Re: DM: a decent rollup

From: ben@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1993 15:05:10 +0000

In article <DRESNICK.93Jul3135118@carbonara.mit.edu>, dresnick@athena.mit.edu (David I Resnick) writes:
>5-16-10-11-16-5-7

My, that is scummy! If I liked scum, and I don't, the old
5-21-10-11-21-5-11 is tempting

>8-16-10-17-17-5-11 TP or WS (I have 2 WS, and as I only run
>			       one team, don't want a third!)
>
>I've not yet run a TP seriously, and am not sure if I want to start
>doing so. If I ran this guy as a TP would scumming be his only option
>or would he have some offensive potential?  How would this setup do as
>a PL - is 5 speed too slow?

For the WS or TP, I would really go for the 21 WL.  WS and TP's seem to learn
ok with even 13 WT's.  Even 11 (maybe for a TP).  I think the 17-17 WT/WL would
make a pretty good PL.  The SP and DF are a little low, but the CN should keep
you in fights.  I probably wouldn't go all out (10-8-8-L) thought.  He should
parry fairly well.  I would consider putting a pt of ST in SP (as far as I
know, the 'odd break points' rule doesn't hold for SP).  I'm skill greedy, so I
might even go 6 ST 13 DF, but maybe not.  Don't want to get saddled with little
damage.

>6-16-10-15-21-5-11 TP or
>6-16-10-17-17-5-13 TP
>But I hate to lose a atk/par when I train ST to 7

You could drop the WT to 13.  I guess that's sacrificing 4 (or 5) temporary
skills for 2 permanent ones.

Ben HItz
email: hitz@cuhhca.hhmi.columbia.edu

References

DM: a decent rollup
dresnick@athena.mit.edu (David I Resnick)
Sat, 03 Jul 1993 17:51:18 +0000