Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[thedungeondelver]

Do you have me on ignore? See my post #332 for a few.

I see a bunch of bitching about the overall feel of the game there but I don't see any hard numbers that add up to massive exploits, honestly.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Do you have me on ignore? See my post #332 for a few.

Of course not!

However, I note (and have previously agreed) that the UA opened up lots of powergaming options. That's not the same thing as "readily apparent when you crack open the first pages of the PHB".

RC

 

[molonel]

Of course not!

However, I note (and have previously agreed) that the UA opened up lots of powergaming options. That's not the same thing as "readily apparent when you crack open the first pages of the PHB".

RC

Since you were an idiot to play a melee fighter with a 17 strength or less, my personal favorite was not to tell the DM which of the two percentile dice was the tens until after I'd rolled. I don't think I played a melee-oriented character with less than an 18/91 strength unless I had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, ever.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In 1e, play a nonhuman (specifically, an elf), and multiclass for a start.

Which will increase your overall versatility at 1st level, but it's been my experience that these characters don't level as fast as the rest of the party, and are actually relatively balanced.

If you are playing an a campaign that you know will go to high level, play a human, and dual class.

How, exactly, is this powergaming?

What I am seeing is that, if you include the UA, you gain a number of powergaming options. That is granted. That is also not the first few pages of the PHB.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Since you were an idiot to play a melee fighter with a 17 strength or less, my personal favorite was not to tell the DM which of the two percentile dice was the tens until after I'd rolled. I don't think I played a melee-oriented character with less than an 18/91 strength unless I had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, ever.

That's not the fault of the rules. That's cheating.


RC

 

[buzz]

I see a bunch of bitching about the overall feel of the game there but I don't see any hard numbers that add up to massive exploits, honestly.

That multiple people have independently identified all of the same tricks isn't support enough? What kind of hard numbers are you looking for?

 

[thedungeondelver]

That's not the fault of the rules. That's cheating.


RC

QFT

 

[Storm Raven]

I see a bunch of bitching about the overall feel of the game there but I don't see any hard numbers that add up to massive exploits, honestly.

At the same experience point level, one could be a human 7th level fighter; or one could be a gray elven 6th/6th level fighter-magic user. Compare:

As a gray elf, you got +1 Int, +1 Dex, -1 Con, infravision, +1 to hit with bows and the long and short sword (pretty much the best weapons in 1e mechanical terms), infravision, 90 resistance to sleep and charm, a bevy of bonus languages, the ability to move silently, and a few other sundry abilities. As a fighter, if you were using UA, you could specialize and double specialize, just like the single classed guy. You got to use the best attack matrix, and saved as the better of your two classes. Since you were a fighter multiclass, you could have percentile Strength, and take advantage of the higher Constitution bonuses, if you qualified. You also got all the spell casting abiltiies of a 6th level magic-user tacked on to your fighter abilities, all for the negligible cost of a single fighter level.

As a human, you get no racial abilities. You can specialize and double specialize, and get the ability to have percentile Strength and use the high Constitution bonuses. You can't cast any spells, and use only the fighter's save matrix, meaning your save bonuses are worse than your companion's. Your attack matrix may (or may not) be better than the multiclass guys, since you are a level higher in fighter, but the tables had funky oddness, in many areas, elminated your edge on that score.

Are you really not seeing the inherent problem here?

 

[Raven Crowking]

That multiple people have independently identified all of the same tricks isn't support enough? What kind of hard numbers are you looking for?

I would imagine some sort of numbers that identify clear mechanical advantages of the "tricks" being cited, when the tricks themselves are part of the rules and not simply ignoring the rules (such as cheating on rolling percentile strength or for psionics).


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

As a fighter, if you were using UA, you could specialize and double specialize, just like the single classed guy.

I could be wrong, but I thought this was resticted to single class fighters.


RC


EDIT: And, again, UA. A far cry from simply glancing at the first few pages of the PHB.