Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="santosud37" data-source="post: 9649911" data-attributes="member: 7048156">Your thoughts and opinions are greatly appreciated! I have 2 HIE Thieves and 2 HIE F/MUs that are from the B/X box sets that moved oved over to the 1st ed rules, which, for me work out properly. Changing the rules for these already mid- to high-level characters does not make much sense. I will have to check out the the 3rd or 4th ed rules like u said and figure out what to do with the Thieves. My F/MU HIE r going to the Ranger class next along with 1 female Lady ruler and I have extraordinary ideas for my other PCs that are already Heroes of Mystara and FR locations. As you said, I like the 1st ed Psionic ability rules much more than the Players Options book. I will have to get the Psionists Handbook probably to get a better idea on how to move that character over to that class because a 25th-30th MU doesn't get much better when u have all the spells of that class. I play fair with MUs having a 19 INT and that is all beyond the 18 max ability for a mortal PC. I have 1 PC with Psionics by roll and played that 1 PC a little differently than the rest. I want to dual class him to either Psionist or Chronomancer at some point after a few more quests of his homeworld with the other PCs. All the other PCs have their own route of levelling up and changing classes. I agree with u that Psionics is a rare thing to acquire and should never start out as a class. I think even Gary G was worried about this as well. He even disagreed with Psionics from the get-go. IMO, the Psionist class should only be reserved for those that already possess the ability. I also do not agree with the Wizard class this way as well. I think the separation of MUs, Illusionists, Clerics, and Druids is what I like MOST about 1st ed and the UA. Wizards being a combination of the 2 is fine but do not tell me u can become a Wizard before being in the other 2 classesof MU/ILllusionist with the same spells. 2nd ed is ridiculous in this. I played Everquest as well, and, even thr Developers there separated a MU and Wizards' spell abilities. Makes total sense for the AD&D creators would follow this instead of complicating it further.As for the HIE Thieves, I am considering Dual-classing to Thief Acrobat or some related field to improve their abilities beyond just normal thieves. Like u said, they do not improve that much over time. However, they have a purpose in my campaigns.I try not to get too complicated with rules and classes beyond what has been given bc I do not see a need for this with characters from the early 80s and my locations for campaigning.  And this includes for the Inner and Outer planes of the AD&D Multi-verses. I think one loses sight of why they r playing to begin with by doing this. Just have Fun with what u have and rise up above the field of creativity. I am currently building a Castle Fortress with the characters I have that includes within it 2 towns for an 8-mile Hex area and a Grand Duchy of over 12 8-mile hexes and rule 2nd only to the King of the land. I am a Thyatian in the Known World helping the cause of Good in Mystara. And in the Forgotten Realms doing the same. I will take your insights from your experience and look into 3rd ed. I think 1st ed and UA actually have a lot of rules that make sense, i.e. Cavalier class before a Paladin class can come into existence, the explanation of the Barbarisn class, the changes to other classes and more details of the race/class limitations. I wpuld just like consistency and accuracy moreso than anythung.</blockquote>

Verification