The weird thing about paladins is that they have to have a high CHA score but if Ajantis and Keldorn are anything to go by they aren't actually very charismatic.
Haha agreed. Ajantis is naive and it really shows. I'm not going to drop all my stuff and follow some obviously inexperienced kid.
Keldorn was a lot closer to his charisma score being believable, though still he wasn't always very nice.
Paladins are far and away my favorite class to play, but I think they are also one hell of a challenge to roleplay well, it's very easy for a pious religous hero to come off as self righteous. This I think often comes down to alignment debates, as it is easy for a Paladin to come off as if Lawful Good is the one true way, or is in someway superior to all the other alignments.
This of course does not leave our shiny friends with a repuation of being charming and diplomatic, which is quite jarring when you consider they should all have Charisma as one of their highest stats (particularly in 2nd Ed). The way I see it is that being lawful good at all times is hard, and any paladin I play knows this and does not necessarily expect that everyone should behave that way, to say nothing of the fact trying to force everyone to behave that way infringes on their freedom, and such would be evil.
I do not play the sort of paladin that pitches a fit whenever the rest of the party does something morally questionable, but more tries to lead by example and often humor. One of the benchmark paladin type characters that is very good at this is Benton Fraser from Due South:
According to best friend, Ray Vecchio, in An Eye for a Eye, Benton's problem is that "if [he] sees a problem, [he's] gotta fix it, [he] can't even go to the mens room without stopping to tell some simple, stupid, charmingly-witty Inuit story, that inspires people to take on the world's social ills."
That to me is where you need to pitch a paladin's charm at. They all instinctively want to do good, champion and protect the week. They may rub people up the wrong way, but it is essential that they are likeable and charming when doing it.
That's unavoidable in a party-based system. Each member of the party complements the other's talents and/or lack of ability.
The problem is that charname doesn't have dialogue choices/limitations that reflect low charisma, wisdom and intelligence.
I personally see that as a boon and not a "problem." I'm glad they gave us a dump stat in Charisma that serves next to no purpose. Makes creating a character who isn't a bathroom floor mat that much easier!
The weird thing about paladins is that they have to have a high CHA score but if Ajantis and Keldorn are anything to go by they aren't actually very charismatic.
True but they are also, supposedly, natural leaders. Which fulfills the other part of having high charisma (other than being physically attractive).
I don't know if it used to be like this before 3e, but I remember CHA also being described as someone's presence or force of personality. I can envision someone with a very strict lifestyle and zealous conviction as having high charisma. And conversely low-charisma characters shying away or just not being able to hold on to the paladins' code.
Let's face it, any stat point system is a gross simplification of the real world. Training and natural ability feed into one another in a two-way street, so it is a bit daft to suppose someone who swings a sword and wears armour all day isn't going to become stronger over time because of it.
Charisma is an interesting one. It's nebulous, subjective and poorly defined - someone who is commonly viewed as charismatic might rub others up entirely the wrong way. A Motivational Speaker needs to be charismatic to do the job, but unreleting optimism and self-belief will make a lot of people dislike you.
I've had a lot of communication skills training over the years, and have seen the effect it has on me and others. I've seen very shy people become competent leaders in stressful situations, and people who don't necessarily have a great deal of emotional awareness learn to empathise and reassure others. Not 100% I'm making much of a point here, just saying that the ability to lead, communicate effectively and sway others is something that can be taught and isn't fixed at birth.
I was just reading the 2nd edition player's manual and was reading up on creating a character and it makes mention of people being unable to play a character with less than 17 in a given stat and laughed after reading this thread.
10 would be average in a stat roll no bonuses or negatives, a 11 and 12 would be someone who trained extensively in say physical strength or did lots of heavy lifting nothing exceptional just something that you would normally such as training with armor and weaponry, 13 on up though you are getting into the realm of strength training is all you do to monster like strength. 9 and below is would be less than average.
Now lets put the above into paladin minimum stats while realising that being a paladin means you are an advanced form of a fighter meaning they are rare to begin with as the stat requirements show. Add onto that that paladins are extremely trustworthy so a soldier or peasant would gain courage around the paragon of their people due to them knowing they can trust a paladin to never abandon them, break promises, and try their hardest to fulfill their duty making them ideal leaders, morale supporters, and icons of true strength.
Paladins also do not tolerate evil and root it out and crush it where they can to keep their people safe from harm. The reason for their leadership and why they make great leaders is because they have wisdom of experience or knowledge in what they are doing, with the ability to make a crowd sway with trust and purpose makes giving out orders easy with little to no questioning on whether it is right or wrong or even the best thing to do in the situation as their trust in the paladin is cemented.
If those examples do not bring to light how exceptional paladins are in terms of charisma and to which they can easily sway crowds into righteous fury or command respect from the average commoner or soldier then there really is no hope on explaining to you why their charisma requirement is so high.
In short it's not about their training it's about what a paladin is and how they are seen by the people with their conviction to their ideals and god.
Paladins are required in 2nd edition to have 17 charisma basically because they have plenty of advantages over fighters and few disadvantages, so by requiring them to have 17 charisma both makes them rarer AND depending on how the DM handles the initial ability score rolls, forces the player to waste a 17 (or higher) on Charisma rather than a direct combat-relevant stat.
@FrozenDervish@Justywusty You both are kind of missing the point. By the recommended character generation rules, if you want to play a paladin in AD&D 2nd edition, you have to hope you are very lucky, as you only have a 1.85% chance of getting a high enough charisma to be able to take the class. Less than two of every hundred characters you might create might qualify to be a paladin.
Now on the whole, 2nd Edition is my favorite D&D, but I would consider it a flaw that you are unable to play the character you want simply because you weren't exceptionally lucky with your rolls(or, as happened in most groups, I imagine, your DM gave you permission to cheat).
@FrozenDervish@Justywusty You both are kind of missing the point. By the recommended character generation rules, if you want to play a paladin in AD&D 2nd edition, you have to hope you are very lucky, as you only have a 1.85% chance of getting a high enough charisma to be able to take the class. Less than two of every hundred characters you might create might qualify to be a paladin.
Now on the whole, 2nd Edition is my favorite D&D, but I would consider it a flaw that you are unable to play the character you want simply because you weren't exceptionally lucky with your rolls(or, as happened in most groups, I imagine, your DM gave you permission to cheat).
You're right, but still, I'd be surprised if the majority of DM's didn't have the player roll a set of scores and then allow the player to allot them where they wished. That was always how I did it, just to throw the players a bone so they could pretty much be the class they wanted.
@Justywusty Yeah, that's the way I've seen groups do it too, but in retrospect, I view the unreasonably high requirements as the problem rather than the character generation method. When you allow players to allocate stats, you end up with cookie cutter arrangements that I find to be utterly boring. Every fighter has their high scores in STR DEX and CON, and every mage is a genius. It completely negates the point in having ability scores determined separately from class.
I say lower the requirements and stick to Method I. Then house rule that you declare the class you want to play first, and if your ability score rolls don't meet the minimum requirements, raise the attribute to match like BG does. That isn't overpowered if the requirements are kept low.
13 on up though you are getting into the realm of strength training is all you do to monster like strength.
Are you using 3D6 to determine attributes? Because if you are, then I am bothered by the fact that you are saying that over 25% of all humans have monster-like strength. Considering the fact that strength is only one of 6 attributes, the odds that somebody does not have a "monster"-like attribute is ~16.5%. (what exactly is a human to you?)
An ability score of 17 means being part of the top 2%. I don't think it is very unreasonable to expect of an adventurer to be either really confident in their strength or dexterity or else have a good reason why they chose to entrust their lives to these attributes anyway.
In the Baldur's Gate universe the odds are additionally shifted for PCs 1) by the fact that you choose your race&class first and the computer disregards all rolls that don't fit the criteria and 2) by the rule that every character must be given at least 75 points worth of attributes, but I don't think this should be relevant to the discussion since it can be regarded as the protagonist simply being kind of special.
I don't think it is very unreasonable to expect of an adventurer to be either really confident in their strength or dexterity or else have a good reason why they chose to entrust their lives to these attributes anyway.
I disagree. If you want Big Goddamn Heroes edition, pick up 4E, or to a lesser degree, 3E. In 2nd Edition, the average player character stat is 10-11.
@FrozenDervish@Justywusty You both are kind of missing the point. By the recommended character generation rules, if you want to play a paladin in AD&D 2nd edition, you have to hope you are very lucky, as you only have a 1.85% chance of getting a high enough charisma to be able to take the class. Less than two of every hundred characters you might create might qualify to be a paladin.
Now on the whole, 2nd Edition is my favorite D&D, but I would consider it a flaw that you are unable to play the character you want simply because you weren't exceptionally lucky with your rolls(or, as happened in most groups, I imagine, your DM gave you permission to cheat).
Less, even, because don't they have rather stringent requirements in other stats, as well? Min 12 STR, 9 CON and 13 WIS. None of those are exactly difficult to get, but all three of them in conjunction with 17 CHR makes it a really tough character to roll, I'd imagine.
@ScarsUnseen Are you confusing average with normal? To explain why this is wrong, let's go with something else: "The average number of children in families with children was 1.86 children." How many families do you think had 1.86 children?
The answer is 0. It is in fact impossible to have 0.86 children.
The difference is simply that average determines the middle, the value that the other values are balanced around, while normal means that most samples actually fall into this range. For 3D6, 50% of all values will be spread on the numbers 9 to 12. But just as many will fall outside of that range.
The probability for having at least 1 of 2 attributes at 17 is ~3.7%, in other words, for about every 27 people, you can expect one. The toughest kid in the village? She's probably it.
Now, let's think for a while. Who is the most likely to go out as a fighter? The boy that has already learned that there are stronger people even in his own village? Or the girl that has seen how easy it is for her to beat people up?
@ScarsUnseen@Humanoid_Taifun There is more than 1 rule in 2nd ed. in which to roll attributes. Such as roll 4d6 keep 3, roll 12d6 keep 3, and several others as well as custom ways that a DM would decide.
Also these monster-like stats are just that monster-like. An example would be a person with 10 intelligence would never consider being a wizard and if they did would not understand any of the complexities required of controlling and creating magic, but a 12 intelligence has enough that they could dabble or at least understand and maintain simple spells if they wanted to be a wizard, but would not be able to advance very far due to more powerful and complex spells being beyond their level of intelligence which is why high level wizards are exceedingly rare.
Then paladins as I've stated before are exceptional in many ways as they are a gods chosen champion. Do you honestly think an average joe would have what it takes to uphold the dieties values, high moral standards, and be devout enough to not question them?
Lastly as stated above this is 2nd edition where characters are normal instead of everyone being exceptional with epic levels and super attributes that every average joe has in 3rd and 4th ed.
Also these monster-like stats are just that monster-like.
Could you elaborate what this means since apparently for you most humans are monsters? If your mage example was supposed to do this, then I apologize because if so, then apparently it was above me.
Lastly as stated above this is 2nd edition where characters are normal instead of everyone being exceptional with epic levels and super attributes that every average joe has in 3rd and 4th ed.
And if you want *real* Average Joe characters, play 1e. Even 2e has your characters be slightly more heroic than just an average joe, which is why you get to Roll 4d6 minus the lowest die and not just a flat 3d6. I rolled a 1e character with a 6 charisma. Can you imagine anyone today willing to play a character with a stat that low? 2e has a whole section on so-called "hopeless" characters in the Player's Handbook. It's due to increasing expectations on the part of the player- not just to play a character who is a hero, but to play one who is a SUPER HERO. Who is more heroic? Joe average who overcomes his averageness to excel and become a 12th level fighter, or the guy who has all stats way above average and does the same?
Now we look at these 3 none of them have exceptional stats, but either due to training or by nature of their station 2 of them have above average stats. Average Joe is just that average in every aspect of life he is neither stupid, nor incredibly strong he is not sickly, but neither can he run a 5k marathon.
The soldier having trained in mail armor is stronger than Joe due to training with heavier equipment, but is by no means super strong. He also has slightly higher dexterity than Joe as well due to his training being able to swiftly react with his reflexes due to the flexibility chain mail has. His wisdom is lower as due to his training he follows orders and does not question them. His intelligence is lower because well he was tricked into joining in a drinking competition and was not quick enough in wit to figure it out till it was too late. His charisma is average as he has no battle scars yet and what woman wouldn't love a man in uniform.
Now the Knight has great strength due to his plate armor and training. Dexterity is lower due to the lack of mobility and slower reflexes due to all the training in the plate and even wearing the plate. Constitution is higher due to training in plate allowing for greater distances traveled while not wearing plate, but will still not travel far wearing all that heavy armor. Wisdom is average as he is probably at least partially experienced in battle and understanding what to do. Intelligence is average as well due to most likely growing up he was tutored and taught fundamentals in understanding maps and such. Charisma is above average due to his station of being a knight and the crowds love knights.
The Barbarian has exceptional strength due to their harsh wilderness, and the ease with which he swings his mighty axe. His Dexterity is due to the freedom of movement he has due to wearing no armor along with his skill with an axe. His constitution being above average is due to his stature and the fact he lives in a place most would find inhospitable. Wisdom is below average as he simple charges into battle with little thought. Intelligence is also below average due to his lack of learning and knowledge base. His charisma is exceptionally low due to his stipulation of being a barbarian covered in scars and seemingly inferior to "civilized" peoples.
@LadyRhian Agreed Although 2e has multiple dice rules the first one is roll 3d6 with the 2nd option being roll 4d6.
Side note rolled a fighter last night and stats gotten were.
Sure, if you wish to ignore everything that we know about humans. As I said, average is not the same as normal. Go out onto the street and ask two random guys and I promise you they will differ in most respects.
So you reject the spectrum of normality (denying all we know about humans and dice) and set your guy in (slightly below) average attributes. If this is your idea what a human looks like, then I understand why you might object to some more extreme numbers.
A Soldier Trained with sword and shield and mail armor
But these differences are a bit miniscule, are they not? Especially since they don't even have any effect. Average Joe is just as good in combat as the trained soldier. Isn't that odd?
Now we look at these 3 none of them have exceptional stats,
Seriously, your concept of exceptional or "monster-like" is strange. If 11 is exceptional for you, then 10 is just as exceptional, having exactly the same probability of being rolled - since the average is sitting squarely between those two numbers. That means every single number is exceptional, and the term exceptional loses all meaning. What exactly are you trying to say?
I think they made a bad interpretation of what stats normal people and adventurers are supposed to have. All 4 characters @FrozenDervish put as an example would have pretty much the same stats ingame. However for a pnp game, this provides a better opportunity to roleplay in my opinion as you have more room to act as you want without sacrificing the character's abilities.
@Humanoid_Taifun It is you who does not understand that average and normal are the same thing as well as you not wanting to accept that humans as whole are not the smartest, strongest, well liked, or even the most durable.
If you go up to an average military soldier and a thin punk their differences would be minimal in the grand scheme of things yes the military soldier has more training to make his lack of being able to punch a hole in a guys stomach through sheer strength, but due to his training probably can carry 40 lbs of equipment for miles at a time without rest while the thin punk would probably make it 30 yds before he had to rest, but thay weight is not exceptional it would be about a strength rating of 11 so the soldier would be that while the punk would be about 8 or 9.
Now if you can carry 100+ lbs on your back for miles at a time with no rest that would be some exceptional strength because lets face it even soldiers would have major difficulties carrying more than 40 lbs of geae on their back. Being exceptional is not about the luck of the dice roll, but what a given stat and number means rolling is merely a path to create a character that would be interesting and have the chance you might not have tried somethong before allowing for greater opportunity.
In DnD stat differences are rather huge and do make a difference such as going from 10 to 11 strength will allow you to carry 15 lbs more of gear without using more energy. While not increasing your ability to fight will allow you to fight longer or with more loot on your back. While you aren't superman bending steel bars that is quite strong.
Finally you don't quite understand as you cannot compare exceptional luck on a dice roll and compare it to the stat it is supposed to represent as they are 2 seperate entities, but at the same time they are very similar.
They are the same in the sense that when you are born you roll the dice on what attributes you excel in take Usain Bolt for instance he is exceptionally fast compares to other runners to the point it is unfair to the average runner as no matter how much they train they will not ever beat his exceptional speed.
The difference though is that saying that every dice roll is exceptional is a fallacy you would not consider roll of 3, 4, 4 as exceptional would you? But on the same token a 5, 4, 5 would be amazing to see. So as you can see not all rolls are equal some are better than others and some are so far ahead of the others that you can't beat them.
If you still can't understand the difference of average, above average, and exceptional then there really is no hope for you as you are most likely just trying to troll at this point.
Also if you think 17 or 18 should be normal come back to me after you carry 400+ lbs of stuff several miles for days at a time.
Ummm even..and I say EVEN in 1st Edition Rules, in my personal pen and paper experience no one EVER had to worry about actually rolling the Min. Required stats for the character they wanted to play, even the most hard case DM would allow them to meet the minimum requirements after they rolled their stats. Honestly how many DMs have you run into who said....."Sorry you can't play a paladin bacause you rolled too low....and isnce you don't want to play a straight fighter...you don't get to play". Seriously we were ALWAYS trying to get more people to want to play than trying to find ways to discourage people from playing.
The rules for character creation like most of the rules were meant as a guideline to base things on... and for some reason I had a flash back to Pirates of the Caribbean there......
It is you who does not understand that average and normal are the same thing
Don't mix this bit with something else in order to hide that you cannot actually prove something this stupid. They are not the same thing.
as well as you not wanting to accept that humans as whole are not the smartest, strongest, well liked, or even the most durable.
Of course they are not, but scientists are generally smart people, while people using their muscles are usually tougher than others. I think you are referring to what I said to your Average Joe though, in which case I shall explain: Average value: 10.5 Normal spectrum (for example): 9 - 12 The probability for having your score in this realm is 50%, so it's not a very good window. The probability of having all your attributes in this range is still only ~1.6%. A "normal person" is at this point still more of a freak than a guy who has a strength and/or dexterity score of 17 or better. In order for the attribute range to describe at least 50% of all people, you actually need to increase the borders to 6-15. 63% of all humans have their attributes between 6 and 15. This is what I personally would describe as "normal" for attributes rolled with 3D6.
Now if you can carry 100+ lbs on your back for miles at a time with no rest that would be some exceptional strength because lets face it even soldiers would have major difficulties carrying more than 40 lbs of geae on their back.
You should know that back when people were forced to kill people with their own hands, they used to be a little stronger on average than modern soldiers. "Even" pulling back the sinew of a real longbow is not a simple task for a modern man.
The difference though is that saying that every dice roll is exceptional is a fallacy you would not consider roll of 3, 4, 4 as exceptional would you? But on the same token a 5, 4, 5 would be amazing to see.
A roll of 14 is good but not amazing. I don't know where you are going with this though. Maybe you just missed your point?
If you still can't understand the difference of average, above average, and exceptional then there really is no hope for you as you are most likely just trying to troll at this point.
This is a popular technique isn't it? Once you run out of arguments, you simply accuse the other guy of trolling.
Also if you think 17 or 18 should be normal come back to me after you carry 400+ lbs of stuff several miles for days at a time.
Or make inane comparisons. Are you saying that if I can't do something, then my RPG characters can't do it either? Would you also insist that I'm not allowed to play a wizard unless I first prove that I'm capable of pulling a rabbit out of a hat?
Point of order, US Marines standard kit is 60 to 80 lbs.... not 40 In my military days I could carry that for up to 8 hours...but I was dead to the world once I got to rest. Im not sure how my strength would play out in D&D stats. However I do know that this being medeval times average people were shorter and not as healthy as your average Marine recruit. AND all their gear was heavier because they didnt have advanced materials.
@humanoid_Taifun "Would you also insist that I'm not allowed to play a wizard unless I first prove that I'm capable of pulling a rabbit out of a hat?"
You know the REAL problem is not an average person playing a character with 18/00 strength or having a 20 Con or even Dex....the real challenge is your average idiot Joe/Jane trying to pretend to be someone with an 18 intelligence
Ok obviously you aren't getting the point at all this has nothing to do with you at all what I'm saying is that carrying 400 lbs on your back is exceptional you are saying it is average or normal for a person to carry that much, to bend or break iron bars with their bare hands when it is not. I also never said your character could not have those stats so I don't know where you saw that as I said having them would make your character exceptional in comparison to the average or norm.
The rolls being rare or not do not matter at all and why you wish to go into percentages with them is beyond me as it is the total numbers you want to determine the stats the percentage on whether or not you get those high numbers do not matter as it is what the stats represent that matters in determining whether or not your character will be below average, average, above average, or exceptonal at 1, 2, or even all 6 stats.
Older people were not much stronger or more durable than modern people in fact might even be weaker due to size differences, as well the fact that a knight would not walk around in his armor he would only put it on in rare occasions such as for sport or while on a horse and most soldiers in older times were peasants who fought with farm implements and little to no armor or supplies and most wore worn out clothes and boots. So trying to make them out as stronger is silly.
And finally if you want to play a wizard go for it I'm not saying you can't I'm just telling you what the stat points mean, you can be an 11 int wizard, but you won't get very far in your magical studies which is also why highblevel wizards are rare. Also as you get older so your intelligence score would increase by 2 so you could go further later in life as well as finding magical items that further enhance your intelligence allowing you to go even further than that. So being an average person is not a hinderance in the least as most adventurers will stop adventuring between levels 8 and 12 due to age and/or wanting to settle down.
I too would love to be in that group of rabnit hat tricks
@Immamagikman Wasn't trying to lower standards was just trying to get a point across in the differences between stats in the game.
Ok obviously you aren't getting the point at all this has nothing to do with you at all what I'm saying is that carrying 400 lbs on your back is exceptional you are saying it is average or normal for a person to carry that much, to bend or break iron bars with their bare hands when it is not. [...]
That's not what @Humanoid_Taifun said. Please do not use straw man arguments.
The rolls being rare or not do not matter at all and why you wish to go into percentages with them is beyond me as it is the total numbers you want to determine the stats the percentage on whether or not you get those high numbers do not matter as it is what the stats represent that matters in determining whether or not your character will be below average, average, above average, or exceptonal at 1, 2, or even all 6 stats.
You completely misunderstood the point he was trying to make.
Older people were not much stronger or more durable than modern people in fact might even be weaker due to size differences, as well the fact that a knight would not walk around in his armor he would only put it on in rare occasions such as for sport or while on a horse and most soldiers in older times were peasants who fought with farm implements and little to no armor or supplies and most wore worn out clothes and boots. So trying to make them out as stronger is silly.
I'm sorry, but this is an inane argument based on incomplete inductive reasoning.
Also, would you kindly use proper punctuation? People will take you more seriously if you do; your text is a bit difficult to read. Please note that I'm not bashing you.
I didnt say OLDER people I said people from past eras in real life were shorter, and less long lived or something tot hat effect. It is fact that life span has increased quite a bit from the good old dark ages...that would equate to an increase in constitution (at least a little)
Comments
Keldorn was a lot closer to his charisma score being believable, though still he wasn't always very nice.
This of course does not leave our shiny friends with a repuation of being charming and diplomatic, which is quite jarring when you consider they should all have Charisma as one of their highest stats (particularly in 2nd Ed). The way I see it is that being lawful good at all times is hard, and any paladin I play knows this and does not necessarily expect that everyone should behave that way, to say nothing of the fact trying to force everyone to behave that way infringes on their freedom, and such would be evil.
I do not play the sort of paladin that pitches a fit whenever the rest of the party does something morally questionable, but more tries to lead by example and often humor. One of the benchmark paladin type characters that is very good at this is Benton Fraser from Due South:
According to best friend, Ray Vecchio, in An Eye for a Eye, Benton's problem is that "if [he] sees a problem, [he's] gotta fix it, [he] can't even go to the mens room without stopping to tell some simple, stupid, charmingly-witty Inuit story, that inspires people to take on the world's social ills."
That to me is where you need to pitch a paladin's charm at. They all instinctively want to do good, champion and protect the week. They may rub people up the wrong way, but it is essential that they are likeable and charming when doing it.
Charisma is an interesting one. It's nebulous, subjective and poorly defined - someone who is commonly viewed as charismatic might rub others up entirely the wrong way. A Motivational Speaker needs to be charismatic to do the job, but unreleting optimism and self-belief will make a lot of people dislike you.
I've had a lot of communication skills training over the years, and have seen the effect it has on me and others. I've seen very shy people become competent leaders in stressful situations, and people who don't necessarily have a great deal of emotional awareness learn to empathise and reassure others. Not 100% I'm making much of a point here, just saying that the ability to lead, communicate effectively and sway others is something that can be taught and isn't fixed at birth.
10 would be average in a stat roll no bonuses or negatives, a 11 and 12 would be someone who trained extensively in say physical strength or did lots of heavy lifting nothing exceptional just something that you would normally such as training with armor and weaponry, 13 on up though you are getting into the realm of strength training is all you do to monster like strength. 9 and below is would be less than average.
Now lets put the above into paladin minimum stats while realising that being a paladin means you are an advanced form of a fighter meaning they are rare to begin with as the stat requirements show. Add onto that that paladins are extremely trustworthy so a soldier or peasant would gain courage around the paragon of their people due to them knowing they can trust a paladin to never abandon them, break promises, and try their hardest to fulfill their duty making them ideal leaders, morale supporters, and icons of true strength.
Paladins also do not tolerate evil and root it out and crush it where they can to keep their people safe from harm. The reason for their leadership and why they make great leaders is because they have wisdom of experience or knowledge in what they are doing, with the ability to make a crowd sway with trust and purpose makes giving out orders easy with little to no questioning on whether it is right or wrong or even the best thing to do in the situation as their trust in the paladin is cemented.
If those examples do not bring to light how exceptional paladins are in terms of charisma and to which they can easily sway crowds into righteous fury or command respect from the average commoner or soldier then there really is no hope on explaining to you why their charisma requirement is so high.
In short it's not about their training it's about what a paladin is and how they are seen by the people with their conviction to their ideals and god.
You both are kind of missing the point. By the recommended character generation rules, if you want to play a paladin in AD&D 2nd edition, you have to hope you are very lucky, as you only have a 1.85% chance of getting a high enough charisma to be able to take the class. Less than two of every hundred characters you might create might qualify to be a paladin.
Now on the whole, 2nd Edition is my favorite D&D, but I would consider it a flaw that you are unable to play the character you want simply because you weren't exceptionally lucky with your rolls(or, as happened in most groups, I imagine, your DM gave you permission to cheat).
I say lower the requirements and stick to Method I. Then house rule that you declare the class you want to play first, and if your ability score rolls don't meet the minimum requirements, raise the attribute to match like BG does. That isn't overpowered if the requirements are kept low.
An ability score of 17 means being part of the top 2%. I don't think it is very unreasonable to expect of an adventurer to be either really confident in their strength or dexterity or else have a good reason why they chose to entrust their lives to these attributes anyway.
In the Baldur's Gate universe the odds are additionally shifted for PCs 1) by the fact that you choose your race&class first and the computer disregards all rolls that don't fit the criteria and 2) by the rule that every character must be given at least 75 points worth of attributes, but I don't think this should be relevant to the discussion since it can be regarded as the protagonist simply being kind of special.
To explain why this is wrong, let's go with something else:
"The average number of children in families with children was 1.86 children."
How many families do you think had 1.86 children?
The difference is simply that average determines the middle, the value that the other values are balanced around, while normal means that most samples actually fall into this range. For 3D6, 50% of all values will be spread on the numbers 9 to 12. But just as many will fall outside of that range.
The probability for having at least 1 of 2 attributes at 17 is ~3.7%, in other words, for about every 27 people, you can expect one. The toughest kid in the village? She's probably it.
Now, let's think for a while. Who is the most likely to go out as a fighter? The boy that has already learned that there are stronger people even in his own village? Or the girl that has seen how easy it is for her to beat people up?
Edit: By the way Baldur's Gate does not do this.
Also these monster-like stats are just that monster-like. An example would be a person with 10 intelligence would never consider being a wizard and if they did would not understand any of the complexities required of controlling and creating magic, but a 12 intelligence has enough that they could dabble or at least understand and maintain simple spells if they wanted to be a wizard, but would not be able to advance very far due to more powerful and complex spells being beyond their level of intelligence which is why high level wizards are exceedingly rare.
Then paladins as I've stated before are exceptional in many ways as they are a gods chosen champion. Do you honestly think an average joe would have what it takes to uphold the dieties values, high moral standards, and be devout enough to not question them?
Lastly as stated above this is 2nd edition where characters are normal instead of everyone being exceptional with epic levels and super attributes that every average joe has in 3rd and 4th ed.
If your mage example was supposed to do this, then I apologize because if so, then apparently it was above me. Isn't it strange how we humans usually pick careers and hobbies according to our strengths and talents?
Average Joe
Strength: 10
Dexterity: 10
Constitution: 10
Wisdom: 10
Intelligence: 10
Charisma: 10
A Soldier Trained with sword and shield and mail armor
Strength: 11
Dexterity: 11
Constitution: 11
Wisdom: 8
Intelligence: 8
Charisma: 10
Knight in plate armor trained in sword and shield
Strength: 12
Dexterity: 8
Constitution: 12
Wisdom: 10
Intelligence: 10
Charisma: 12
Barbarian wielding a great axe
Strength: 14
Dexterity: 12
Constitution: 13
Wisdom: 8
Intelligence: 8
Charisma: 6
Now we look at these 3 none of them have exceptional stats, but either due to training or by nature of their station 2 of them have above average stats. Average Joe is just that average in every aspect of life he is neither stupid, nor incredibly strong he is not sickly, but neither can he run a 5k marathon.
The soldier having trained in mail armor is stronger than Joe due to training with heavier equipment, but is by no means super strong. He also has slightly higher dexterity than Joe as well due to his training being able to swiftly react with his reflexes due to the flexibility chain mail has. His wisdom is lower as due to his training he follows orders and does not question them. His intelligence is lower because well he was tricked into joining in a drinking competition and was not quick enough in wit to figure it out till it was too late. His charisma is average as he has no battle scars yet and what woman wouldn't love a man in uniform.
Now the Knight has great strength due to his plate armor and training. Dexterity is lower due to the lack of mobility and slower reflexes due to all the training in the plate and even wearing the plate. Constitution is higher due to training in plate allowing for greater distances traveled while not wearing plate, but will still not travel far wearing all that heavy armor. Wisdom is average as he is probably at least partially experienced in battle and understanding what to do. Intelligence is average as well due to most likely growing up he was tutored and taught fundamentals in understanding maps and such. Charisma is above average due to his station of being a knight and the crowds love knights.
The Barbarian has exceptional strength due to their harsh wilderness, and the ease with which he swings his mighty axe. His Dexterity is due to the freedom of movement he has due to wearing no armor along with his skill with an axe. His constitution being above average is due to his stature and the fact he lives in a place most would find inhospitable. Wisdom is below average as he simple charges into battle with little thought. Intelligence is also below average due to his lack of learning and knowledge base. His charisma is exceptionally low due to his stipulation of being a barbarian covered in scars and seemingly inferior to "civilized" peoples.
@LadyRhian Agreed
Although 2e has multiple dice rules the first one is roll 3d6 with the 2nd option being roll 4d6.
Side note rolled a fighter last night and stats gotten were.
Strength: 16
Dexterity: 8
Constitution: 12
Wisdom: 13
Intelligence: 12
Charisma: 17
Talk about exceptional luck of the dice. So paladins can and will be gotten through the restrictions.
Go out onto the street and ask two random guys and I promise you they will differ in most respects.
So you reject the spectrum of normality (denying all we know about humans and dice) and set your guy in (slightly below) average attributes. If this is your idea what a human looks like, then I understand why you might object to some more extreme numbers.
But these differences are a bit miniscule, are they not? Especially since they don't even have any effect. Average Joe is just as good in combat as the trained soldier. Isn't that odd? Seriously, your concept of exceptional or "monster-like" is strange. If 11 is exceptional for you, then 10 is just as exceptional, having exactly the same probability of being rolled - since the average is sitting squarely between those two numbers. That means every single number is exceptional, and the term exceptional loses all meaning.
What exactly are you trying to say?
If you go up to an average military soldier and a thin punk their differences would be minimal in the grand scheme of things yes the military soldier has more training to make his lack of being able to punch a hole in a guys stomach through sheer strength, but due to his training probably can carry 40 lbs of equipment for miles at a time without rest while the thin punk would probably make it 30 yds before he had to rest, but thay weight is not exceptional it would be about a strength rating of 11 so the soldier would be that while the punk would be about 8 or 9.
Now if you can carry 100+ lbs on your back for miles at a time with no rest that would be some exceptional strength because lets face it even soldiers would have major difficulties carrying more than 40 lbs of geae on their
back. Being exceptional is not about the luck of the dice roll, but what a given stat and number means rolling is merely a path to create a character that would be interesting and have the chance you might not have tried somethong before allowing for greater opportunity.
In DnD stat differences are rather huge and do make a difference such as going from 10 to 11 strength will allow you to carry 15 lbs more of gear without using more energy. While not increasing your ability to fight will allow you to fight longer or with more loot on your back. While you aren't superman bending steel bars that is quite strong.
Finally you don't quite understand as you cannot compare exceptional luck on a dice roll and compare it to the stat it is supposed to represent as they are 2 seperate entities, but at the same time they are very similar.
They are the same in the sense that when you are born you roll the dice on what attributes you excel in take Usain Bolt for instance he is exceptionally fast compares to other runners to the point it is unfair to the average runner as no matter how much they train they will not ever beat his exceptional speed.
The difference though is that saying that every dice roll is exceptional is a fallacy you would not consider roll of 3, 4, 4 as exceptional would you? But on the same token a 5, 4, 5 would be amazing to see. So as you can see not all rolls are equal some are better than others and some are so far ahead of the others that you can't beat them.
If you still can't understand the difference of average, above average, and exceptional then there really is no hope for you as you are most likely just trying to troll at this point.
Also if you think 17 or 18 should be normal come back to me after you carry 400+ lbs of stuff several miles for days at a time.
The rules for character creation like most of the rules were meant as a guideline to base things on... and for some reason I had a flash back to Pirates of the Caribbean there......
I think you are referring to what I said to your Average Joe though, in which case I shall explain:
Average value: 10.5
Normal spectrum (for example): 9 - 12
The probability for having your score in this realm is 50%, so it's not a very good window. The probability of having all your attributes in this range is still only ~1.6%. A "normal person" is at this point still more of a freak than a guy who has a strength and/or dexterity score of 17 or better.
In order for the attribute range to describe at least 50% of all people, you actually need to increase the borders to 6-15. 63% of all humans have their attributes between 6 and 15. This is what I personally would describe as "normal" for attributes rolled with 3D6. You should know that back when people were forced to kill people with their own hands, they used to be a little stronger on average than modern soldiers. "Even" pulling back the sinew of a real longbow is not a simple task for a modern man. A roll of 14 is good but not amazing. I don't know where you are going with this though. Maybe you just missed your point? This is a popular technique isn't it? Once you run out of arguments, you simply accuse the other guy of trolling. Or make inane comparisons. Are you saying that if I can't do something, then my RPG characters can't do it either? Would you also insist that I'm not allowed to play a wizard unless I first prove that I'm capable of pulling a rabbit out of a hat?
The rolls being rare or not do not matter at all and why you wish to go into percentages with them is beyond me as it is the total numbers you want to determine the stats the percentage on whether or not you get those high numbers do not matter as it is what the stats represent that matters in determining whether or not your character will be below average, average, above average, or exceptonal at 1, 2, or even all 6 stats.
Older people were not much stronger or more durable than modern people in fact might even be weaker due to size differences, as well the fact that a knight would not walk around in his armor he would only put it on in rare occasions such as for sport or while on a horse and most soldiers in older times were peasants who fought with farm implements and little to no armor or supplies and most wore worn out clothes and boots. So trying to make them out as stronger is silly.
And finally if you want to play a wizard go for it I'm not saying you can't I'm just telling you what the stat points mean, you can be an 11 int wizard, but you won't get very far in your magical studies which is also why highblevel wizards are rare. Also as you get older so your intelligence score would increase by 2 so you could go further later in life as well as finding magical items that further enhance your intelligence allowing you to go even further than that. So being an average person is not a hinderance in the least as most adventurers will stop adventuring between levels 8 and 12 due to age and/or wanting to settle down.
I too would love to be in that group of rabnit hat tricks
@Immamagikman Wasn't trying to lower standards was just trying to get a point across in the differences between stats in the game.
I'm bringing this to private messages to save what is left of the thread.
Also, would you kindly use proper punctuation? People will take you more seriously if you do; your text is a bit difficult to read. Please note that I'm not bashing you.