Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3647074" data-attributes="member: 18280">Not too hard to have a +1 BAB at 1st level, and a +2 bonus for Strength, is it?&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp;&nbsp; Then all you need to do is fight with two weapons.I have oft heard it argued that all three are D&amp;D.Something that is optional is less likely to be used than something that is not.&nbsp; 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&amp;D game overall.&nbsp; In other ways it was intended to increase options.&nbsp; Or so it seems to me.&nbsp; Some things in there were good (appendix on pole arms was what I liked best) and some things less so.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I think most people agree that there are some really broken things in there.&nbsp; That doesn't make Gary a munchkin, though.&nbsp; &quot;Broken&quot; and &quot;Munchkinny&quot; 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.&nbsp; Being higher on the social scale gives you certain rights, but those rights all come with obligations.&nbsp; Also, since most adventurers act like minor nobility, I thought, why not allow most adventurers to be minor nobility?Saying &quot;Gary wasn't as careful as he could be when writing rules&quot; is hard to refute.&nbsp; Even if you just use the three main books.&nbsp; Saying that, therefore, Gary embraced wholesale the same kinds of changes that were made in later editions is pushing it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3647074, member: 18280"] Not too hard to have a +1 BAB at 1st level, and a +2 bonus for Strength, is it? :D 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 [i]be[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification