Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2013 22:02:12 GMT -6
Over on rpg.net OG wrote: He cites Men and Magic where it states: However, with Greyhawk we start to have ability score minimums that must be met in order to become a class. Over on rpg.net OG also wrote: What is the purpose of imposing requirements that essentially make it so that some classes may never happen in actual play? I mean if it's okay to play a Balrog in three different campaigns, surely a fighter being a paladin isn't game breaking. Anyone know the cause of going from play anything and let the GM decide how the class powers up to not letting people play things unless certain ability scores were rolled? |
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Apr 12, 2013 8:18:44 GMT -6
OD&D rewards you for having high stats; not with high game mechanic modifiers like future editions, but you get the sweet XP bonus, you get access to the bonus character classes. So you can play a balrog fighter with 13 in all his stats and *think* you're cool, but it's the human paladin with the 17 in WIS and CHA who is going to do all the real powering up in the campaign.
But why the little details like a minimum of 8 CON requirement for playing a dwarf? I suspect that and level limits are there to keep the game human-centric.
~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 12, 2013 8:45:39 GMT -6
OD&D rewards you for having high stats; not with high game mechanic modifiers like future editions, but you get the sweet XP bonus, you get access to the bonus character classes. The 3LBBs require PCs (except Elves) to have 16+ in the PR ability in order to switch to another class. So ability score requirements existed even before GH came along. |
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Apr 12, 2013 12:00:39 GMT -6
My (uneducated) guess is that minimum ability score requirements represent an outgrowth of "Gyganxian naturalism": Perhaps a minimum of 8 in CON for a dwarf is meant to prevent an "implausible" situation whereby a dwarf character (who's supposed to be hale, hearty, etc.) has 3 CON. Likewise, maybe the 17 CHA requirement for a paladin reflects what we might call a cultural assumption about the game's world: namely only the most charismatic warriors are qualified to be paladins there.
Myself, I dispense with ability scores entirely; if someone wants to play a paladin, they play a paladin, and we all move on with our lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 12, 2013 12:33:01 GMT -6
Myself, I dispense with ability scores entirely; if someone wants to play a paladin, they play a paladin, and we all move on with our lives. You don't use ability scores, or you don't use minimum ability scores? I like to use the basic six attributes, but often don't worry about if characters meet an artificial minimum score. I wasn't sure if this is the way you do it, too, or if you actually got rid of the six attributes alltogether. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 12, 2013 12:36:45 GMT -6
Where are people getting the minimum CON score for dwarves? I know it shows up in later games like AD&D, but I can't find it in Men & Magic...
As far as the other minimums, I think there's a distinction between requiring a particular score to get something extra added to a class (like switching classes) versus requiring a particular score to qualify for a distinct class. The Greyhawk paladin is sort of a transitional stage, because the wording of the class is open to interpreting it as something any Lawful fighter can choose at any point, so if a fighter later increases a stat and now meets the requirements, paladin status becomes available.
I wish the game had stuck to that as the normal behavior. However, Blackmoor definitively switched to the way we normally interpret minimum scores. Monks are a subclass of Cleric, but not a "value added" or "prestige" class; they don't have the base Cleric abilities. Likewise, although Assassins have Thief abilities, they're reduced, a a Thief can't pick up extra Assassin abilities, except through the class-switching process.
Personally, I plan on ditching minimums, changing instead to some kind of xp penalty. Haven't quite worked it out yet.
|
|
paulg
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by paulg on Apr 12, 2013 14:25:08 GMT -6
Where are people getting the minimum CON score for dwarves? I know it shows up in later games like AD&D, but I can't find it in Men & Magic... I can't find it either, and I don't recall ever seeing a CON requirement for dwarfs in the LBB's. Holmes specifies that dwarfs and halflings should have a constitution greater than 9. AD&D has a minimum of 12 for dwarfs. |
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Apr 12, 2013 16:39:40 GMT -6
Myself, I dispense with ability scores entirely; if someone wants to play a paladin, they play a paladin, and we all move on with our lives. You don't use ability scores, or you don't use minimum ability scores? I like to use the basic six attributes, but often don't worry about if characters meet an artificial minimum score. I wasn't sure if this is the way you do it, too, or if you actually got rid of the six attributes alltogether. No, I don't use ability scores at all except when a player needs to come up with a new character on the spot - at that point, the player might find them useful for suggesting what kind of character to play (or not, in which case we don't even use them then). Otherwise, I'm happy to let the player take the wheel in terms of describing who the character is and what he or she's about. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 12, 2013 20:38:20 GMT -6
Personally, I plan on ditching minimums, changing instead to some kind of xp penalty. Haven't quite worked it out yet. I do exactly this in my Hinterlands game. Only fighters, magic-users, thieves and templars (clerics) get the standard ability score based XP bonus. "Fancy" specialist classes (so far we've had alchemists, warlocks, elvish templars, a marksman, and a couple of others) get no XP bonus. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 12, 2013 22:47:36 GMT -6
I ignore ability score minimum requirements. That is something that OD&D and C&C got right, and AD&D got wrong. You don't know what you're missing until you play a magic-user with a 3 intelligence.
Yes, that's really happened to me. Last year I was rolling-up (3d6 in order set in stone, natch) a character that I wanted to be a magic-user. I rolled a 3 for intelligence. I wasn't about to let that stop me! I play the character as a doofus who is naturally gifted with an intuitive understanding of D&D's Vancian magic. He can't read or write Common, but spell books? Those are right up his alley.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 8:59:09 GMT -6
Actually, I've had two Paladins since 1973, I had forgotten about one.
The reason for minimum scores is exactly what you think; to make them rare. And seeing what a Paladin is like, that's a good idea. They're an extremely powerful class and have the potential to really screw up game balance if they're too common.
And in my game, 3d6 in order is the rule of the day. I state explicitly beforehand that this is how characters will be generated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 13, 2013 9:13:19 GMT -6
Personally, I plan on ditching minimums, changing instead to some kind of xp penalty. Haven't quite worked it out yet. I do exactly this in my Hinterlands game. Only fighters, magic-users, thieves and templars (clerics) get the standard ability score based XP bonus. "Fancy" specialist classes (so far we've had alchemists, warlocks, elvish templars, a marksman, and a couple of others) get no XP bonus. The original Ranger in Strategic Review is like that, although they then get a strange 4/3 bonus to experience but use a more difficult table similar to magic-users (2500 for 1st level). The net effect is similar to a 10% bonus! www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1503 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 10:12:15 GMT -6
The Ranger is what happens when 17 year old kids design D&D classes. But good for Joe.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 13, 2013 12:08:14 GMT -6
The Ranger is what happens when 17 year old kids design D&D classes. But good for Joe. Completely true. And, unfortunately, it lead to the whole "you build classes by adding a whole laundry list of crap" mentality. |
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Apr 13, 2013 14:31:19 GMT -6
I'm with Zeraser; I don't use ability scores. My new thing is to roll 2d6; the first d6 chooses an above average attribute (one of the 6 ability scores) and the other d6 chooses a weakness. I like this because most of the time 3d6 in order generates a lot of average scores which is boring to me. I'd rather have characters that have an interesting strength and an interesting weakness, and I make all 6 ability types have a mechanical effect, though not really huge compared to, say, B/X D&D. I also don't have minimums for various classes or races; I was really inspired by Geoffrey's idea of playing a low intelligence magic user - he mentioned that exact idea back when I suggested tossing out ability scores a few months ago and I liked it. Anyhow, if any of my players were upset with a random roll, I'd happily let them just choose a strength and weakness. Random is fun for those who like it, others might want more choice.
I also like just 2 class D&D, where all variant concepts are represented by generic rules; magic using and non magic using, so ability minimums don't seem so important to my game. Basically you play a paladin by playing LIKE a paladin, though you are probably just using fighter rules.
I also don't pretend to be playing OD&D except in so far as I look at OD&D as an example of what a game could be, and use it for inspiration to make my own campaign. No doubt whatever I'm doing is closer to OD&D than to any other iteration of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Apr 13, 2013 19:30:10 GMT -6
Based on what seems to be implied in Greyhawk, I allow characters who qualify for a subclass later in their career switch over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2013 21:42:19 GMT -6
Actually, I've had two Paladins since 1973, I had forgotten about one. The reason for minimum scores is exactly what you think; to make them rare. And seeing what a Paladin is like, that's a good idea. They're an extremely powerful class and have the potential to really screw up game balance if they're too common. And in my game, 3d6 in order is the rule of the day. I state explicitly beforehand that this is how characters will be generated. If you can play multiple campaigns with nobody qualifying for that class, is there any point to even having it listed as an option? I just don't understand including a 1 in 100 chance class. Seems better to just not even list it as a class. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 13, 2013 22:29:34 GMT -6
Actually, I've had two Paladins since 1973, I had forgotten about one. The reason for minimum scores is exactly what you think; to make them rare. And seeing what a Paladin is like, that's a good idea. They're an extremely powerful class and have the potential to really screw up game balance if they're too common. And in my game, 3d6 in order is the rule of the day. I state explicitly beforehand that this is how characters will be generated. If you can play multiple campaigns with nobody qualifying for that class, is there any point to even having it listed as an option? I just don't understand including a 1 in 100 chance class. Seems better to just not even list it as a class. Well, if you play as Falconer suggests and allow PCs to switch to a class later, PCs could meet ability score minimums at a later point, which gives them something to work towards. Interestingly, Greyhawk also introduced the magic manuals. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2013 11:29:51 GMT -6
Yeah, I can see making the various sub-classes as something you level up and work towards. Start out as the base class and then achieve or accomplish the sub-class as a reward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 14, 2013 13:14:14 GMT -6
Just a reminder: Men & Magic says the new prime requisite must be an unmodified 16 or better.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Apr 14, 2013 13:52:45 GMT -6
Where are people getting the minimum CON score for dwarves? I know it shows up in later games like AD&D, but I can't find it in Men & Magic... I can't find it either, and I don't recall ever seeing a CON requirement for dwarfs in the LBB's. Holmes specifies that dwarfs and halflings should have a constitution greater than 9. AD&D has a minimum of 12 for dwarfs. I have a latter printing of M&M, and am not aware of what might have been in the first and/or early versions vs. what I have. But, like you, I could not find any references to Min. Con---FOR ANYONE! Except this, little morsel, hidden on p.33 within the description of the Raise Dead spell: "Naturally, if the character's Constituion was weak, the spell will not bring him back to life" ...say what? What, exactly, is defined as "weak"? Is it below average? GH came along and established certain races could reach FTR lvl X with a particular strength score, but I cannot see such a referece to CON in my search... To me its clear, these Mins are a product of supplemental material that eventually showed up in Holmes and AD&D/1E. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2013 15:06:13 GMT -6
See page 11 of Men and Magic. It gives percentage chance of surviving based on CON.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 14, 2013 15:20:39 GMT -6
Just a reminder: Men & Magic says the new prime requisite must be an unmodified 16 or better. However, does "unmodified" mean "original roll only", or "current score without the secondary and tertiary score bonuses"? Remember, for experience point bonus purposes only, your prime ability score is increased if you have high scores in other prime abilities. A Fighter gets a bonus to Strength equal to half their Int above 9 and one-third their Wisdom above 9. Holmes Basic reinterpreted this as a point trade. I interpret "unmodified score" as meaning "no modification based on other scores", not "unchanged since the original roll". |
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Apr 14, 2013 15:53:55 GMT -6
See page 11 of Men and Magic. It gives percentage chance of surviving based on CON. But this does not relate to Mins required per dwarves. Or does it? |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 14, 2013 17:22:50 GMT -6
See page 11 of Men and Magic. It gives percentage chance of surviving based on CON. But this does not relate to Mins required per dwarves. Or does it? Nope. He's just answering your question about the Raise Dead spell. |
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Apr 14, 2013 22:13:37 GMT -6
Doh!
Yeah, I made 2 points.
Got it now.
|
|
