Required ability scores

Chnapy

I've been rerolling a fair bit lately, and I've been sometimes quite frustrated by the amount of actual rerolling needed in order to create a new character (that's of course just because I like my my charnames insanely powerful).

And as I was doing a cleric/ranger, I realised that characters really weren't equals when it comes down to required ability scores.

Here are some examples :

Human Fighter : 9/3/3/3/3/3
Human Mage : 3/3/3/9/3/3
Human Cleric : 3/3/3/3/9/3
Human Thief : 3/9/3/3/3/3
Those are the most basics builds, and I guess it makes sense that if a character could get any possible roll, it would be one of those. But then :

Human Ranger : 13/13/14/3/14/3
Human Paladin : 12/3/9/3/13/17
Human Bard : 3/12/3/13/3/15
Why would paladins and rangers need more strength than a fighter and also more wisdom than a cleric? Why would both rangers and bards necessitate more dexterity than a rogue? Because on the other side, some classes, like monks, get a more equal treatment :

Human Monk : 3/9/9/3/9/3
Human Sorcerer: 3/3/3/9/3/9
A monk needs as much wisdom as a priest, and as much dexterity as a rogue, because he is both a pious man trained in the ways of some religion or w/e and also a badass martial artist. Yay, why not. He also needs a bit of constitution. Maybe it's bullshit? I don't know, because we don't get a base class for scale for constitution. That's the same for charisma. But, the thing is, he doesn't need more wisdom than a cleric, or more dexterity than a rogue.

Also it only gets worse when you get to the alt races :
Half elf minimals : 3/6/6/4/3/3
Elf minimals : 3/7/6/8/3/8
Gnome minimals : 6/3/8/7/2/3
Halfling minimals : 6/8/10/6/2/3
Dwarf minimals : 8/2/12/3/3/1
Half-Orc minimals : 4/3/4/1/3/3

With the exception of the half-orcs, every races get bonuses to their base stats, bonuses that, might I add, sometimes hardly make sense. Hell, Elves even get a bonus to their base constitution, even though it's supposed to be their weak ability.

And if you want to combine class and races you only keep the higher required stats, of course. An elven ranger has at the very least 13/13/14/8/14/8. Just try to roll a bad elven ranger, it's impossible. I don't even know how Kivan got scores that bad. He hit the bottom in three abilities!

But seriously though, I'm not saying "Ranger is op, nerf him" or anything (well, I do think we should nerf ranger, if only to nerf ranger/cleric). Just, most of those numbers just do not make sense. Where did it come from? Was it really stated in the books that one should need a 14 wisdom in order to become a ranger, and all that? I wouldn't put it past AD&D, but...I kind of hope, you know. That second edition wasn't that dumb.

And anyway, regardless of whether or not it is played by the book, do you think it should be normalised, and if it should, should it be by lowering requisites of the higher-than-norm class, boosting the ones of base classes, or both?

atcDave

I big thing to remember that's different with PnP is that scores are rolled FIRST, then race and class are chosen. So in a PnP game you should never look at a minimum score as any sort of bonus. They are restrictions. So an Elf does not have a constitution bonus, there just aren't normally any sickly elves.
The minimum scores for the base classes are because they aren't terribly selective. Basically, any schlub with an average strength can be a fighter. Anyone who can keep from tripping over their own feet can be a thief. Even Priest and Mage aren't really that hard of a training program, although in PnP I would always assume a character had to come from some sort of money, or impress a sponsor to get any sort of spell caster training.
It doesn't mean these marginal sorts will ever be GOOD at their profession, but they can at least qualify.

The sub-classes are more elite, more restrictive. They can't just be average schlubs, they have to be remarkable in several measures. Even a barely eligible paladin trainee will be above average physically and spiritually, so the minimum scores reflect that.

Infinity Engine kind of turns that all on its head by letting you chose race and class before rolling. In many ways I don't like this, especially for the reasons you mention. It encourages players to look at the cause and effect backwards.
I understand it was an expedient of sorts. The game designers decided it was more important for players to be able chose the race and class they wanted to play, than it was to make them "qualify" for a race or class.

And for the record, it can be a ton of fun to play a character without multiple re-rolls or min maxing. It adds to the challenge to try to make something from a character who isn't naturally gifted.

lunar

Yep, what the above poster said, there are minimum stat requirements for some classes and races. In pnp you roll your stats first and then see if you are eligible for a class. To play a paladin you needed to roll very good or needed dm intervention.

This shows that paladins are really rare and chosen individuals, anyone with above 9 str can become a fighter (%90 of the population) they won't neccesarily be great but they can get by, however only a very small percentage (%0,01?) can ever become paladins because of the high charisma and other requirements.

For races, elves can't have lower than 8 charisma because they are supposed to be beautiful creatures, epitome of beauty and grace. Therefore as gruff or bad tempered they may be they can't have lower than 8 cha, 7 or lower charisma are really repulsive, disgusting and/or disfigured people in some manner. Kivan may be the least favorite person to talk to but he is still a beautiful creature. Ofcourse you could play a disfigured, ugly as sin elf if dm approved, for rp purposes, in pnp.

semiticgoddess

Actually, the number of people with about 9 STR is more like 50%, not 90%. The average roll with a 3d6 is 10.5. Half are below that, half above. But yes, most people would fit the requirements.

I do find it terribly odd that elves have high minimum CON scores. That would mean they're much tougher on average than humans.

Yannir

semiticgod said:

Actually, the number of people with about 9 STR is more like 50%, not 90%. The average roll with a 3d6 is 10.5. Half are below that, half above. But yes, most people would fit the requirements.

I do find it terribly odd that elves have high minimum CON scores. That would mean they're much tougher on average than humans.

CON doesnt necessarily mean stamina, it also means how healthy you are in terms of how often you get the flue. Elves don't get the flue at all, they don't do natural sicknessess, only magical ones. Thus, the higher minimum score.

Myself for example, I'm barely ever sick, while I work with a lot of people in an environment with high amounts of bacteria, and my muscle stamina is excellent. However, I smoke so my lungs can't handle long-term exercise optimally. I would get a 14 or 15 for CON score.

atcDave

semiticgod said:

Actually, the number of people with about 9 STR is more like 50%, not 90%. The average roll with a 3d6 is 10.5. Half are below that, half above. But yes, most people would fit the requirements.

I do find it terribly odd that elves have high minimum CON scores. That would mean they're much tougher on average than humans.

As the previous comment mentioned, it isn't so much that elves are hardy, it's just that they aren't sickly. Someone with a 4 constitution would probably have several chronic health conditions (I have bad allergies and Crohn's Disease, so I probably couldn't be an elf!) and catch a cold every time someone sneezed.
Elves may not be big and tough like someone in a contact sport... Or a Marine... But they are healthy and active.

semiticgoddess

Odd. In 3E, elves have no minimum roll if my memory is correct; they just get a flat -2 penalty to CON.

lunar

semiticgod said:

Odd. In 3E, elves have no minimum roll if my memory is correct; they just get a flat -2 penalty to CON.

Well 3e is a different animal entirely when it comes to character creation, most people use point buy or similiar systems in 3e instead of rolling dice. Hardcore d&d players roll 3d6 for stats and place them in order.

Chnapy

Yeah, I was aware that those weren't bonuses but requirement in tabletop ^^ that's why this thread is named the way it is =p

Its just that, having started dnd with 3e, I'm probably not as accustomed to arbitrary, stupid rules as I should be. At least, not during the character's creation.

Also, I always made my chars with the classic 4d6, so I guess there's still some people who do that?

atcDave

umm, I don't see anything arbitrary or stupid about those rules. I still see 2E as the pinnacle of the franchise.
I'm not looking to start another tiresome debate; but just because a rule surprises you doesn't make it arbitrary. I think it makes perfect sense for what is being represented.

I pretty much always used 4d6 in order the first 20 years or so I played. More recently I've switched to 6d6 in order. I certainly never want a player to be stuck with lousy scores they will hate! But its nice to see some organic randomness and the occasional weaker ability.

Chnapy

Yeah, that was mostly trolling ^^. Honestly, I think we all just like the rules we had fun with. Never played 2e, and damn if I find it stupid. But 3e is probably just as stupid and if you ask me it's the best thing ever made, not counting nutella.

To voice my opinion a bit more, I think what bugs me the most is the fact that a ranger needs so much more wisdom than a cleric. HOW COMES A WOODMAN NEEDS TO BE THAT WISE???? HE MOSTLY SIT AROUND IN FOREST AND KILL THINGS HE REALLY DOESN'T LIKE. HOW'S THAT ANY WISER THAN FINDING GOD AND CONVINCING HIM TO LET YOU USE HIS POWERS TO BE AWESOME IN BATTLE? That's pretty much how I see it.

skinnydragon

1 herbalism
2 survival
3 ability to live with yourself and not go maad.
Also rangers are something of an elite force so their isn't a lesser ranger most 9 to 14 Wis clerics would basically be expected to either act as the priest of a tiny shrine in a village or to support the temple leader in his duties and maybe perform the odd quiet service. Sure they can seek to spread the word of their God through adventure but the church probably wouldn't encourage it and most people would probably expect to find them dead in a ditch by 3rd level

molloy

It's pretty interesting, how arbitrary rules after 20 years of use seem completely natural and sensible.

atcDave

Chnapy said:

To voice my opinion a bit more, I think what bugs me the most is the fact that a ranger needs so much more wisdom than a cleric. HOW COMES A WOODMAN NEEDS TO BE THAT WISE???? HE MOSTLY SIT AROUND IN FOREST AND KILL THINGS HE REALLY DOESN'T LIKE. HOW'S THAT ANY WISER THAN FINDING GOD AND CONVINCING HIM TO LET YOU USE HIS POWERS TO BE AWESOME IN BATTLE? That's pretty much how I see it.

I don't think a Ranger was ever meant to be a simple Woodsman. In fact, I'm pretty sure there was a woodsman kit for the Fighter class at some point that just had basic outdoor survival skills. No special wisdom required.

The Ranger is an elite warrior who protects the fringes of civilization. Maybe more like a US Army Ranger. To paraphrase George Orwell; "Good people sleep well in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf". That's a Ranger. And that wisdom is required to recognize threats and do right.

Anduin

atcDave said:

The Ranger is an elite warrior who protects the fringes of civilization. Maybe more like a US Army Ranger. To paraphrase George Orwell; "Good people sleep well in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf". That's a Ranger. And that wisdom is required to recognize threats and do right.

Sometimes Dave... You scare me. I was going to write something about Algernon... But this is much better.

Until the day all Dave's amalgamate into the Dave's Dave, at the end of Dave's, I'll be glad you will be there to Dave us from evil.

atcDave

Hey I'm just happy to scare you (!)

Yannir

For the record, I think mostly everyone during the period, which FR/D&D is set, has some *basic* outdoor survival skills. Maybe excluding nobles who live pampered and sheltered lives.

JustChip

I have a problem with BG's ability spread for druids. Can't understand why druid priests require a 15 min invest in CHA while a standard cleric priest requires 3. Druids are TN so are about as antisocial as any class can get, relying on nature to establish their spiritual balance and mores.

So where is this charismatic nature supposed to be realized in the BG version of druid implementation?

Druids are cloistered but are very discrete in their individual specializations, studying aspects of nature that vary from member to member and are clandestine within their sect when trying to achieve proficiency in a chosen (or ordained by bloodline) "craft". They are essentially all nomads bonded by their common spirituality in the natural order ( i.e the predominance of the terrestrial environment) which exists outside the jurisdiction of towns or other establishments that do not adhere to their natural boundaries. Druids simply do not coexist philosophically with non-druids. Case closed. Communication and influential skills are non sequiturs. Either you believe what they do or hit the road, amigo.

IMO, CHA 15 prereq for druids in BG is just nonsense.

BTW, Kivan's BW-assigned CON level is illegal since a min of 15 CON is needed for an elven ranger. And the beat goes on...

jackjack

Edit: never mind.

Anduin

@JustChip‌ If I met a bear in the woods, not only would I disturb its toilet break, it would eat me.

Now Druids... They may have some good eating on them as well, but they are so charismatic, the bears would roll over for a belly rub. Charisma is a stat for all interactions. Druids aren't good with city dwellers... But to the local nature respecting woodsman she is the local healer, midwife protector. You gotta love a Druid. The Paladins of the forest.

Jaheiras_Witness

A ranger (any race) only needs 14 CON in 2e...the racial -1 CON for elf is applied before the class is chosen. So that means Kivan technically rolled 15 CON for his ability score, lost 1 point for being an elf, and his 14 CON was still enough to be a Ranger.

JustChip

Anduin said:

@JustChip‌ If I met a bear in the woods, not only would I disturb its toilet break, it would eat me.

Now Druids... They may have some good eating on them as well, but they are so charismatic, the bears would roll over for a belly rub.

It's not persuasiveness that tames them, it's body chemistry, much in the same way dogs sense fear. Druids don't radiate the fear chemistry like an edible (or urban) creature so the bear treats them as they would any other non-threatening entity. Druids just smell so natural, not to mention they could, in an emergency like confronting a rabid animal, shapeshift in case the bear finally comes to its senses while it is hungry.

Jaheiras_Witness said:

A ranger (any race) only needs 14 CON in 2e...the racial -1 CON for elf is applied before the class is chosen. So that means Kivan technically rolled 15 CON for his ability score, lost 1 point for being an elf, and his 14 CON was still enough to be a Ranger.

Yeah. That's what I was thinking at first as well, but it doesn't wash. It's impossible to build an elven ranger Kivan clone in creation because 15 CON is the enforced minimum which sets a HP tally to match. The -1 only applies to the maximum possible CON which is 17 rather than 18.

semiticgoddess

Maybe Kivan was born with 15 CON and then lost a point in the Spellhold dream.

Chnapy

JustChip said:

Yeah. That's what I was thinking at first as well, but it doesn't wash. It's impossible to build an elven ranger Kivan clone in creation.

Mmmmh, no it isn't, or maybe I'm missing something ?

Edit: I'm not even sorry for the cropping.

atcDave

As I understand it, many of the BG1 NPCs were patterned after the design teams' PNP characters. That is undoubtably the source of many quirks and non- standard characters. There are any number of reasons why a DM might allow an exception to written rules, or they might even have their own house rules.
It is one of the absolute strengths of PNP; exceptions, quirks, oddities and house rules. It takes a computer to to allow no exceptions...

Jaheiras_Witness

The -1 does NOT just apply to maximum CON (18--->17), all elves get -1 CON, that's just standard 2nd edition rules. If you roll an elf with CON 10, it becomes 9; if CON 16, it becomes 15, etc.