Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Re: Spell utility
Next Message: An interesting island.
Month Index: January, 1996


From:     SJammer123@???.com
Date:     Mon, 22 Jan 1996 16:38:23 -0500
Subject:  Re: New PBEM
In a message dated 96-01-20 16:17:57 EST, slight@???.net (Steven C) writes:

>Yes, there is both old and new stuff in the Players Option books.  Speaking
>specifically of C&T, much of what is new is simply the logical extension of
>what the Complete Fighters Handbook started.

Odd. Most of what I read replaced, not extended. In several areas it even
contradicted.

>Well, they an expansion upon what can be done within the various classes,
>but whether or not its copying Gurps is pretty much personal opionion.  S&P
>really isn't a points system by strict definition, as one is still stuck
>with the basic AD&D class structure, just with a little more room to
>maneuver.

Do you prefer Champians, or some other point based system? And how do you
come to the conclusion that a sudden, major, change to character creation is
an expansion of previous work? Especially when it becomes close to impossible
to create an old style wizard, (or Bard, from the spell access standpoint)
under the new rules without losses of ability, and many, if not most,
Specialty Priests CAN'T be duplicated under the S&P rules?


>I didn't see anything that suggested the new kits were specific for the S&P
>system.  More like they decided to chuck the notion of a different kit for
>each class when one would suffice.  Why have an Amazon fighter kit, an
>Amazon mage kit, etc, when one could just have an Amazon kit that works for
>all classes?

They made them generic and took all the heart and flavor out of them. This
system can't be used to create many of the Paladin, Rannger and Druid kits,
or, for that matter, most of the racial kits.

>I'd daresay I'm much more familiar with the Players Options books than you
>give me credit for, and I probably have defended these works on AD&D-L as
>well.
Not that I've seen. In either case.

 Your point?  I stand by my original statement, and suggest that you
>check your own facts before getting worked up in such a lather!

I did. The books are right here in front of me.

How many
>smileys are necessary to get it across that no harm is meant?

More than a single one at the bottom of 2 or 3 paragraphs.

>>>Perhaps the definition of "garbage" in this case is "sourcebooks that one
>>>doesn't happen to own" ;)     <-  **what could this little guy be?**

A single one at the bottom of 2 or 3 paragraphs.

>You're simply upset that you've been left defending a rather unusal and
>contradictory opinion.  Kits from the Complete Handbooks are fine in your
>book, but the same information isn't okay with you when presented in S&P.
>Fighting Style proficiencies are okay from the CFHB, but not from C&T.
>Besides, it's humorous as well to think that one can swallow the Complete
>books but not handle the Option series.  Rune mages from the Vikings
>handbooks are just fine, but the very thought of having an elf with a bonus
>to use daggers instead of swords & bows is blasphemy?   Odd, but your
>prerogative.

Kits from the complete series have a degree of style and flavor, they're not
generic ability boosters.

I don't remember bring the Historical Refference (green) book series into
this at all, so I have no earthly idea why you're making assumptions about my
opinions of it., And My comments, if you bother to read them, where directed
at what S&P has done to the classes and kits, not the races, although it's
easy to see that the S&P system is heavily weight to the selection of
nonhuman characters, because they get much more out of it that humans. This
is not an extension of previous works, but a contradiction. The AD&D books
are constantly saying that humans ,by far, predominate. Using S&P, I think
you'll find few if any humans. They tend to come out on the short end of the
character generation stick.

>I wish I were so young!  Still, I'll not drop to this argumentive level.  If
>lame attempts at namecalling are your preferable style of debating, I'll try
>to avoid your posts in the future!

We'll see. I wager this one will be responded too, not avoided.

>I don't really care what other folks do within their own campaigns, nor do I
>care of other's opinions on the Options series (which I happen to find a
>nice addition to AD&D).  What I would like to see is folks not being so
>contradictory and hypocritical with their opinions.  With a laugh, I'll
>leave it at that :)

Reread you own post.


Previous Message: Re: Spell utility
Next Message: An interesting island.
Month Index: January, 1996

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
New PBEM    Paul Westermeyer    20 Jan 1996 14:30:02
Re: New PBEM    myth@??????.com    20 Jan 1996 15:02:55
Re: New PBEM    Steven C    20 Jan 1996 17:39:17
Re: New PBEM    SJammer123@???.com    20 Jan 1996 20:40:51
Re: New PBEM    Steven C    20 Jan 1996 21:14:07
Re: New PBEM    Paul Westermeyer    21 Jan 1996 03:39:28
Re: New PBEM    Paul Westermeyer    21 Jan 1996 03:39:35
Re: New PBEM    Steven C    21 Jan 1996 04:18:40
Re: New PBEM    Paul Westermeyer    21 Jan 1996 04:45:32
Re: New PBEM    Steven C    21 Jan 1996 04:57:47
Re: New PBEM    SJammer123@???.com    22 Jan 1996 21:38:23

[ SPJ-L@Cornell.edu ] [ Spelljammer@Leicester.ac.uk ] [ Spelljammer@MPGN.com ] [ Spelljammer-L@Oracle.Wizards.com ]