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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5667251" data-attributes="member: 4937">Somewhat true but make sure you know the difference between moving and charging and its effects on initiative order.Err... right.  Surprise is easier than initiative, but yeah, those two will be where most of the trouble will lie.Mainly because the average artifact will simply outright kill a player, especially a low level one; 1e artifacts are closer to Call of Cthulhu magic items.    Yeah, both are probably considerably more powerful and useful than your average artifact - and are priced accordingly.  But on the other hand, I find that 1e tolerates balance being wrecked fairly well.I sort of reject that PC's acquiring loot is bad for the GM.  If you are using the random treasure tables, then you are also probably using the random treasure alotment tables from the back of the Monster Manual, and if you are I GAURANTEE THAT THE PC'S WILL HAVE FEWER MAGIC ITEMS THAN IN MOST CAMPAIGNS.   When the party has to kill 200 bugbears to statiscally average one magic item, or that on average 40 carrion crawlers won't have one, or than on average killing Orcus yields you 2 potions and a scroll, then you'll understand why it doesn't matter too much that there is a small chance of the item being powerful. I agnostic on the issue.  Random treasure on the whole tends to be better 'thought out' than what newbies will dish out, and in my experience is much less likely to result in the normal surplus of good items that newbies usually get themselves into placing treasure.  I'm not really a fan of either of them.  B1 is a fairly uninspired module that requires an expert DM to elevate above anything but tedious hack n' slash, and while U1 is a good module beware of its numerous save or die effects during the early part of the investigation.  Also note that neither U2 nor U3 tend to play well in practice.I disagree with this on two counts.  First, that multi-classing as a demihuman very quickly starts to suck.  You either hit your level cap quickly, in which case you are now leveling up twice as slowly as you like (probably in a useless class like theif) or else even if you can level up, once you hit name level you start slipping further and further behind your human counterparts.  Multiclassing is great at first level when you are essentially a gestalt character and it works well up to about 7th level or so, but after that it stops being so great.  Humans vastly outstrip demihumans in power after hitting name level.  Secondly, if you have the stats for it (which is rare), dual-classing rocks.  The basic strategy I've seen work in dual-classing is to level up in fighter to the point you are happy with it, and then swap classes.  You won't be able to rely on your fighter abilities initially, but you will have a ton of hit points and you will have your superior equipment so you won't suck completely.  The reason this works is that in 1e, the amount of XP required to get to level n is about the same as required to get to level n+1.  So if you get to 10th level, it only takes the same amount of XP to get to 10th level in another class as it takes to get your 11th level.  You'll initially sort of suck, but you will very quickly catch up and then you are golden.  If you are having problems leveling up a human wizard, its a great way to increase survivability to gain a few levels of fighter and the associated hit points and a few useful items (wands, rings, bracers, etc) first.  And combinations like cleric-ranger, ranger-cleric, ranger-thief, fighter-thief, thief-fighter, and fighter-cleric when implemented are among the more outrageous min-maxing I've seen in 1e.</blockquote>

Verification