Re: DM: Another one bites the dust. . .

From: Ben 'Critical' Hitz

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 00:05:22 +0000

In article <CLnFt8.n3v@ucdavis.edu> ez007195@dale.ucdavis.edu (Yeon Choi)
writes:
>:The replacement is pretty good:  13-3-8-17-10-8-11.
>:
>:I've got a couple ideas about what to do with this roll-up.  I'm
debating
>:between 17-3-8-17-13-9-17 AB and 13-3-8-21-13-9-17 AB/ST/PL/PR/PS.  I'd
>:like to hear some alternative opinions.

Why bother with with 17 ST AB?   I hate to throw away 21 WTs,  and
certainly wouldn't for ST.  (I have a Great Dam. AB in 18.
10-11-15-21-11-3-13.  He sucks.  27 skills and no ratings; 3-7.  I'd DA
him, but for that he's a AB that learns well)  I would go with the
13-3-8-21-13-9-17.  As much as it pains me to say it, this would make an
awesome ST/PS.  As in 20-0 with 2 TVs and a TC.  I think 3 CN is too low
for PR or PL, I could see trying AB, if I didn't mind dieing.  (I would
say that 3 CN is too low for an AB, but higher CN doesn't seem to help
those suckers.)  SL would be a quite viable option.  Sacrfice a bit of
decis for some attack, init, riposte, weapon selection.  Would have a
pitiful endurance, though.

Ben Hitz
PUG
--
"With humor Comrade, always with a bit of Humor"
         From 'The Manchurian Candidate'

References

DM: Another one bites the dust. . .
ez007195@dale.ucdavis.edu (Yeon Choi)
Tue, 22 Feb 1994 23:27:07 +0000