wulfgar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 126
|
Post by wulfgar on Dec 12, 2007 7:51:25 GMT -6
In Men and Magic it says:
"Strength is the prime requisite of fighers. Clerics can use strength on a 3 for 1 basis in their prime requisite area (wisdom)"
If it stopped right there I wouldn't be confused. I'd say "Ok, clerics can "change in" 3 points of strength for 1 point of wisdom. But it doesn't stop there. It goes on to say:
"for purposes of gaining experience only"
So what does that mean? Does the character's strength score actually go down? Or does it stay the same, but is used in figuring out their experience bonus percentage?
Similarly, Fighters and Clerics can used Intelligence at 2 for 1 to boost their prime requisites and Wisdom is 3 for 1 for fighters and 2 for 1 for Magic Users.
Thanks.
|
|
jrients
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 411
|
Post by jrients on Dec 12, 2007 8:41:29 GMT -6
My interpretation is that a Fighter with Str 13, Wis 9, and Int 6 actually has an effective strength of 19 (13 + [9/3] + [6/2]) for experience bonus only. The stats do not change and reallocation of points (as per some later editions) is not allowed.
|
|
wulfgar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 126
|
Post by wulfgar on Dec 12, 2007 8:54:13 GMT -6
That jives with what I was thinking. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 12, 2007 10:10:22 GMT -6
My interpretation is that a Fighter with Str 13, Wis 9, and Int 6 actually has an effective strength of 19 (13 + [9/3] + [6/2]) for experience bonus only. The stats do not change and reallocation of points (as per some later editions) is not allowed. Whoa, hey, waitaminnit! Jrients, you'd be absolutely correct and by the book except for one thing: At the bottom of page 11 (under the table of modifiers due to ability scores) is the note: 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.Since the example fighter (above) has only 9 Wis and 6 Int, these scores are ineligible to be used. He still has a 13 Str for experience purposes. Now, if he had 18 Wis and 15 Int, your calculations would be correct and he would end up with an effective 19 (or 18, rather, since that's the understood to be the highest it can go...) ---- Didn't we have this discussion before? Or am I thinking of another forum?
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Dec 12, 2007 10:13:23 GMT -6
My interpretation is that a Fighter with Str 13, Wis 9, and Int 6 actually has an effective strength of 19 (13 + [9/3] + [6/2]) for experience bonus only. The stats do not change and reallocation of points (as per some later editions) is not allowed. That interpretation ignores the note at the bottom of p. 11: Given this, I'm pretty sure what's being discussed here, however oddly worded, is literal point-swapping. So someone with strength 13, intelligence 13, and wisdom 13 could become a fighter and make his strength 16, intelligence 10, wisdom 9, and magic-user with strength 13, intelligence 15, wisdom 9, or a cleric with strength 10, intelligence 9, wisdom 16 if he so chose. See also this previous discussion of the same topic (in which, it should be noted, Gary Gygax seems to endorse the jrients method that I'm claiming can't be correct...).
|
|
wulfgar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 126
|
Post by wulfgar on Dec 12, 2007 10:38:15 GMT -6
[glow=red,2,300]Given this, I'm pretty sure what's being discussed here, however oddly worded, is literal point-swapping. So someone with strength 13, intelligence 13, and wisdom 13 could become a fighter and make his strength 16, intelligence 10, wisdom 9,[/glow]
The issue with this method is that now the character really has TWO different Strenght scores. One for calculating experince (since that is all the new score is good for the rules say) and one for everything else.
So the PC with:
STR 13 INT 13 WIS 13
becomes
STR 16/13 INT 10 WIS 9
If actual point swapping is going on.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 12, 2007 10:53:11 GMT -6
I still believe a literal swapping of points was not intended (but the whole thing was worded oddly).
The thing to remember when dealing with just Men & Magic (i.e.; not Greyhawk or other supplements) is that there is no practical difference between a 13 and a 16 Str. Experience is the only thing modified; there is no hit or damage bonus. So either way should work out okay.
Another thing I'd like to point out is that, as has been noted before on this forum, these are all interpretations of the rules as written. As such, there is no wrong answer -- just use whatever works for you in your game. That's one of the real beauties of OD&D. You can do whatever you like with it!
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Dec 12, 2007 11:34:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Dec 12, 2007 12:38:34 GMT -6
This is an interesting topic, because I'm wrestling with it at the moment in another context, namely my proposed OGC OD&D. In cases where the rules are not merely open to multiple interpretations, but are downright obscure and even contradictory, what does one do? I am trying not to impose my own interpretations or glosses on this OGC version of the game, but there are times -- like this one -- where it's quite difficult not to do so. The temptation is high.
In such cases, my attitude has thus far been this: reproduce, as best possible within the constraints of the OGL and related copyright concerns, the words as presented in OD&D. In some cases, I worry this will wind up making the rules more obscure than they already are, but there's not much else I can do. I envisage, at some later date, a "commentary book" that goes through the three volumes of OD&D, section by section, and provides varying interpretations and options, but that's a separate project. For the OGC book, I want to stay true to both the spirit and, where possible, the letter of the originals, frustrating though that can be.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 12, 2007 12:56:17 GMT -6
Funny you should mention a "commentary book". I'm already doing that -- sort of.
What I've done is put together a copy of Men & Magic on 8 1/2 by 11 paper, so that the page from M&M is approximately the original size. Then I've included annotations outside of this area, to further explain things that might not be clear.
Obviously, I can never hope to publish this; I'm just making a few copies that players can use while I'm running the game. They will remain my own personal property. I hope that keeps me safely on the side of fair use.
If anyone is interested, I could put the book (without, obviously, the actual M&M pages) into a pdf format. Or I could just put the relevant annotations in a txt file.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Dec 12, 2007 14:52:27 GMT -6
One thing that adds to the confusion is that Holmes Basic does not mention the "for the purposes of experience only" which suggests an actual point exchange (which I think is how we played it prior to AD&D). Men & Magic is certainly confusing. In my upcoming campaign, I will be using the interpretation coffee mentions above, where the adjustments only affect the experience bonus and only count non-prime requisite points above 9.
Given that I will be using more attribute modifiers (more lake the later Basic/Expert than Greyhawk), I think this non-literal point swapping is also a good idea.
Frank
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Dec 12, 2007 15:04:45 GMT -6
In my upcoming campaign, I will be using the interpretation coffee mentions above, where the adjustments only affect the experience bonus and only count non-prime requisite points above 9. I've come around to favoring this interpretation of Men & Magic, too.
|
|
jrients
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 411
|
Post by jrients on Dec 13, 2007 9:22:02 GMT -6
Clarification: I'm deliberately ignoring the rule on page 11. Given that the "for gaining experience only" verbiage seems to outright contradict the page 11 rule, I feel I must choose one or the other. I appear to have made the less popular selection, but in the interests of making character generation faster and less complicated I don't want any points swapping.
Ignoring scores below 9 for experience calculations actually sounds like a good move, now that I think about it.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Dec 13, 2007 9:33:49 GMT -6
If I had to do it again, I would take jrients interpretation
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Dec 13, 2007 9:35:31 GMT -6
I don't use this rule at all, no point swapping of any kind IMC. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobold on Oct 16, 2011 12:54:01 GMT -6
My interpretation is that a Fighter with Str 13, Wis 9, and Int 6 actually has an effective strength of 19 (13 + [9/3] + [6/2]) for experience bonus only. The stats do not change and reallocation of points (as per some later editions) is not allowed. That interpretation ignores the note at the bottom of p. 11: Given this, I'm pretty sure what's being discussed here, however oddly worded, is literal point-swapping. So someone with strength 13, intelligence 13, and wisdom 13 could become a fighter and make his strength 16, intelligence 10, wisdom 9, and magic-user with strength 13, intelligence 15, wisdom 9, or a cleric with strength 10, intelligence 9, wisdom 16 if he so chose. See also this previous discussion of the same topic (in which, it should be noted, Gary Gygax seems to endorse the jrients method that I'm claiming can't be correct...). Apologies for casting raise thread, but this discussion has recently caught my interest. I wonder if the text in question is actually contradictory to that of p.11. I note that the text on p. 11 refers to a prime requisite total (my emphasis), and does not simply refer to increasing simply the "prime requisite." Under this interpretation, the character's prime requisite total might be something akin to an "effective" prime requisite score "for the purposes of experience only," and not contradictory at all. Regardless of this interpretation, I'm quite sure that this interpretation (if at all intended) was short-lived and adjusted by the time of Supplement I and the Holmes, ed. set to reflect the actual swapping of ability scores. Still, this might be a useful variant rules interpretation for use with only the original rules without supplements.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Oct 16, 2011 13:03:50 GMT -6
My opinion is that since raising wisdom granted no bonus other than +%xp, then while you actually do raise and lower stats, the only benefit from raising your 12 str to 13 for example was to get a +5% xp bonus and you would not get the +1 to hit in addition. Same with int, you would not gai additional languages. It seems only fair to the cleric, as fighting men and mu would get an undo bonus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2011 19:25:56 GMT -6
Someplace, I don't remember where, Gary Gygax said the intent was for experience only, not an actual point swap.
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobold on Oct 17, 2011 11:38:11 GMT -6
My opinion is that since raising wisdom granted no bonus other than +%xp, then while you actually do raise and lower stats, the only benefit from raising your 12 str to 13 for example was to get a +5% xp bonus and you would not get the +1 to hit in addition. Same with int, you would not gai additional languages. It seems only fair to the cleric, as fighting men and mu would get an undo bonus. If I follow you correctly, I think you raise an interesting and significant point, though I'm not sure it lends support to one interpretation or the other regarding the authors' intent. In fact, it might lend support to both interpretations. As you point out, there is no benefit for a cleric to increase wisdom as his prime requisite--except for a bonus to earned XP. But there is a additionally a bonus +1 from strength, in addition to a bonus to earned XP for fighters increasing strength scores, for example. To make this fair, it might be interpreted that the intention is that there is no swapping of actual ability scores, since this would be unfair to the cleric. Therefore, ability adjustments are to generate an effective "prime requisite total" (see the wording in Vol. I, in the note at the bottom of p. 11), which in some way evens the playing field among classes (especially since there is a real advantage for other classes increasing their prime requisites--in addition to bonus XP). Personally, this is the interpretation I would use in a game that uses only the original set and no supplements. The only bonuses accrued from abilities are from ability scores actually rolled (i.e., unadjusted). The flipside of this argument is that ability scores are actually intended to be swapped (as later editions have concretized). It must be conceded, therefore that the statement "for the purposes of experience only" might also just be a casual observation by the authors, or a simple statement of fact, since there is, in fact, no bonus associated with wisdom, as there is with strength, for example.
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobold on Oct 17, 2011 13:10:14 GMT -6
Someplace, I don't remember where, Gary Gygax said the intent was for experience only, not an actual point swap. Right. I've seen his post where he confirmed this, but there has been an argument made to the effect that Gary might have been misremembering the procedure--or misreading the poster's question to this effect. Having played in Gary's games, Mike, do have any recollection of the procedures to adjust prime requisites early on? Was it simply adjusting raw ability scores as per the thief in Supplement I and the Holmes, ed., basic set?
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Oct 17, 2011 16:10:24 GMT -6
I cast my vote for the intention being "how to calculate the experience bonus" and not a point-trade, even though in the past I've played with the point-trade interpretation (as I recall, Holmes explicitly interprets the rule as a point-trade.) As evidence, I point to the fact that clerics can "trade" Strength for Wisdom, but magic-users can't trade Strength for Intelligence. Because the equivalents are listed under each ability score instead of under each class, it's easy to miss what is really being said: that each class has a primary ability and one or more secondary abilities. - Fighters rely primarily on Strength, but also on Intelligence, to a lesser degree, and a very tiny amount on Wisdom. This is because fighting (and physical action in general) is mental as well as physical.
- Clerics rely primarily on Wisdom, but also on Intelligence, to a lesser degree, and a very tiny amount on Strength. This is because they are primarily oriented towards the spiritual and mental side, but also act as fighters when necessary.
- Magic-Users rely primarily on Intelligence, but also on Wisdom; they gain no benefit from having a high Strength, because their talents have nothing to do with physical ability.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Oct 20, 2011 10:12:43 GMT -6
Very interesting observations Kris, but The flipside of this argument is that ability scores are actually intended to be swapped (as later editions have concretized). 'taint so. Later editions were prepared by other writers and concretized a lot of variations from OD&D as the game was changing according to the tastse of the time. Swapping around scores wasn't practiced or expected in the original game.
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobold on Oct 20, 2011 12:44:55 GMT -6
'taint so. Later editions were prepared by other writers and concretized a lot of variations from OD&D as the game was changing according to the tastse of the time. Swapping around scores wasn't practiced or expected in the original game. This is what I'm trying to discover: whether actual point swapping was a common interpretation--and implementation--of these rules among referees regarding prime requisites, or whether point swapping gradually came to be the procedure--especially after the introduction of the thief class in Supplement I and the basic set of 1977. Certainly, I think there are many that have assumed point swapping was the intention of the rules in the original set from day one. I'm curious to hear from others about what the common practice was in 1974-5.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2011 14:35:31 GMT -6
Certainly, I think there are many that have assumed point swapping was the intention of the rules in the original set from day one. I'm curious to hear from others about what the common practice was in 1974-5. I lived in a small town in Texas some distance from the nearest large city. Thus, I cannot speak as to whether my experience was common in the mid-1970s or not but I will be most happy to tell you how we did it. We did not swap rolled ability scores. Sometimes, if we needed a particular class, we allowed the player to swap the prime requisite of the needed profession with any other rolled ability score; but that was the limit of it. You rolled your dice and you took your chances. No apologies are offered for this practice, no judgment offered to those who did it otherwise. We had a great time and never felt the need to tinker with those rules. Not that we didn't tinker at all! We just usually limited ourselves to augmenting the rulebook (initiative, missile ranges, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobold on Oct 23, 2011 18:42:28 GMT -6
I lived in a small town in Texas some distance from the nearest large city. Thus, I cannot speak as to whether my experience was common in the mid-1970s or not but I will be most happy to tell you how we did it. We did not swap rolled ability scores. Sometimes, if we needed a particular class, we allowed the player to swap the prime requisite of the needed profession with any other rolled ability score; but that was the limit of it. Thank you for your response! Did you or your group ever calculate adjustments, in any fashion, to prime requisites to determine a bonus to earned experience points, according to some deliberate interpretation of the procedures described in Vol. 1, p. 10 under "Explanation of Abilities"? If not, can you elaborate as to why not, or as to why those rules on p. 10 weren't suited to your group's tastes/needs?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 24, 2011 4:33:41 GMT -6
We actually allowed point swapping but quickly abandoned the process. When you do a straight-up 3d6 the rolls aren't that high to begin with, so basically you never had enough free points laying around to make the swap worthwhile.
Doing "3d6 and arrange numbers to taste" was a lot better than "3d6 in order" and eliminated most of the need for a swap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 14:21:34 GMT -6
My only characters in Lake Geneva were generated before the rules were printed, so it was never an issue.
When I started playing at the U of MN we actually swapped points around. Years and years and YEARS later when I read Gary's statement that that was not his intent, my reaction was, "Well, how about that."
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 24, 2011 14:58:46 GMT -6
My only characters in Lake Geneva were generated before the rules were printed Every time I think I'm a true "old fart" then I run into comments like this. I envy you those early experiences Michael! Those must have been awesome days, when you really never knew what would happen next!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 19:07:58 GMT -6
Did you or your group ever calculate adjustments ... Yes. The common misinterpretation was ours as well! We did the point buy to raise prime requisites and treated the altered scores as "real". We puzzled over the "for purposes of gaining experience only" but after a while we forgot about our initial questions and never tried to figure out what EGG might have meant. edit to add: And, like Gronan, I was pretty amused when I found out EGG hated the "point buy" method for increasing the prime requisite.
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobold on Oct 25, 2011 8:22:12 GMT -6
Thanks for all of your candid responses. I've been under the impression that point swapping has always been the common practice, regardless of the interpretation of the rules in the original set. Certainly, by the time of the thief class's introduction in Supplement I, point swapping seems to be intended (and this, of course, carries through the non-Advanced game to its end). I imagine many simply viewed the thief's description as a clarification of how the earlier rules were intended. Still, I'll admit that I do prefer the "virtual score" idea: that a prime requisite total is something different than a prime requisite.
|
|