Alright then, though from the sound of things later editions have different problems. Still, my preference for GURPS was formed when 2nd Ed. (or 1st) were the only available AD&D options, and reflects that to a fair degree. Again, the biggest thing I noticed from skimming the 3rd Ed. rules was that they had begun implementing point systems like GURPS, though they did not go nearly far enough with it, IMHO.


...BONUS stat points/4 levels?! Tell me I misread/understood that, else you practically conceded my point that characters are grossly overpowered as they level.

I mean, OK, you can raise a GURPS characters stats as they level, too, but stat increases cost twice as much after creation, which, with the the progressively greater costs of stat increases generally, makes that quickly prohibitive. Even for a 10-12 stat, raising it after creation would cost 20 character points instead of 10, meaning I would have to forego ANY skill increases long enough to save up 20 points and raise the stat (though the old benefit of raising all skills based on the stat would still apply—IF I raised DX or IQ; otherwise I would just get a point of ST or HT.) For any stat >12 the cost will be at least 30 points; if you play one night/week that would be minimum of about four months, during which you could not spend more than a couple points on ANYTHING else.

Anyway, in 2nd Ed. Str bonuses to damage ranged from +1 at 15 to +6 at 18/00 (but +5 at 18/90-91, so anything >+4 was VERY rare.) The to hit bonus was +1 at 17, +2 at 18/51 and did not reach +3 until 18/00. Dex bonuses to AC went from -1 at 15 to -4 at 19 (since Elves got a +1 Dex bonus.) Con bonuses to hit dice went from +1 at 15 to +5 at 19 (since Dwarves got a +1 to Con.) With an Ioun stone or something to raise Con to 20 characters actually got to REGENERATE HP; there is a reason I ignored the bonuses. Setting that aside though, this is how it would break down with Str, Dex and Con at equal levels:

Maxxed out, the 20th level fighter has a net -1 to hit and +1 to damage when he does, but only because he is at a full 18/00.

18/91-99: -2 to hit, +0 damage; 18/76-90, -2 to hit, -1 damage; 18/51-75, -2 to hit, -2 damage. On average for exceptional stats (i.e. >18:) -1.98 to hit, -1.28 damage

18/01-50, -2 to hit, -1 damage (the attacker gets a break here because fighters could not have 18 Str, which would be -2 to hit, -2 damage.)

Straight 17s= -2 to hit, -2 damage; 16s= -2 to hit, -1 damage; 15s= -1 to hit, -1 to damage.

2nd Ed. only gave +1 damage two-handed (and only with an optional Fighters Handbook rule;) otherwise, it just changed bastard sword damage to 2d4 instead of the 1d8 it did one-handed. I THINK greatswords did 1d12, but never used them, so do not quote me; with only a few exceptions all other weapons did d8 or less. So unless they both have straight 15s, all else being equal the 20th level fighter has -2 to hit -1 to damage (in a few cases -2) with d8 or less damage, and the 10th level fighter has 10d10 HP.

Even with a d12 greatsword the attacker gets 5.5 HP/hit, which just happens to be exactly what 10 attacks must average to drop a defender with 10d10 HP. Even at 3 attacks per round that will still take 4 rounds; given misses and the unlikelihood of the attacker wielding a greatsword, 5 or 6 rounds is more plausible. If the 20th level fighter misses even once OR has anything less than a greatsword, there is NO chance he kills the 10th level fighter with 10 attacks capped at 6 or 7 points each.

In other words, even if a 10th level fighter does not fight back, a 20th level fighter must whale on him for a full minute to kill him!

OK, fine, later editions reduced that approximately one-third, partly by letting the 20th level character raise his stats 4 times (because extra attacks, HP and lower THAC0 were not already advantage enough. ) I guess the good news for our "hapless" (but surprisingly hardy) 10th level fighter is that his opponent has not yet reached 20th level and raised Str AGAIN (is that capped, or is he in Fire Giant territory now?) That high level fighters can unleash enough firepower to level a small city does not mitigate the mid level fighters ability to absorb tremendous damage without flinching. Even in 3rd and 4th Ed. the high level fighter needs many attacks to slay a mid level fighter not even resisting.


Maybe in BG (though even it allows characters to advance past 20th level; the ToB XP cap was 8 million, enough for Thieves to hit 40th level!) With tabletop AD&D it was more of an unintended consequence as characters who survived long enough became omnipotent. It got kind of ugly in later years, as TSR released expansions allowing characters to reach levels as high as 50; I have no idea how DMs kept THAT "challenging." That brings up another realism issue: How plausible is it for a character to start out as a Two Rivers farmboy and end up the Dark One? Maybe for immortal elves, or even long-lived dwarves, but a human who has maybe 60 good years between maturity and decreptitude? I guess mages can become liches, but that usually ends a career as a PC.


Every system is a lot of work for a GM to figure out until they are familiar with it. GURPS is more work than most, but the payoff is also much greater than most, IMHO. And, like any system, once you are familiar with it it is not hard to run. The main difference is that there is very little need to fiat anything; the only challenge is that settings, to the extent GURPS provides them at all, are very generalized for the sake of customization. If that is your preference, what many consider GURPS' biggest weakness might be its biggest asset to you. It is very structured, detailed and balanced, but within that extensive framework you have unlimited latitude for any campaign you like. Even cinematic ones, though that robs GURPS of much of the realism I consider one of its greatest perks.


I never claimed you have not, only that you had to do it despite, not because of, the system. Good GMs can make even the worst system work, but a good system lets good GMs focus their efforts on world- and adventure-building, not improvising patches for innumerable holes in a fatally flawed system. Again, even for skilled and experienced GMs, it boils down to where you want to invest the work. Since my impression of 3rd Ed. was that it borrowed some of GURPS' best features but squandered them on the hopeless AD&D class and level system, the phrase that comes to mind is "accept no imitations" (though fans of Champions might find that comment ironic. )


I always understood Paladins and Rangers as Specialist Fighters just like all the Specialist Mages were still Mages, and generally viewed Bards, Druids, etc. much the same. The only one requiring separate treatment was the Bard, because of his spellcasting. The rest were just subtypes who had more disadvantages to offset a few particular extra advantages, neither of which conflicted with their basic class. Except for priest spells at high level, there is ultimately not much justification for saying Paladins and Rangers are distinct classes but Cavaliers and Barbarians are just Fighter kits (if I understood OotS correctly, the latter is now a class of its own anyway.)