Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6003862" data-attributes="member: 87792">Oberoni fallacy.  Just because you can go far enough round the houses to house rule 3.X into some sense of coherence here doesn't mean that 3.X isn't broken.  It means you can fix it with a house rule.4e on the other hand explicitely tells you to use DM Fiat - set what the monster can do and then reflect that in the numbers.  This isn't houseruling anything.Actually, no.  This is one of the dissonances with games with levels that try to be simulationist.  Level works as a way of keeping track of the power of adventurers - but levels designed for adventurers aren't a good way of measuring the ability of people who aren't.Off the top of my head:1e fighter didn't get Weapon Specialisation without Unearthed Arcana.  2e fighter could buy weapon specialisation, meaning he got +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and 50% more attacks at low level.  Clearly more powerful than a 1e fighter not using UA.1e 1st level wizard could cast 1 spell per day - and hoped it was Sleep.  2e first level wizard could specialise for 2 spells per day - and could get Phantasmal Forces and other stuff off the illusionist list.If you wanted a low level arcane caster in 2e you could pick the bard instead of the wizard.  He only gained 1st level spells at 1250 XP - but he had more hit dice, better hit dice, armour, a few thief skills, and could carry weapons worth having.  The wizard only started to pull away as a magic user at fifth level.</blockquote>

Verification