Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 3646604" data-attributes="member: 3608">Sure. Although at least some of the UA was trying to improve balance. Maybe the monsters weren't made tougher across the board, but weapon specialization was a direct response to many people feeling fighters had become underpowered.But, as I said, I'm not particularly interested in advocating that point. There are certainly many things in the UA that I never considered using in oAD&amp;D.One of the things that I think I don't really like about 3e is how as the numbers increase, they tend to increase on both sides of the equation, so your chances remain more static. So, I guess you could say I don't think 3e is munchkiny enough. (^_^)&amp; yeah. I do think grognards sometimes criticize 3e without really seeing the whole system. (As I did for rhetorical effect, in echo of Hussar.) Sure, you can pretty freely multiclass by-the-book, but it isn't really free. To really get advantage out of multiclassing, you have to really do some digging for synergies that are going to pay off. One of the things I admire about 3e is how it did an awfully good job of giving you consequences instead of limitations.&amp; while I used to use the UA as evidence in my adolescent Gygax-bashing sessions with my friends, I now know some of the problems he was facing at the time, so I tend to think it isn't the book he might have wanted it to be. &amp; I certainly expect that he has learned quite a lot since then in any case.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RFisher, post: 3646604, member: 3608"] Sure. Although at least some of the UA was trying to improve balance. Maybe the monsters weren't made tougher across the board, but weapon specialization was a direct response to many people feeling fighters had become underpowered. But, as I said, I'm not particularly interested in advocating that point. There are certainly many things in the UA that I never considered using in oAD&D. One of the things that I think I don't really like about 3e is how as the numbers increase, they tend to increase on both sides of the equation, so your chances remain more static. So, I guess you could say I don't think 3e is munchkiny enough. (^_^) & yeah. I do think grognards sometimes criticize 3e without really seeing the whole system. (As I did for rhetorical effect, in echo of Hussar.) Sure, you can pretty freely multiclass by-the-book, but it isn't really free. To really get advantage out of multiclassing, you have to really do some digging for synergies that are going to pay off. One of the things I admire about 3e is how it did an awfully good job of giving you consequences instead of limitations. & while I used to use the UA as evidence in my adolescent Gygax-bashing sessions with my friends, I now know some of the problems he was facing at the time, so I tend to think it isn't the book he might have wanted it to be. & I certainly expect that he has learned quite a lot since then in any case. [/QUOTE]

Verification