Computers beat up my role player

Storm Raven · Jul 18, 2007

Raven Crowking said:
Excepting, of course, that if you were a cavalier, you couldn't gain double specialization (or even specialization). One requirement is that you are a single-class fighter or ranger.

Cavaliers (and paladins) had their own set of bonuses for attacking with various weapons - which were almost as powerful and far more versatile than the fighter's specialization.

And, Shadeydm, you can gain double specialization at 1st level.

Which makes getting the +3 to attacks and damage a much more reliable character element for a 1e character than the bonuses from high strength for a 3e character.

However, there is only one new method of rolling ability scores in the UA; it is not 9d6 for every ability score. It is intended to ensure that you can make the minimum requirements for any class, though, so close enough.

Sure, it varies by class, so fighters roll 9d6 for Strength, and 7d6 for Dexterity and so on. To munckin out a double weapon using fighter using UA, one only needs high Strength and high Dexterity, so the fact that you "only" roll 3d6 for Charisma is of almost no consequence.

Raven Crowking · Jul 18, 2007

Storm Raven said:
Cavaliers (and paladins) had their own set of bonuses for attacking with various weapons - which were almost as powerful and far more versatile than the fighter's specialization.

In other words, they were an attempt to create non-spellcasting classes that balanced out the spellcasting classes. Were balance considered the holy mantra then that it is now, people would have sung hossanahs.

Well, if the implementation had been a bit better, anyway. :lol:

As always, IMHO, YMMV, & YDMB.

RC

Numion · Jul 18, 2007

RFisher said:
& when you're looking at ability score generation, I don't see many of the more liberal score generation schemes used in oAD&D as being all that different than 3e changing the modifier table. (Though my groups never used the UA method--we arguably used something even more munchkiny.) In 1e, we left the table alone & changed the probability that we'd get scores that gave a modifier. In 3e, they instead changed the table to give modifiers at lower scores, so sticking to 4d6k3 no longer makes 15, 15, 15, 15, 14 feel like 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10.

But in 1E the effect was different in that monsters didn't get ability modifiers.

Anyway, 3E didn't go far enough in changing the tables. What use is an ability number if you only ever use the modifier?

Storm Raven · Jul 18, 2007

Numion said:
Anyway, 3E didn't go far enough in changing the tables. What use is an ability number if you only ever use the modifier?

To be entirely pedantic, you do use the ability number for some things. For example, certain feats have ability score (not modifier) requirements.

Raven Crowking · Jul 18, 2007

I actually dumped the scores and went straight to the modifiers for my Dr Who D20ish game.

RC

Storm Raven · Jul 18, 2007

Raven Crowking said:
In other words, they were an attempt to create non-spellcasting classes that balanced out the spellcasting classes. Were balance considered the holy mantra then that it is now, people would have sung hossanahs.

Not really though. The various fighting classes were already so much more durable than the spellcasting classes through the levels that were played (generally 1st through about 10th-12th) that boosting them up didn't do much other than radically unbalance the system more than it was already. Only at the higher end of that scale did the spellcasters start to come into their own.

Raven Crowking · Jul 18, 2007

Glad you're convinced. I'm not, though.

I certainly agree that the implimentation could have been better, but the intent was toward balance.

Numion · Jul 19, 2007

Raven Crowking said:
Glad you're convinced. I'm not, though.

I certainly agree that the implimentation could have been better, but the intent was toward balance.

I'll retract some of my comments, and actually think you might be right here, after reading the GG Q&A thread.

I said here that UA was towards munchkinism because the opposition wasn't strengthened in line with PCs, but I've now read Garys comments on the Q&A thread, and he said the intention was to include similar bonuses for monsters - however the development of his 2nd edition 1e (if that makes any sense) was cut short by the unfortunate developments at TSR.

So in a sense we never got to see the MM side of UA.

BTW, we used the method IX for character generation in around '88-'89 - with crooked dice, top that! (Somehow, somebody had inherited from older players some filed d6's. It was kosher to use them).

Raven Crowking · Jul 19, 2007

Numion said:
I'll retract some of my comments, and actually think you might be right here, after reading the GG Q&A thread.

Proof positive that folks in Finland rock! :lol:

Glyfair · Jul 19, 2007

Storm Raven said:
To be entirely pedantic, you do use the ability number for some things. For example, certain feats have ability score (not modifier) requirements.

Also, it slows down the increase and decrease of ability scores. The bonus +1 every 4 levels doesn't add +1 to the modifier every 4 levels when added to one stat, but potentially can add a +1 to two stats over 8 levels.

Ability damage/drains also are affected. In fact, you can be "drained" with an odd score and potentially lose no modifier,