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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5034595" data-attributes="member: 80487">It's not for everyone, obviously.But neither is either of WotC's games.I think one reason Unearthed Arcana seems so unbalancing is that it really is leaning toward new balances tailored to different modes of play. My guess is that a Gygaxian second edition, while not quite sharing the WotC ethos, would have been better suited to the kind of game many people already were playing. It probably would also have continued the Bigger! More! trend, front-loading more chrome than the actual (post-Gygax) Second Edition -- with thinner "core" books and a long line of supplements -- did.It's odd that you say it's "also no secret" after going on about "all sorts of hidden 'gotchas'!" The PHB clearly states: How is anything else of that sort "hidden", pray tell? I don't think it's necessary to see anything in the DMG to make a fair appraisal. Certainly everything you mentioned about druids, monks and demi-humans is laid out plainly in the PHB.How about 3e, eh? Was it really a "gotcha" to find out that removing all the burdens AD&D had laid upon them made spell-casters really, really top dogs -- and not with such a long, hard way to the top, either?Sure, after how many years? And really, who says that such an extraordinary individual can go no further? Did you miss the bit about "tallfellows that somehow obtain 18 strength"? Check out the pre-generated characters for the Giants-Drow tournament modules. If memory serves, some of those break not only the limits in the PHB (which was published around the same time) but even those of the UA (not yet even a twinkle in Gary's eye). There are probably more examples elsewhere. In D&D, what is impossible? Where there's a will, there is probably a way (and it probably involves a perilous quest).Anyway, there is plenty more to do than rack up levels -- and indeed the game was designed to get into matters of greater importance on the stage of history. Go ahead and play 17th-, or 27th-, or 57th-, or 107th-level characters, if that's your cup of tea. Except for rare sessions, that has not held much appeal for players of my acquaintance.Heck, isn't 3e (which so many people complain about playing past 10th) capped at 20th level, and 4e at 30th?Go ahead and take off the limits if you want! Why don't the elves rule the world? What does a druid do after burning through the levels in UA? One might add a "hidden imam" assassin HD and more levels, but ... How much further is it really worthwhile to go? The magic-user's spell-casting maxes out at 29th level (7.5 million experience points). I have most often seen characters retire before or at about the same 1.5 million as for the PHB assassin or druid. That would be a Wizard (14th); Master Thief (16th or 17th); a Lord (13th); a High Priest (14th or 15th). Characters other than thieves have pressed on to 16th, 17th or 18th level, but rarely in my experience. I have heard of characters of higher levels, but don't recall offhand seeing one (played all the way from 1st, or even having started at 4th).The levels past 14th or so seem to figure mainly in the persons of NPCs -- mainly villains of such might as to challenge a whole party of PCs and threaten a world (or several) with Dark-Lord-ish dooms. (30th is "high level" even for the gods in D&D/L&L, but they tend to have far more hit points than that would suggest!)"Different strokes", though!The really fundamental thing to understand is that AD&D was not designed for the kind of campaign in which anyone is "forced" to keep playing a character. A lot of things get broken when you shove them into the context of a campaign limited to a single monolithic party of characters advancing through time, space and levels in lockstep. If you are allowed only one character per campaign, and get Hobson's choice of playing that character -- perhaps on an adventure determined by the DM, no less -- or not playing at all ... then it is no wonder that rules designed for quite a radically different game are less than satisfactory.That whole game form, right from first premises, is unsatisfactory if what one really wants is what 4e is designed to provide. With 3e, you get a transitional form that is either the best or the worst of both worlds (probably depending on whom you ask).</blockquote>

Verification