The issue has been posted:
Quote:
druid/ranger article issue 100 page 9
The exact level of the PC isn't handy to me at the moment, it being after 1AM where I am, but the general upshot was he (and about 6 other PCs in the group would be considered Epic in 3.X (and in 2Ed as well- see Skip Williams' 2Ed release,
High-Level Campaigns) As I recall, he's around 28th level (maybe less).
3Ed's Epic rules didn't exist at the time we started the conversion, but they did by the time we got to converting the top tier PCs (by that time, 17 years old). We didn't use them because the Epic rules added a bunch of stuff that simply didn't make sense, especially in the case of magic spells (those spellseed rules would have resulted in significant power-ups).
Instead, we stuck to standard leveling, including spells. (IOW, spells still had their damage capped.)
If all if this still bugs you, try my Human Ftr/Illusionist/Assassin (same campaign, lower level PC) on for size...
I HATE IT when people give me the WRONG SOURCE. The problem you run into is that someone who actually has the magazines can look the information up and find out themselves.
First, that magazine, AND THE ACTUAL SOURCE are for 1e AD&D. This is NOT 2e AD&D, so you are skipping an edition for the transfer of a character. There are so many problems with your post upon actually FINDING THE ACTUAL SOURCE, and your statements, that I'm trying to figure out where to begin.
Let's list the actual source first. The actual source is NOT in Dragon 100, Dragon #100 is written specifically to address the questions that arose after the original article...and hence written to address alignment problems that people had with the Druid/Ranger combination...NOT the actual Druid/Ranger/Magic-user that you quote. It uses a quote from that article to show what statement they are talking about, but don't go into how these are actually legal (actually they do a little, but that's going to be later on...because if you take there statements, converting a character to 4e from 1e is actually REALLY simple and easy...unlike how you portrayed it...which would make one assume that you didn't read the forums statements which are right next to the article explaining how the confusion with alignments dealing with the Ranger/Druid may have started in the first place).
The actual source is Dragon #96 (and if it wasn't hard enough sifting through my unorganized set of Dragons to find #100 on the shelf...due to a bad listing of source you then force me to find another one).
Secondly, the article itself lists the level limits, and addresses more to the core races of half-elf and Elf, without clause to Dark-elf, valley-Elf, Grey-Elf, or Wild-Elf. However accepting that the generic term of Elf applies to all of these...we'll continue forwards.
Thirdly, the only way this is allowed via 2e is the grandfather clause addressing 2e core rule releases for integration with 1e. We'll accept it (since I played with grandfather clauses all the time, or more like I played 1e with a few 2e things tossed in, like the 2e bard, etc.). Be aware however, your character was already an exception to the rules.
In 2e, without the grandfather clause, as far as I can see, was an illegal character UNLESS YOU USE statements UNRELATED TO THE ACTUAL RULES FOR THE CLASSES, but in relation to the thought processes for conversion and running the game from Dragon's #100, (which is repeated elsewhere in other dragons, and aren't actually addressing your build, but something else in explanation of how it is possible). So we use the grandfather clause. However, if you use the statements that I refer to in Dragon #100, then you wouldn't have a problem converting characters to 4e...so I would have to assume you ignore those statements and are instead using the official rules released in the Books and/or released as PDF's by WotC later.
So we have to back everything up by rules. Strictly speaking by the rules, even with the grandfather clause, your character hence has a maximum level of 10 Druid/12 Magic User and 10 Ranger (with exception as I'll discuss below), saying that all your statistics were 18 and your strength was at least 18/50 (which would bring up the next idea of how exactly did you ROLL all 18's in the first place?). These are according to the level limits listed in Unearthed arcana. However if you go by Dragon Issue #96, your Ranger can be up to level 11 with all 18s.
So with conversion...if you take it for what it's worth (despite the fact that even I'm STRETCHING the rules slightly just to make this work)...at maximum level for which somehow you got all 18's...you would have a character that probably is a 12 MU/3 Druid/3 Ranger. As the defaults you lose the ability to wildshape automatically (3.X druids cannot wildshape until they hit 5th level). However your total character level is 18. Theoretically you could give yourself to be at least a 5th level druid (only can wildshape once per day though), 9th level MU, and a Ranger 3. In this case you lose the ability to cast at least one level of spells from your old class...oops, you just lost some other abilities.
All that and we still haven't discussed weapon usage. As a Ranger in older editions you used the Attack bonus of the Fighter. With a Ranger at only level 3, you are seriously nerfed for an 18th level character. Using two weapons at -4 (since you will have two weapon fighting) means that you are basically useless in combat. You'll have a +7 to hit with your BAB...of course if you had been a 10th level Ranger, if you had instead gone that route, you'd could have a +10 to hit (if you had a 10 Ranger, 4 Druid, 2 Wizard). With your awesome strength however...which goes and converts to give you like a +6 to hit... (18/00 Strength converts to like 22 STR in the conversion document...which by the way is wacked even in relation to what AD&D had for stats)...balances it out.
Which goes to the next step...stats. In order for you to have corresponding stats that equal the same bonuses...you'd have stats that were either 12-14 in general. Most 18s did NOT give you a +4 like the do in D20 games and later (4e, Gamma World new set). In that light, to actually make a character with stats that converted over as they were in AD&D...you'd have to do some actual work to represent your actual stats.
Now the all 18 in your stats can be believable if you were a Munchkin (and if you couldn't tell, I've had to deal with one too many rules lawyers in my past...which is where this entire dialogue type can be attributed to) which I can believe seeing you even chose the obscure enough rules to convince someone to let you be a Drow Ranger/Druid/Magic-User by stretching the rules to the brink of believability (remember the Dragon issue actually only addressed elves...only by DM allowance would it be accepted in general to ALL elves inclusive of those in the FF and UA to be utilized by a Drow in the fitrst place...AND THEN to grandfather it into 2e...which is the only way the character would be allowable by the rules).
Now of course there is the exception that you actually have an unlimited amount of levels available to you as a Druid under the UA rules. (which are more generous then the core 1e rules). In which case you would be 23 Druid/ 12 MU/ 10 Ranger. In this instance you could rearrange the levels (total of an amazing 30 levels which weren't actually supported in 3e until the ELH came out...or in 3.5) but you don't really have conversions for characters over level 20. You would have to rebuild the charcter for any levels you had over 20 with epic feats...etc.
You also lose any druidic abilities over level 15...as most of those aren't covered in 3e. You could theoretically hose your druid levels (since you already are going to lose a LOT of your power there anyways) and instill yourself as an 18th level magic-user (stronger then before even! How'd that happen).
Or you could say you are simply an 18th level Druid, 11 level MU, and a 1 level ranger...but you still lose the combat ability (under 3.5 rules...I suppose you could still have it under the original 3e rules). Which means you've lost your Druid abilities overall for higher level druids..retained your Magic-user levels...and lost most, or almost all of your Ranger abilities.
Furthermore, we still haven't addressed that since you don't have skills OR feats in 1e rules...you're going to have to build the characters from the ground up just to figure out what skills and feats they have.
OR...if you had bothered to read some of the items brought up in the forum there in issue #100...and later on you'd know that Gygax wasn't necessarily a strict adherent to the rules as written (which is why the Ranger/Druid came about in the first place for Elves). That you don't have to adhere to the rules specifically.
In that light...you'd still have to figure out skills for a Drow Ranger/Druid/Wizard from 1e to 3.X, as well as feats...but it could be a straight up conversion otherwise with the same HP and the same levels...along with the same abilities.
Presto...so much easier than the official conversion rules.
Even easier...to convert fro 3.X to 4e...the stats change over exactly the same and EVEN GIVE THE SAME BONUSES (unlike an AD&D to 3e conversion)...they can keep their Feats which they already have, though some may be instead re-iterated by powers...levels can stay the same, HP the same. The only problem may be skills which are consolitdated into one big skill...so you could do as I do...let them keep skills as they want and get those bonuses...OR swap over to a 4e system...either way works for me in 4e.
However...just so you know, if you hadn't guessed, from everything I can tell, except by stretching the rules...in the edition prior to 3.X your character wasn't exactly legal...unless you take DM rule allowances as a norm...in which case I don't buy your toughness of conversion overall. (and even in my address above...I allowed certain rule stretching just to make your character work...such as high stats...even allowing a Drow to use the Half-Elf/Elf rules for Druid/Rangers from Dragon, and obviously the grandfather clause.
Next time you quote what allowed that build though...you should state Dragon #96 probably from what I can tell...if your source is actually Dragon magazine.
Another Edit: Didn't notice the statement where he puts down the issue and article was missing, added it back in so one can see the misleading of where the source documentation actually was located.
