Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Orcus" data-source="post: 4135963" data-attributes="member: 1254">Oldtimer, you are right of course. I shouldnt have said &quot;at first&quot; I should have said &quot;back in basic D&amp;D&quot;. But that said, in ODD you only had fighters, magic users and clerics. Not even theives. When I mention STR, INT, WIS its 'cusae those were the prime attributes of the 3 classes. Dex, Con and Cha were add ons. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Of course, change can go both ways, not just from less options to more options. Heck, it couldnt get more open than ODD, which famously said: &quot;there is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided that they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, ie a player wishing to be a dragon would have to begin as let us say, a &quot;young&quot; one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being determined by the campaign referee.&quot; Though not ruling it out, AD&amp;D went from the &quot;why in the heck not&quot; quote above to Gygax spending almost a whole page talking people out of monster PCs, even stating: &quot;you will certainly see the impossibility of any lasting success for a monster player character.&quot;But I dont want to get into a D&amp;D history lesson. I do appreciate you correcting my error in statments though. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Clark</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Orcus, post: 4135963, member: 1254"] Oldtimer, you are right of course. I shouldnt have said "at first" I should have said "back in basic D&D". But that said, in ODD you only had fighters, magic users and clerics. Not even theives. When I mention STR, INT, WIS its 'cusae those were the prime attributes of the 3 classes. Dex, Con and Cha were add ons. :) Of course, change can go both ways, not just from less options to more options. Heck, it couldnt get more open than ODD, which famously said: "there is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided that they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, ie a player wishing to be a dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being determined by the campaign referee." Though not ruling it out, AD&D went from the "why in the heck not" quote above to Gygax spending almost a whole page talking people out of monster PCs, even stating: "you will certainly see the impossibility of any lasting success for a monster player character." But I dont want to get into a D&D history lesson. I do appreciate you correcting my error in statments though. :) Clark [/QUOTE]

Verification