Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xyanthon" data-source="post: 3298661" data-attributes="member: 9181">At the time, I really liked UA.&nbsp; I haven't really read through it in years but I thought that there was some interesting info in there.&nbsp; However, I would have liked to have seen much more info on social classes and the like.&nbsp; I felt that if they were going to include the chevalier, they should address social standing, class systems, etc.&nbsp; There were several classes in Dragon that would have been cool to have seen in an official format.You know, I'll have to go look through my copy of UA just to see what I think of it now.&nbsp; I'm sure there will be things that I don't agree with but there is such a level of hostility towards it and other later supplements that I just didn't feel at the time (I was quite happy to have new offical hardbacks to peruse).&nbsp; Granted I was around 13 or 14 when most of those books came out and probably much more of a &quot;munchkin&quot; style player than I am now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xyanthon, post: 3298661, member: 9181"] At the time, I really liked UA. I haven't really read through it in years but I thought that there was some interesting info in there. However, I would have liked to have seen much more info on social classes and the like. I felt that if they were going to include the chevalier, they should address social standing, class systems, etc. There were several classes in Dragon that would have been cool to have seen in an official format. You know, I'll have to go look through my copy of UA just to see what I think of it now. I'm sure there will be things that I don't agree with but there is such a level of hostility towards it and other later supplements that I just didn't feel at the time (I was quite happy to have new offical hardbacks to peruse). Granted I was around 13 or 14 when most of those books came out and probably much more of a "munchkin" style player than I am now. [/QUOTE]

Verification