A Great Article [Archive] - Wizards Community

A Great Article [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Werral
03-27-08, 06:53 PM http://obscurearchives.stupidquestion.net/D&D.html

Well I thought so anyway.
jimbo7987
03-27-08, 07:01 PM 01-10 Slovenly trull 76-85 Expensive doxy

11-25 Brazen strumpet 86-90 Haughty courtesan

26-35 Cheap trollop 91-92 Aged madam

36-50 Typical streetwalker 93-94 Wealthy procuress

51-65 Saucy tart 95-98 Sly pimp

66-75 Wanton wench 99-00 Rich panderer

I laughed out loud.
Etarnon
03-27-08, 07:04 PM No lie, that's what made 1e so cool. Flavor.

Miss it.
Space_Dragon
03-27-08, 07:05 PM So, basically, he thinks 3.5 edition ruined DnD by not having corny jokes scattered throughout the manuals.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!!!!
jimbo7987
03-27-08, 07:06 PM No lie, that's what made 1e so cool. Flavor.

Miss it.
I must admit, this is the first time I have seen any of it. My mind is blown.
Etarnon
03-27-08, 08:21 PM Pick up a 1e DMG some time. Then you'll see the genius of it.

It's part serious, part sage advice, part tome of wondrous imagination, part cornball, part hey, that's a really cool idea.
Werral
03-28-08, 10:06 AM So, basically, he thinks 3.5 edition ruined DnD by not having corny jokes scattered throughout the manuals.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!!!!

No that was 2E.
Zombie_Babies
03-28-08, 11:11 AM Fun. And it makes sense that with such a rules-heavy edition there is less room for "fun" entries. Printing costs, and all. The one thing I thought was most amusing was that the author considered the Monk in 3.X overpowered. He must never have played one....
undead_dungeon_master
03-28-08, 11:46 AM Fun. And it makes sense that with such a rules-heavy edition there is less room for "fun" entries. Printing costs, and all. The one thing I thought was most amusing was that the author considered the Monk in 3.X overpowered. He must never have played one....

I consider the monk to be one of the more over powered classes in 3.x as well.

My order of power is:

Druid
Monk
Wizard/Sorceror
Cleric
.
.
.
.
Fighter
Ranger (with the excepting of 3.0, in which it was best to create a 1st level ranger, then multiclass into ANYTHING else....)
.
Barbarian
.
.
Bard
.
Rogue

P.S. Keep in mind that Druids and Monk can thrive with Vow of Poverty, while the other classes can not. And Vow of Poverty rocks!!!

P.P.S. The reason for the "." inbetween is to represent a rough amount of spacing inbetween the powers. Example: Druids, Monks, Wizards and clerics are all about the same power level. Then there is a pretty big gap of missling power levels, followed by the fighter "tier"

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Werral 03-27-08, 06:53 PM	http://obscurearchives.stupidquestion.net/D&D.html Well I thought so anyway.
jimbo7987 03-27-08, 07:01 PM	01-10 Slovenly trull 76-85 Expensive doxy 11-25 Brazen strumpet 86-90 Haughty courtesan 26-35 Cheap trollop 91-92 Aged madam 36-50 Typical streetwalker 93-94 Wealthy procuress 51-65 Saucy tart 95-98 Sly pimp 66-75 Wanton wench 99-00 Rich panderer I laughed out loud.
Etarnon 03-27-08, 07:04 PM	No lie, that's what made 1e so cool. Flavor. Miss it.
Space_Dragon 03-27-08, 07:05 PM	So, basically, he thinks 3.5 edition ruined DnD by not having corny jokes scattered throughout the manuals. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!!!!
jimbo7987 03-27-08, 07:06 PM	No lie, that's what made 1e so cool. Flavor. Miss it. I must admit, this is the first time I have seen any of it. My mind is blown.
Etarnon 03-27-08, 08:21 PM	Pick up a 1e DMG some time. Then you'll see the genius of it. It's part serious, part sage advice, part tome of wondrous imagination, part cornball, part hey, that's a really cool idea.
Werral 03-28-08, 10:06 AM	So, basically, he thinks 3.5 edition ruined DnD by not having corny jokes scattered throughout the manuals. BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW!!!!!!! No that was 2E.
Zombie_Babies 03-28-08, 11:11 AM	Fun. And it makes sense that with such a rules-heavy edition there is less room for "fun" entries. Printing costs, and all. The one thing I thought was most amusing was that the author considered the Monk in 3.X overpowered. He must never have played one....
undead_dungeon_master 03-28-08, 11:46 AM	Fun. And it makes sense that with such a rules-heavy edition there is less room for "fun" entries. Printing costs, and all. The one thing I thought was most amusing was that the author considered the Monk in 3.X overpowered. He must never have played one.... I consider the monk to be one of the more over powered classes in 3.x as well. My order of power is: Druid Monk Wizard/Sorceror Cleric . . . . Fighter Ranger (with the excepting of 3.0, in which it was best to create a 1st level ranger, then multiclass into ANYTHING else....) . Barbarian . . Bard . Rogue P.S. Keep in mind that Druids and Monk can thrive with Vow of Poverty, while the other classes can not. And Vow of Poverty rocks!!! P.P.S. The reason for the "." inbetween is to represent a rough amount of spacing inbetween the powers. Example: Druids, Monks, Wizards and clerics are all about the same power level. Then there is a pretty big gap of missling power levels, followed by the fighter "tier"