Question about experience point bonus

[Rat Salad]

How about this one (I'm still learning the rules): I don't understand something on page 10. In the "Explanation of Abilities" it's discussing "prime requisite". No problem so far; very familiar through other D&D rulesets. The thing I don't quite understand is when it lists the abilities themselves, "STRENGTH" ...."Clerics can use strength on a 3 for 1 basis in their prime requisite area for purposes of gaining experience", etc. for INT, and WIS....what exactly does this mean? How does one technically do this and just what does all of it mean in general?

So sorry, in advance, if this has been asked and answered somewhere on here before. Probably pretty basic, I'm just a dum-dum on a few of the things as I make the transition from switching my brain from AD&D to OD&D! Thank you all. ;D

[makofan]

I am glad you asked - this is how I do it!

Let's say you roll ST:12 IN:15 WIS: 14 and you decide to play a fighter. A fighter with STR 12 normally gets no experience point bonus. But his high intelligence and high wisdom make up for his natural strength shortcomings, and give him a boost to experience.

Fighters can exchange INT for ST on a 2:1 basis (but can not go below 9). So this fighter could exchange 6 IN for 3 STR for bonus purposes. Now his STR is 15. WIS can be exchanged by a Fighter on a 3:1 basis. So WIS: can go from 14 to 11, and STR from 15 to 16

So, although for all game purposes, the Fighter is 12 STR, 15 INT, 14 WIS, for EXPERIENCE POINT BONUS Calculation he is calculated as having the equivalent of 16 STR, and thus gets a 10% bonus

[busman]

When you're rolling up your character (3d6 in order, no swaping, etc. according to the rules), after you've generated your 6 stats, once you select your class you can do point swap of your ability scores this one time according to the rules presented.

So, if I roll up 12 9 14 8 6 11 and I select Cleric, I could choose to change my scores to 9 9 15 8 6 11, trading 3 points of STR for 1 point of WIS.

[tank]

My reading is probably tainted because I played basic D&D long before I even read through the original rules. That said, my interpretation is that for every three points a cleric subtracts from his strength score, he may add one point to his wisdom, but the strength score cannot be lowered below nine. And so on.

I guess another interpretation is that the strength score is not actually lowered, and the wisdom score is not actually raised, but it is treated as higher for the purpose of the experience point bonus.

EDIT: Wow that was a fast response from Busman and Makofan! To summarize how I deal with those rules, I play like Busman, but I understand Makofan's interpretation as well.

[Rat Salad]

All you guys are great. I'm learning this stuff 5x as fast as normal because of the help on this forum. I thank all of you; I'm knee deep working on a dungeon now that's going down next weekend with my old AD&D1st. group, so I gotta get this right so we can try it out! I'm going to study these responses before deciding which way to go. I LOVE the fact that this is open to interpretation, which is why the deeper I get into OD&D the more I realize the genius of the orignal setup! Thanks again...I'll be back with another bit I'm trying to chew over, you can betcha.

[coffee]

Jun 13, 2008 9:25:08 GMT -6 makofan said:

I am glad you asked - this is how I do it!

Let's say you roll ST:12 IN:15 WIS: 14 and you decide to play a fighter. A fighter with STR 12 normally gets no experience point bonus. But his high intelligence and high wisdom make up for his natural strength shortcomings, and give him a boost to experience.

Fighters can exchange INT for ST on a 2:1 basis (but can not go below 9). So this fighter could exchange 6 IN for 3 STR for bonus purposes. Now his STR is 15. WIS can be exchanged by a Fighter on a 3:1 basis. So WIS: can go from 14 to 11, and STR from 15 to 16

So, although for all game purposes, the Fighter is 12 STR, 15 INT, 14 WIS, for EXPERIENCE POINT BONUS Calculation he is calculated as having the equivalent of 16 STR, and thus gets a 10% bonus

Gary was asked how this was supposed to work and this was his response. It's also the way I've understood it, and the way I chose to do it.

But there's a substantial body of work out there where the points are actually exchanged (all the basic sets, for example).

[dwayanu]

Men & Magic indicates that a prime requisite can be raised "for purposes of gaining experience only." The Basic Sets (starting with the very first, from Holmes) omitted that phrase.

Further confusion may arise from the mention in Greyhawk that exceptional strength "must be raw, i.e. not altered by intelligence scores."

I played by Holmes for a long time, but am now inclined to think that "only for experience" was the original intent. It also keeps ability scores within the spread of the three-dice bell curve -- so high scores are more remarkable.

[Rat Salad]

I'm thinking of leaning towards this direction, coffee. Thanks for the info. on Gygax's original answer. I actually prefer the other way since it's going to take me a few brain cells to really grasp this way, but I think I can get the hang of that pretty quick. On the other hand, the other way traditionally gives a teeny break and freedom to players, so heck I dunno...may go with that! Gotta ponder this...

[philotomy]

Jun 13, 2008 9:25:08 GMT -6 makofan said:

So, although for all game purposes, the Fighter is 12 STR, 15 INT, 14 WIS, for EXPERIENCE POINT BONUS Calculation he is calculated as having the equivalent of 16 STR, and thus gets a 10% bonus

This is my favored interpretation, too.

[ffilz]

Perhaps this should be a poll...

I'm with the "for experience only" crowd.

I like that it makes it interesting to play a modest strength, high intelligence and wisdom fighter.

Frank

[coffee]

Jun 13, 2008 11:16:32 GMT -6 ffilz said:

Perhaps this should be a poll...

I'm with the "for experience only" crowd.

I like that it makes it interesting to play a modest strength, high intelligence and wisdom fighter.

Frank

Exactly, Frank, that's how I see it. You don't get screwed.

This way, you don't put all your eggs in one basket. Later editions seemed to me to encourage this behavior.

[Rat Salad]

This would make an interesting poll. I like the idea of both ways, BUT it's very tempting to tamper too much with the balance of the rules. I think I'll stick to the Gygax method, though I have nothing against the other one. At least try that at first. It's kind of like adding classes: I don't want to start going down that road either, because then you might as well just make it easier on yourself and switch over to a well-known territory like AD&D. Not to get off the subject, but it becomes to easy to start tweaking classes and adding stuff. Though I prefer to homebrew a lot of my own monsters and create them to supplement what's already there, I don't really want to start messing with the core setup.

[coffee]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it.

I figure, I can always add things like additional classes and such later. But if I start with them, there's no going back.

[dwayanu]

The alternative may be appealing if one wants to link high scores more firmly to class stereotypes. It makes it less likely that (e.g.) a magic-user will be stronger than a fighter (if you allow MUs to swap strength for intelligence at 3 for 1).

[Rat Salad]

Wow, that's a thought provoking point, dwayanu brings up. I suppose it's all on how you see the gaming "world" that one's designed. I still kinda like the idea too that if someone really has their heart set on playing, say, a fighter that this allows crummy rolls to be adjusted. Maybe doing it this way would be cool, but a house rule of no 18 STR unless it's rolled naturally from the get go, or something.

[dwayanu]

Allowing players to arrange scores to taste would have a similar (though perhaps less pronounced) effect.

One thing about the original approach is that there's no suggestion of any course other than "playing what was rolled."

Indeed, by the book it is not the player but the referee who rolls the dice. That should make no difference to the dice, but it may make a psychological difference in how players view the scores.

[foster1941]

I prefer (and think the text of the books supports) that point trading is actual trading, so that if you roll 12, 14, 15 and use your Int and Wis to increase your Str to get the 10% XP bonus your scores will actually be 15, 12, 9 thenceforth. The note at the bottom of p. 11 is what seals it for me: "Units so indicated above may be used to increase prime requisite total insofar as this does not bring that category below average, i.e. below a score of 9."

That said, I'm not going to condemn anybody who prefers it the other way in their own campaign (even though I think you're doing it wrong )

[makofan]

Sorry foster, but that note at the bottom of page 11 is there (in my opinion) to tell you HOW MUCH of your excess WIS/INT can be used

[dwayanu]

I don't see that note as directly germane to the question at hand. The limit is equally applicable whether the score is literally or only figuratively reduced.

One might ponder why the term "total" is used in that context ...

[foster1941]

It's absolutely germane because if you're not actually reducing those scores, if you're just harvesting bonus points from them, there'd be no question of "bringing them below" anything.

[makofan]

Yes there would, otherwise you would reduce your INT and WIS to 3 and get insane STR bonuses (like STR 20 or 22). The note is saying, for reduction purposes to calculate xp bonus, don't reduce below 9

[sham]

Jun 13, 2008 10:43:58 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Men & Magic indicates that a prime requisite can be raised "for purposes of gaining experience only." The Basic Sets (starting with the very first, from Holmes) omitted that phrase.

Further confusion may arise from the mention in Greyhawk that exceptional strength "must be raw, i.e. not altered by intelligence scores."

I played by Holmes for a long time, but am now inclined to think that "only for experience" was the original intent. It also keeps ability scores within the spread of the three-dice bell curve -- so high scores are more remarkable.

Yes...but,

To me, and I do understand both interpretations, the remark being clung to here, the "for experience only" bit, IS the benefit (and only benefit) gained from actually swapping ability scores when that passage was written (pre-Greyhawk). Furthermore, it seems to me that this bit is reiterating the fact that only one's Prime Requisite may be so raised.

I allow the point swapping at character creation, and I think that was the intent, which, as you point out, is echoed in Greyhawk.

Both approaches have their merit, and make sense though.

[dwayanu]

We've got two contrasting phrases that make one wonder why each was included if the intent was A (or on the other hand B).

Perhaps Supplement I actually presents a change in procedure, just as the "Magic Effects on Armor Class Guide" changes the treatment of shields.

For that matter (considering the note Foster mentioned), perhaps Volume 1 already includes contradictory text from two phases of development. One might recall the contradiction concerning existence (or nonexistence) of clerical-spell scrolls.

[coffee]

I'd like to amplify my earlier post. Gary said, in answer to a question, that points weren't actually meant to be swapped. This is as far as it went for the 3 little books.

However, as was pointed out at the time, there is no other evidence that this was the case.

I regard it as another of those many inconsistencies in the books. They exist, whether we like it or not, so the best we can do is live with it.

I, myself, like the idea of just getting the benefit of the other stats without an actual swap taking place. But I do not and will not insist that that is the correct way to play; it's just my decision as DM.

Your decision, however you decide, is the correct one for you.


I just wanted to clarify that, because this thread is starting to look (to me, anyway) like we're approaching a "quest for the absolute truth" sort of thing. And I'm quite happy to leave those to the die-hard AD&D rules lawyer fanatics; I don't think we need them here.

But, as usual, that's just my two coppers.

[greyharp]

Jun 13, 2008 15:31:27 GMT -6 coffee said:

I just wanted to clarify that, because this thread is starting to look (to me, anyway) like we're approaching a "quest for the absolute truth" sort of thing. And I'm quite happy to leave those to the die-hard AD&D rules lawyer fanatics; I don't think we need them here.

While I read the rules the same way Foster and Sham do, I found the idea of a swap that isn't a swap quite fascinating. To me, it (and this thread) just demonstrates the wonderful flexibility of the original system, which leads to no two games being the same.

The fact that such differences in interpretations can be discussed on this forum without the usual sniping and sarcasm that goes on elsewhere, speaks volumes for the maturity of the membership here and I guess, perhaps, the spirit of the original game and those who love it. Vive la Différence!

[sham]

I agree and I went back and forth about which made more sense. Then I just decided to go with the method I preferred. I like the 2 fer and 3 fer swap aspect, you really gotta pay to get those points. If you're concerned about your potential EXP bonus, then you either play to the highest PR, be it S-I or W, by picking your class after rolling; or you go in knowing what you want to play, and gut those other two abilities in order to get an EXP bonus. I enjoy allowing the players to have such options, provided they are balanced (and I think this one is fair).

My question is, would you allow a character to go from 13 to 14 in his PR when there is no experience benefit to be had by doing so? This question only matters for the ability swap method. The player might assume that he'll gain a point in his PR down the road. I've ruled you can do the swap even if you aren't hitting the 13 or 15 point plateau, with the BIG caveat that no ability may be reduced below 9, per the guidelines.

[makofan]

I'm not arguing intent here - I don't care which way people do it. I just find foster's statement that the footnote on page 11 can only be interpreted logically one way to be so outrageous that I was irked.

[busman]

I just took it as his particular discussion style and moved on. =)

[Finarvyn]

Growing up, we did the actual swap. Ever since hearing Gary's interpretation I have done the "virtual swap" with no actual points moving except for experience purposes.

Both play well, but do keep in mind with the "actual swap" method character stats will probably be very low. We all watch occasional players roll amazing stats, but on the average a person will roll scores in the 10-11 range with a total of about 63 total points spread over 6 stats. Trading 1 for 2 or 1 for 3 eats up those points in a hurry. If you want the actual swap to occur, at least consider using an alternate rolling approach like "roll 4, keep 3" in order to counter this effect a little.

One of the neat things about OD&D is that from its genesis in 1974 players were encouraged to make up or interpret rules as you like. Gary's way isn't always your way. That would have been fine with Gary and it should be fine with you as well. The OD&D books contradict themselves in enough aspects of the game that there's not really an "official" way to play OD&D, which is part of why it's so hard to create a retro-game for the rules.

Just my two cents.

[dwayanu]

I enjoyed reading (and occasionally joining) conversations with Gary at Dragonsfoot. He came off quite differently than the self-described "final arbiter of role playing" in the pages of AD&D and Dragon magazine! His final game design, Lejendary Adventure, seems a step back toward looser rules -- and he was running OD&D at conventions.

"Do it your way" seems to be the final ruling of the Dungeon Master Emeritus!