Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 3269315" data-attributes="member: 307">The assumption was generally that the systems that were given for character generation were all fair  and would all work. No one worked out the probailities until we started doing computer simulations crunching the numbers, but that was later, when 1e was pretty much heading for the out door.The cavalier code was not the paladin's code. And I haven't been talking about the currently emasculated code, so you must have me confused with someone who thinks that.And the material from UA was explicitly billed as "stuff from Dragon and other sources that has been tested, and made good." remember those quotes from the introduction to UA? remember this:How about these (not before quoted, but addeed because they are apropos):and:Is it any wonder that many gamers figured that the material was the best Dragon could offer refined and polished to make it even better?Sure you could. But it seems to me telling that, over the course of a dozen gaming groups, involving many campaigns run by dozens of DMs involving many dozens of players, the assumptions on this score remained almost constant.</blockquote>