Exceptional Strength Makes No Sense
JuliusBorisov
Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,760
2
JuliusBorisov
Member, Administrator, Moderator, Developer Posts: 22,760
Comments
- Why isn't there exceptional dexterity or intelligence as well? Why just strenght?
- Why can't you adjust your exceptional strength in character creation when you can adjust everything else?
- If there are really only 5 tiers in exceptional strength, why bother with a number between 1 and 100?
Just another pet peeve of mine.
Because of this, most PnP players adjusted their stats (many DMs allow this) to get 18 strength so WotC decided to invent something new to differentiate most newly created Fighters. That's also why only Warrior classes have exceptional strength.
Adjusting exceptional strength would defeat its very own purpose, that's why you cannot do that. You roll the dices once and accept your fate.
Yes there are only 5 tiers but you need a d100 to represent the probabilities. The same way rolling 18 is harder (1/216) than rolling 17 (4/216) than rolling 16 and so forth, getting the highest Exceptional strength 100 is harder than 91-99 which is harder to roll than 76-90 and so forth.
If you rolled a d5 for the 5 tiers, 20% of players with exceptional strength would get -3 THAC0 +6 Damage instead of 1%, once again defeating the purpose of the system.
I hope it helped
To supplement what @Gotural said, which I totally agree with, here is my take on it.
The way strength the strength table for warriors was explained to me was as an AD&D2e role playing device. Obviously there is no purpose for it in a battle centered game like baldurs gate. But it's not hard to imagine the use for such a table in role-played contests of strength. Whereas things like constitution and dexterity and even intelligence are pretty arbitrary, strength can be defined fairly easily: you are either stronger than someone else at doing something particular or you are not. Warrior types are also more likely to compete in contests of strength than any other class (just look at history).
My first DM had my character arm wrestle an npc for some information. My character had a higher roll in the strength table so he won and we got the info. 3.0 would say, make a strength check to decide who wins... But that is stupid, because that means a person with 10 strength could beat someone with an 18 strength in a contest of pure strength with no luck involved (unlike combat), and it introduces an element of chance into a contest where there is no chance. So then you require some DM arbitration, which is good, but 3.0 (or 3.5 or Pathfinder) was never good at giving freedom to the DM. So then the DM uses his brain instead of the rules and says that the guy with 18 strength wins every time, no check required.
But what if their strength scores are the same? They both have a score of 18? Would that then indicate that, since 10 is average, there are only 8 tiers of strength above average (11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18) before you get to inhuman strength? What if 2 characters compete in a contest of strength with the same strength score? Ok, let's roll a strength check. Tom wins this time but John wins next time. Ok, the DM uses his brain and says the first check is the only check that counts, so Tom wins the same contest every time (given he is not too tired). But, let's introduce a 3rd person, Burt with the same strength score (which is not unlikely at all, because there are only 8 tiers of strength, and warriors with exceptional strength would be more likely to want to compete with each other to find out who is strongest). So we roll strength checks and get the following results: Tom beats John, John beats Burt, and Burt beats Tom. How can Tom be stronger than John but weaker than Burt who is weaker than John? It doesn't make any sense, especially in a contest of strength where no luck or skill is involved.
So that is where the 100 tiers of exceptional strength come in. It is used primarily as a role playing device. And although it only affects battle in 5 tiers, it can be very useful in DM decision making.
Also, Warriors with exceptional strength are always stronger than all other classes, which makes perfect sense.
@Archaos
Good job, kohai. You learn quickly, as evidenced by @Anduin 's response.
I'm so proud! *sniffle
Not trying to argue though, just really glad I saw @BillyYank's explanation. They should add STR bonuses to THAC0 and DMG from a lower number and keep the exceptional score for bashing open locks on chests and doors. Would have made more sense.
Good point. But no one ever accused AD&D 2e of perfectly anticipating all potential role-playing scenarios. For what it is, I think that they did a good job, and the exceptional strength table is, imho, evidence of that. I didn't like that WotC got rid of the exceptional strength table.
Hey! There's another unpopular opinion! I'm on a roll.
The explanation reads
I would even say that @BillyYank 's explanation actually makes no sense, (once again I mean no offense, it's only my opinion and it looks like an unpopular opinion actually) because it means that:
-a 18 Strength character has a 0% chance of performing a feat of strength, exactly like a 12 strength character.
-a 18/90 Str character is 9 times more likely to perform such an act than a 18/10 Str character while it makes no sense because it means that the 18/10 can actually outpower the 18/90 if he succeed on his role while the later fails.
This is illogical because if you arm wrestle with your friend who trains a lot and he beat you twice in a row, you don't expect to beat him during the 3rd contest, he is always going to win.
-a 18/00 character is not going to do more damage than a 18/01 character.
As I said earlier, exceptional strength makes the most sense because Intelligence or Dexterity don't impact too much combat and let's be honest, there is a lot of fighting involved in D&D.
In a fight, a 15 Intelligence Mage will do as well as a 18 one: they will have the same number of spell slots, their spells will have similar effects and there are no additional save penalties.
Because of this, the incentive to minmax your Intelligence as a Mage was low. You could play a 16 Intelligence character and be happy with it.
While on the other hand Strength actually helps a lot during combat, a 18 Str fighter will outperform his 15 Str counterpart which creates an incentive to minmax your Strength as a Fighter.
This situation led every warriors to have 18 Strength and it defeated the whole purpose of these characteristics : to differentiate individuals.
If every warriors has 18 Strength, you can't say "this guy is stronger than this one" and this is exactly why exceptional strength was invented in the first place, to be able to distinguish the strongest Warriors.
That said, exceptional Dexterity and exceptional Constitution were actually introduced later on by Gygax at the same time as the Cavalier if I'm remembering well.
To not derail the thread too much, some unpopular opinions :
-I think 2e was the most balanced edition, simply because of its saving throw system (which doesn't make sense IMO, but works)
-if Minsc was introduced only now in the EE, everybody would lose his mind and there would be thousands of threads complaining about him and Boo.
Wizards actually received benefits for intelligence, starting in the OD&D Greyhawk supplement. Intelligence determined the number of spells you could learn, the chance of learning any given spell, and the highest spell level you could cast. You needed an intelligence of 17 to be able to cast 9th level spells, and an intelligence of 15-16 could only cast 8th. Further, an intelligence of 15-16 limited you to knowing 10 spells per level, whereas 17+ meant you could learn all of the spells for each level. Also, having a high prime requisite meant more XP, although both int 15 and 17 would get +10% earned XP.
Cavaliers didn't introduce exceptional Dexterity and constitution. What they introduced was - for cavaliers specifically - a way to raise ability scores. Each time a cavalier gained a level they'd add 2d10 to the percentage scores of their ability scores, which had no mechanical effect below 18 or at 18 for dexterity and constitution. Only strength received bonuses for percentile numbers. When an ability score hit 100 it would increase the actual ability score by one and drop the percentile to 0.
Bend Bars/Lift Gates was not a linear increase relative to strength's percentile score. For 18/01-18/50, the chance was (in AD&D 1e) 20%, for 51-75 it was 25%, for 76-90 it was 30%, for 91-99 it was 35%, and for 100 it was 40%. OD&D only has open door chance on the strength table although I can't swear to bend bars/lift gates not making an appearance at all (beyond the brief bit in the text I quoted in my previous post), it just doesn't make an appearance on the strength table.
The higher percentage to learn the spell was a nice perk but it was not very significant and once you managed to learn the spell, it made no difference.
Finally, D&D2e was not really designed for higher level gameplay, especially with the quadratic experience progression, and adventurers above 9th level were extremely rare. Being limited to 8th level spells with an intelligence of 15-16 was not a problem in reality.
Later on (from 3e I think) Intelligence increased the number of spell slots available and the difficulty check of your spells which is actually a huge bonus during combat.
I stand corrected for the Cavalier part, thank you. Does that mean the Cavalier was able to go further than 18, reaching ability scores of 19 and more?
I also agree with the Bend Bars/Lift Gates part, and this is nearly exactly how it was implemented in Baldur's Gate. Maybe I misunderstood what @BillyYank said, but I thought he was speaking about a linear increase.
And while in my opinion this doesn't make sense, I know a lot of older players on the internet or in my association who played this way, similar to other systems like Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer and so forth where you roll a percentile dice for your actions and succeed on a result lower than your ability score.
PS:
@bengoshi maybe we could split this discussion into another thread?
Intelligence also defined the minimum number of spells you could potentially learn per level. And you couldn't just keep rerolling over and over Baldur's Gate style. The system in the 1e PHB describes So you could easily be unable to learn certain spells you might consider pretty vital to your character, and the lower your intelligence, the greater chance you could miss out on important spells.
Also, the D&D1e Intelligence table is nerfed from the OD&D table. Fewer maximum spells, lower spell level limits (15 would be 7th level, for example) and lower chance to learn a spell.
Cavaliers could go up to 18/00 in their ability scores, which for dex and con meant 18.
It was never meant for people other than warriors to be any good in combat, and only the most extreme character abilities actually did anything in game.
I have, quite recently, played a 2nd edition Ravenloft game, and the greatest horror was the edition we played it in. I also rolled the mythical 18/00 fighter mage, which pretty much made the rest that played a fighter redundant, and combats that were supposed to be scary a breeze.
If you do the odds, actually getting a roll of 18/00 is essentially impossible. I have never rolled a natural 18/00 in baldurs gate, and I roll until my eyes bleed...I haven't even got an 18/00 by adjusting my scores. The only way I have ever gotten it is by cheating ctrl+8.
When you look at it in the light of organic character attributes (every character sticks with their 6 rolls, no adjusting points, only score swapping, and which is how I often played), exceptional strength becomes special. Not only is your character stronger than other warriors (15-17 strength) but he is exceptionally stronger than other exceptionally strong warriors.
The flavor it added was incredibly useful in role playing and in valuing your character. It also helped define limits of strength before godlike or Herculean strength. I always imagined that Herculeas must have had a 19 or maybe even a 20 strength...making him capable of doing the most unbelievable feats of strength that no normal human could do.
Strength higher than 20 could only accurately be measured to exceptional creatures like dragons, demons, Angels, and other powerful beings.
Only gods devoted to strength would have a strength of 25. Such strength would be unimaginable. You would be able to move whole planets and universes simply with a brush of your eyelashes.
That your character in baldurs gate can achieve a strength of 25 at all, even by use of a certain powerful magic item, while cool, is not at all in keeping with how strength is measured in AD&D 2e. AD&D 2e is about imagination...not combat stats (glares at 3.5). T
aken in that light, the exceptional strength table is perfectly rational.
lol. The mind boggles.
18/30 charisma - not that hot. Or something.
*Edit: using 4d6 drop 1.
Edit 2: Less than 2 minutes.
Now obviously, that's not 2e rules, so here:
In 2e, player characters could achieve up to strength 24 with a girdle of storm giant strength, and it was possible to add even more bonuses with gauntlets of ogre power. The girdle would give you +6 to hit, +12 damage, and a weight allowance of 1,235 lbs.
Strength 25 goes up to +7 to hit, +14 damage, 1,535 lb weight allowance, 19 out of 20 for opening doors and 99% chance to bend bars and lift gates. Still not in the category of moving planets or entire universes.
As far as 2e being concerned with combat stats, it very much is. Character classes are largely defined by what they can do in combat, most spells are defined by how they can be used in combat, and monster descriptions are all about what happens when the monster is in combat. That isn't to say it is entirely about combat, but it is a fairly important part of the system, esp as it is the primary means of garnering experience and treasure. If you were playing 2e you were certainly concerned about your combat stats being sufficient in most situations.
I'm surprised that you're not actually criticizing the fact that half orcs can get a 19 strength in Baldur's Gate when in the 2e rules half-orcs are limited to 18 strength (which doesn't bar them from exceptional strength so the practical limit is 18/00), thus preventing them from ever reaching 19 by the book.
Edit to add: I'm not trying to say the rule doesn't exist. I would simply like to find it.
It doesn't say anything about limiting ability scores to 18 despite wishes and tomes.
I constantly have to remind myself that Gygax and Arneson came first, that they created the whole idea of an RPG. Because frankly, a lot of their specific game design decisions were terrible.
Edit: Also, the 1e DMG has alternative ways to roll ability scores - roll 4d6 six times and keep the three highest from each, roll 3d6 12 times and keep the six highest, scores are rolled for each ability six times and the highest is kept, and roll six ability scores 12 times and pick one set of scores.
The white box rules didn't have any alternative means of generating ability scores, though.
Our DM was also fond of the mantra: If the Dungeon Mater's Guide were intended for all players, it would have been called the Players' Handbook... He was actually a pretty great DM, so we were generally happy to let him run all our games, no-one else needed a copy
[The essential skills for a great DM have very little to do with rules-lawyering anyway]