standpoint but still puzzling (the fact that no race has stat detriments, making halflings as strong as humans now), to the outright nonsensical (dwarves have LOW LIGHT vision now? How the hell do they see in their caves? Do they light fires everywhere? They'd suffocate from the lack of oxygen.)
But the thing that really seems broken is the new death system, with the removal of HP below 0, and the three saves against death. Does anyone else think so?
Players are entitled. It's our job as DM to make sure they're having fun. You don't have to give them everything they want, but you should listen to their desires and shape your campaign accordingly.
Hehehe no. And different advancement rates was a terrible idea.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I guess it boils down to each playgroup, and even individual, leaning towards a different idea of how the game should be balanced and play out. I find the DM having more influence to lead to a more enjoyable experience, largely due to the fact that it allows the players to become more immersed in their characters. I am not saying that the DM shouldn't make the campaign fun for the players. I am just saying that the DM has to hold more sway to ensure that the campaign does not get so derailed that it implodes on itself. This means that the DM just has the influence, not that they have to constantly apply it.
Also, if you look at the classes in AD&D, some of the classes are inherently more powerful than others at level 1, so it was absolutely necessary to have the different leveling rates. It added a level of challenge to playing as a mage, where, if they leveled too fast, they would easily get way too powerful too quickly. Fighters needed to level not so quickly as well, as they (along with Paladins, and Rangers) came with very powerful packages from the get go.