Actually, I was just doing the math and its really too close call. A 5th character with no constitution bonus would average 27 hit points as a 1E Ranger or 27.5 as a fighter. While at 10th level the Ranger would average 49.5 to a fighter's 52.5. Obviously the very common house rule of granting max at 1st level would give the Ranger a big boost.
Well I did say with a Con bonus, let's say +3, that would make the Ranger 45HP at level 5 compared to the Fighter's 42.5, and 82.5 at level 10 compared to the Fighter's 79.5 - the Fighter wouldn't catch up until 3 levels later; if the Con bonus was +4 it would be two levels later still.
And yes, there would often be a house rule on level 1 HP, maybe max, maybe best of three rolls or somesuch, which could make the advantage last a very long time indeed; probably longer than most campaigns.
When I was reading the Rangers handbook for 2nd edition yesterday it said Rangers are very difficult to roll stat wise. This is to keep the amount of Rangers realistic as there aren't that many around. I'd say the advantage Rangers had over Fighters was that they required high stats to play. Every character in BG can have high stats so it's less noticeable. I'm guessing that in PnP most people rolled low stat rolls for their characters more often then not.
When I was reading the Rangers handbook for 2nd edition yesterday it said Rangers are very difficult to roll stat wise. This is to keep the amount of Rangers realistic as there aren't that many around. I'd say the advantage Rangers had over Fighters was that they required high stats to play. Every character in BG can have high stats so it's less noticeable. I'm guessing that in PnP most people rolled low stat rolls for their characters more often then not.
It depended so much on the specific character generation rules a DM used. What I saw most often was all scores rolled in order, taking the high three from either 4d6 or 6d6. Most DMs (but certainly not all!) used some rule for point shifting, or even just throwing out unwanted scores too. Although I never knew ANY DM who allowed endless re-rolls and unlimited one-to-one point shifting like BG does.
So yeah, I'd say average scores in BG are quite a bit higher than most PNP games were. Although I'd put a huge qualifier on that; most characters played for any length of time were pretty darn good from the start, and often picked up points (just like in BG) through various means along the way.
My most successful character ever was a Paladin with a 13 strength, 17 dexterity, and 14 constitution when he started. Seven years later, when that campaign sadly came to an end (real life stuff, DM moved away), he had a 19 strength, 18 dexterity, and 18 constitution. The increase sounds outrageous, and nothing similar has ever happened in a game I ran; but all those gains have a story, an adventure, and felt well earned!
Comments
And yes, there would often be a house rule on level 1 HP, maybe max, maybe best of three rolls or somesuch, which could make the advantage last a very long time indeed; probably longer than most campaigns.
So yeah, I'd say average scores in BG are quite a bit higher than most PNP games were. Although I'd put a huge qualifier on that; most characters played for any length of time were pretty darn good from the start, and often picked up points (just like in BG) through various means along the way.
My most successful character ever was a Paladin with a 13 strength, 17 dexterity, and 14 constitution when he started. Seven years later, when that campaign sadly came to an end (real life stuff, DM moved away), he had a 19 strength, 18 dexterity, and 18 constitution. The increase sounds outrageous, and nothing similar has ever happened in a game I ran; but all those gains have a story, an adventure, and felt well earned!