Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 3648607" data-attributes="member: 3608">Before UA, there were DMs that assumed every PC was (at least) minor nobility. If they switched to the UA social class rules, it could mean a decrease in the average PC social level. If the DM ignored the UA social class rules but included the Cavalier, then things could be weird because the social class rules were really part of the Cavalier class.&amp; when you're looking at ability score generation, I don't see many of the more liberal score generation schemes used in oAD&amp;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 &amp; 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.In any case, I think if any of us had as much text in print over as many years &amp; had as many people reading it as Gygax, it'd be trivial to find two comments that seem ironic when pulled out of context &amp; placed together. Heck, you could probably &quot;prove&quot; almost anything you wanted to that way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RFisher, post: 3648607, member: 3608"] Before UA, there were DMs that assumed every PC was (at least) minor nobility. If they switched to the UA social class rules, it could mean a decrease in the average PC social level. If the DM ignored the UA social class rules but included the Cavalier, then things could be weird because the social class rules were really part of the Cavalier class. & 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 [i]more[/i] 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. In any case, I think if any of us had as much text in print over as many years & had as many people reading it as Gygax, it'd be trivial to find two comments that seem ironic when pulled out of context & placed together. Heck, you could probably "prove" almost anything you wanted to that way. [/QUOTE]

Verification