Computers beat up my role player
Hussar
Legend
What gives you that at 1st level in the 3e PHB? I missed that one. I know that I could get maybe a +1 to hit, possibly an extra ranged attack, but that's about it.
Also, the 3e PHB didn't raise the level limits. It set them as unlimited. There was no previous limit in 3e to raise. 2e and 1e had level limits, but, those are different games.
And, again, I have to ask, how does being optional make something less munchkinny? You keep pointing to how questions are answered upthread, yet, looking upthread, I see no answers. I would also point out that it was you who focussed on the stat gen method, not me. I simply answered your single minded response to a rather wide range of issues.
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
Raven Crowking said:
Everyone wants to be on the winning team.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Hussar said:
Not too hard to have a +1 BAB at 1st level, and a +2 bonus for Strength, is it?
Then all you need to do is fight with two weapons.I have oft heard it argued that all three are D&D.
Something that is optional is less likely to be used than something that is not. Moreover, something that is optional is more likely to be examined for desireability than something that is not.
In many ways, the 1e UA was intended to ramp up the power level of the D&D game overall. In other ways it was intended to increase options. Or so it seems to me. Some things in there were good (appendix on pole arms was what I liked best) and some things less so. Some of the spells, as I recall, could have severe consequences if used in a game as written.
There were things in the UA that I'd agree were broken. I think most people agree that there are some really broken things in there. That doesn't make Gary a munchkin, though. "Broken" and "Munchkinny" may have related meanings, but saying that Gary put out some broken material doesn't mean that it was his intent that the material be broken.
I didn't have any problem with the Social Class rules, for example, and still use a varient thereof. Being higher on the social scale gives you certain rights, but those rights all come with obligations. Also, since most adventurers act like minor nobility, I thought, why not allow most adventurers to be minor nobility?
Saying "Gary wasn't as careful as he could be when writing rules" is hard to refute. Even if you just use the three main books. Saying that, therefore, Gary embraced wholesale the same kinds of changes that were made in later editions is pushing it.
Storm Raven
First Post
Raven Crowking said:Not too hard to have a +1 BAB at 1st level, and a +2 bonus for Strength, is it?
That's only +1/+1 to hit at first level.
In any event, 3e has nothing like the double weapon specialization available to 1st level fighters under the 1e UA rules.
Storm Raven
First Post
Raven Crowking said:
No. The section was concerned with making high level PCs. I suppose it could be used to make high level NPCs too, but it was aimed at making PCs for use in games that started at higher level. If I recall correctly (I don't have my 1e books with me right now, I can check them tonight), it was near the section on converting AD&D characters for use in Gamma World and Boot Hill games.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Storm Raven said:That's only +1/+1 to hit at first level.
In any event, 3e has nothing like the double weapon specialization available to 1st level fighters under the 1e UA rules.
D'oh! That's what I get for not paying attention to what the hell I am saying. You're right, I need to use my point buy to get an 18 Strength and a 15 Dexterity. Then I make sure to be a half-orc, to boost that up to 20. I use a light off-hand weapon and select the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. I now attack with both weapons with a +1 BAB, +5 bonus for Strength, and -2 penalty for two weapons....+4/+4.
Where the 1e fighter might really show me up is at 10th level, where he's getting to kill 10 orcs a round....but even with Great Cleave no more than 9 orcs can surround me in 3e.
RC
Doug McCrae
Legend
It's page 110-111.
"Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters."
Gary goes on to recommend that new players should start at 1st level, then mix their PC in with the old hands by the time he reaches 3rd or 4th level and can make a meaningful contribution.
"You will recall how much fun it was when you didn't really know what was going on or which monster was which or how to do anything but loved every second of it!"
"Experienced players without existing characters should generally be brought into the campaign at a level roughly equal to the average of that of the other player characters."
Gary goes on to recommend that new players should start at 1st level, then mix their PC in with the old hands by the time he reaches 3rd or 4th level and can make a meaningful contribution.
"You will recall how much fun it was when you didn't really know what was going on or which monster was which or how to do anything but loved every second of it!"
Raven Crowking
First Post
Storm Raven said:
I'll take a look when I get home tonight.
(OFF TOPIC ASIDE: Conversion to non-fantasy systems, btw, is one place where 3.X is far stronger than earlier editions. The granularity of characters allows for many more character types to be created. I have often been tempted since 3e to run a fantasy Western D&D game.)
Raven Crowking
First Post
Doug McCrae said:
Now I don't have to look. I stand corrected.
Apparently, Gary was a munchkin!
(EDIT: That was, hopefully, understandable as a joke. The idea that "OMG, you can make characters higher than 1st level" does not a munchkin game make is as true for Gary as for Monte....Although I thank Doug & Storm for the rules corrections.)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
