@BillyYank That's cool, I've never seen it. 1:6000 is pretty bad odds, though. I would call that essentially impossible. I have definitely rolled significantly more than 6000 times and have never seen it. You are one lucky man. Ever been to Las Vegas? You might come back rich enough to purchase Beamdog.
@BelleSorciere Whereas you are correct in your calculations and your references, I'm afraid I must strongly disagree that AD&D2e was very concerned about combat. There are only 2 out of 6 guidelines how strength affects combat: to-hit and damage, and only until strength score 16, indicating that most player's strength score wouldn't even affect combat. The other four were directly tied to adventuring and role-playing, and each point had a direct effect on those capabilities: Weight Allowance, Maximum Press, Open Doors, Bend Bars (and actually probably a 5th)/Lift Gates.
That AD&D2e frequently made self-contradicting statements in regards directly to combat between different books (sometimes within the same book), especially concerning THAC0 and armor class calculations, indicates that they were not overly concerned by it. I always got the feeling from AD&D (2e especially) that all power to interpret all "rules", as you call them (I call them "guidelines"), rested ultimately with the DM. I never got that feeling from playing 3.5, or even Pathfinder: those rules were specifically rules, not to be broken, not open to interpretation, all in the name of balance (freaking stupid druids). AD&D was more about conveying concepts and imagination, first and foremost; combat was always secondary, or perhaps not even in the picture at all, depending on the play-session.
Reading through the Player's Handbook, I feel that I am constantly bombarded with ideas for roleplaying, and that rules are up for interpretation by the DM. Some people found the monster manual to be frustrating because monsters were just short blurbs and had such inadequate (and often contradictory) information regarding the monsters. I realize it was may have been intentionally written like that in order to provide as much freedom to the DM as possible (and to save on paper costs ).
Time for some quotes of my own.
From he Player's Handbook:
[spoiler]
A genius character is brilliant (Int 17 or 18). A character beyond genius is potentially more clever and more brilliant than can possibly be imagined. However, the true capabilities of a mind lie not in numbers--I.Q., Intelligence score, or whatever. Many intelligent, even brilliant, people in the real world fail to apply their minds creatively and usefully, thus falling far below their own potential. Don't rely too heavily on your character's Intelligence score; you must provide your character with the creativity and energy he supposedly possesses!
[/spoiler]
Another very insightful quote:
[spoiler]
What the Numbers Mean Now that you have finished creating the ability scores for your character, stop and take a look at them. What does all this mean? Suppose you decide to name your character "Rath" and you rolled the following ability scores for him: Strength 8 Dexterity 14 Constitution 13 Intelligence 13 Wisdom 7 Charisma 6 Rath has strengths and weaknesses, but it is up to you to interpret what the numbers mean. Here are just two different ways these numbers could be interpreted. 1) Although Rath is in good health (Con 13), he's not very strong (Str 8) because he's just plain lazy--he never wanted to exercise as a youth and now it's too late. His low Wisdom and Charisma scores (7, 6) show that he lacks the common sense to apply himself properly and projects a slothful, "I'm not going to bother" attitude (which tends to irritate others). Fortunately, Rath's natural wit (Int 13) and Dexterity (14) keep him from being a total loss. Thus, you might play Rath as an irritating, smart-alecky twerp forever ducking just out of range of those who want to squash him. 2) Rath has several good points--he has studied hard (Int 13) and practiced his manual skills (Dex 14). Unfortunately, his Strength is low (8) from a lack of exercise (all those hours spent reading books). Despite that, Rath's health is still good (Con 13). His low Wisdom and Charisma (7, 6) are a result of his lack of contact and involvement with people outside the realm of academics. Looking at the scores this way, you could play Rath as a kindly, naive, and shy professorial type who's a good tinkerer, always fiddling with new ideas and inventions. Obviously, Rath's ability scores (often called "stats") are not the greatest in the world. Yet it is possible to turn these "disappointing" stats into a character who is both interesting and fun to play. Too often players become obsessed with "good" stats. These players immediately give up on a character if he doesn't have a majority of above-average scores. There are even those who feel a character is hopeless if he does not have at least one ability of 17 or higher! Needless to say, these players would never consider playing a character with an ability score of 6 or 7. In truth, Rath's survivability has a lot less to do with his ability scores than with your desire to role-play him. If you give up on him, of course he won't survive! But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun, challenging, and all-around exciting time. Does he have a Charisma of 5? Why? Maybe he's got an ugly scar. His table manners could be atrocious. He might mean well but always manage to say the wrong thing at the wrong time. He could be bluntly honest to the point of rudeness, something not likely to endear him to most people. His Dexterity is a 3? Why? Is he naturally clumsy or blind as a bat? Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him.
[/spoiler]
And one of my favorite quotes from the Player's Handbook:
[spoiler]
First, alignment is an aid to role-playing and should be used that way. Don't choose an alignment that will be hard to role play or that won't be fun. A player who chooses an unappealing alignment probably will wind up playing a different alignment anyway. In that case, he might as well have chosen the second alignment to begin with. A player who thinks that lawful good characters are boring goody-two-shoes who don't get to have any fun should play a chaotic good character instead. On the other hand, a player who thinks that properly role-playing a heroic, lawful good fighter would be an interesting challenge is encouraged to try it. No one should be afraid to stretch his imagination. Remember, selecting an alignment is a way of saying, "My character is going to act like a person who believes this." Second, the game revolves around cooperation among everyone in the group. The character who tries to go it alone or gets everyone angry at him is likely to have a short career. Always consider the alignments of other characters in the group. Certain combinations, particularly lawful good and any sort of evil, are explosive. Sooner or later the group will find itself spending more time arguing than adventuring. Some of this is unavoidable (and occasionally amusing), but too much is ultimately destructive. As the players argue, they get angry. As they get angry, their characters begin fighting among themselves. As the characters fight, the players continue to get more angry. Once anger and hostility take over a game, no one has fun. And what's the point of playing a game if the players don't have fun?
[/spoiler]
I have never read guidelines like these in any D&D roleplaying game released since (haven't played 5e, yet). In fact, reading through 3.5 and 4e is like reading a textbook or a dictionary. Reading through the AD&D2e player's handbook is chock full of advice on how to role-play, or scenarios of role-playing possibilities, or ideas on how to spark your imagination in creating your character concept. Playing characters with low scores was advisable and even encouraged. Such concepts as playing low-stat characters are lost in the conglomerate mass of paper-pushing, bureaucratic, rule-book researching, min-maxing powergamers of today's pen and paper roleplaying. Even I want to max out my character in Baldur's Gate (remember, I roll until my eyes bleed), because the game is so much more affected by combat than roleplaying (understandably: creating a perfectly reactive world is nearly impossible without a person behind the DM screen) and I want to succeed. Success is more easily achievable when your character's attributes are higher in such games, like 3.5 and Baldur's Gate.
Success in AD&D 2e (and 1e) was more about how much fun you had in role-playing your conceptualized character, in combat or out.
That's why I loved exceptional strength. It potentially increased conceptualization of characters.
(BTW, I'm not intending to be argumentative: I truly like talking about things like this, because I don't live around any pnp gamers anymor )
Strength adds to-hit and damage, dexterity adds to AC, constitution adds to hit points. Strength adds encumbrance so you can carry the loot you get from killing monsters. Strength gives you the ability to force doors, bend bars, and open gates to either get at more treasure (and more monsters) or possibly to get away from them.
Every class has a THAC0, every class has saving throws. Every class has abilities focused on combat, and the majority of rules in AD&D2e, like OD&D, AD&D1e, B/X, BECMI/RC and D&D3e, 3.5e, Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e, focus on combat. There is no golden age during which (A)D&D didn't care or cared less about combat. I've played most editions of (A)D&D and I honestly don't see the shift in focus.
Obviously roleplay is an important part of the game, but I never disputed that. It's just as important in later editions as it was in earlier editions. 3.5e is no less focused on RP than 2e. Either that or I played it wrong, DMed it wrong, and wrote for it wrong.
Edit: Sorry if the above comes across as confrontational, I didn't want to be but arguing on the interwebs. I do appreciate the conversation.
I never disputed that combat isn't affected by attributes, or class selection, or even race selection. That wasn't my point.
My point was that AD&D conveys that roleplaying is significantly more important than combat; it places a much greater focus, even a primary focus, on role-playing than it does on combat in almost all instances, especially in compared to the other editions. In fact, I feel that later editions focus only on combat at the expense of role-playing.
And that was my point in regards to exceptional strength. It may affect combat, yes, of course, anyone can see that, I do not dispute it because it is completely obvious; but its greater value is as a role-playing device, over and before combat. This can be argued of all the stats, as only half of them really even affect combat to any real extent; the value of all the stats lies not in combat, but as a role-playing interpretation tool. Thus, strength's exceptional strength table is more valuable as a role-playing interpretation tool than it ever could be in combat.
Continuing in spoilers:
No, there is no golden age, you are correct. AD&D had many glaring flaws, most of which were unforgivable, especially in regards to guidelines continuity. The 3.5 and 4e player's handbooks both have an incredibly different focus from AD&D2e player's handbook, I'm surprised you don't notice it. I'm sure you didn't "play it wrong," but were just positively influenced by previous D&D editions; that's good! I have played with many gamers in the past who have no exposure to AD&D, and it is a very stark contrast...almost like playing a video game on paper, which sucks without a computer to do the actual calculations! My suggestions to these players that the DM make a judgement call so we could take our noses out of the books and keep the game moving were not only surprising and unheard of, but welcome reliefs to these players.
But where 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e player's handbook all improved on rules communication, they failed to deliver imaginative resonance and thought provoking scenarios of adventure and role-playing (unless you count secondary subsequent releases of supplemental material, which I don't...I don't have that kind of pocket book).
I had briefly participated in play-testing for 5e (just emails and research and such), and was surprised to find that many of the playtesters were frustrated at the way D&D had turned into lawyer battles recently, even before 4e (I thought I was alone in that). Thankfully, WotSC seemed to take that feedback and do something with it. I haven't any exposure to 5e other than research, but the books are much more focused on imagination and creativity than columns and columns of rules and numbers and mounds of complicated texts.
(Also not confrontational: my mashedtaters are happy to nerd-talk)
I am unclear as to how carrying more stuff, bending bars, or breaking doors open is more of a roleplaying tool than having bonuses to hit and damage. They're certainly useful but I don't get it.
I picked up the Pathfinder humble bundle a couple of months ago and just started actually reading the books and I am finding a lot of material that inspires more than just tactical combat scenarios. I find the 5e books do similar, although there's a different balance.
I like exceptional strength as it helps differentiate warriors, this warrior is super strong (18/45) but this one is stronger still (18/88) while Conan can still overpower them and beat them at arm-wrestling or tugging. (18/00)
...which makes perfect sense, as long as you don't let some random cleric or thief skip ALL those scores by reading a book, or being a half-orc.
EDIT - @mashedtaters makes excellent points. What many people loved about 2E had nothing to do with how good a game system it was. The rule books almost didn't care about that. Instead they focused more on engaging and provoking the reader's imagination.
3E seemed to be the beginning of the descent into the "numbers are everything" mindset.
That descent seemed to have culminated in 4th, and is pretty much gone in 5th.
Exceptional strength seems to be an inherent unbalancing tool. I can understand you wanting to have warriors being stronger than mages (though I myself don't subscribe to that view), but why the convoluted percentile die where the combat bonus triple, and not just a "Warriors get +1 to attack, +2 damage +25%bend bars/open gate and +50pounds carrying capacity"? This will make it so not only the rare str 18 warrior gets the bonus you envision, but every single one of them. Exceptional strength seems to exist only to punish any warrior that did not roll an 18, or decided it would be more interesting to spend that roll somewhere else.
In a way, it is a "numbers are everything" device, but with random numbers defining the whole carreer of a character.
Of all the flaws of 2nd edition, the exceptional strength die is the most polarising and unbalancing one.
I agree that if exceptionnal strength was a balancing tool for the warriors, it should have been ideally part of the warrior classes instead of part of the strength bonus table, where it creates this huge gap between 18 and 19 which would be fine (well, fineish), if there weren't ways to go from 18 to 19.
OK, I'll take another attempt to throw some perspective on this, from the era of 1st Edition AD&D. When the game is first conceived and played, there are no 19+ stats - they don't exist as the Deities and Demigods rulebook has not yet been conceived. We do have a game world where players want to play heroic fighters of Conan-like proportion, distinguished in their feats of physicality from the magic users and skillful rogues of the world. Rather than simply invent a combat mechanic (already built into the class), we actually want to reflect the outright physical abilities of that physically oriented class. Having strength ranks beyond 18 for fighters appeals, as a way to describe that heroic archetype.
In the long run it fails, for many of the reasons raised above, not least that it applies only for the fighter that rolls a truly exceptional 18 strength - in the original rules on 3d6, no re-assigning stats!
It breaks significantly when we introduce diving stats that, other than strength, are mostly incremental gains on the mortal range - and further allow a non-fighter 18 to jump easily to a divine 19 without exercising the intervening range. Most PnP DMs knew how to house-rule around this, but the BG series is at a pretty extreme end of the power curve, and these issues jump out even more.
At first blush I decided that 18 was the maximum for a human, but then to make fighters more viable, and because the concpt of degrees of strength in the 18 cap followed logically, I used the percentile measurement. As for strength over 18, any such ability is superhuman and must be magically endowed in my view. The 18/% did give the fighter a real boost
To the best of my recollection, I have never suggested percentile breakdown for stats other than strength.
Exceptional Strength as an expression of "the concept of degrees of strength in the 18 cap" almost certainly does NOT follow "logically". What I believe Gary Gygax was groping for was a playing field universe/matrix in which something about physical prowess and Arcane Magic were very incompatible ~ while physical prowess and Divine Magic were somewhat incompatible. It seems to me that a multiclass F/M should never have had access to 18 strength and F/Clerics/Druids should not have been able to access the exceptional strength aspect of Fighters. Sorcerors however might be a third case in which 18 strength is possible but Constitution is gimped. Whatever!! That any RPG systems are even close to satisfying is a continually amazing and awesome human achievement!!!
Unfortunately, because most DMs (including baldurs gate) allowed their players to adjust their scores after they rolled, exceptional strength lost its rarity. Every warrior seemed to have exceptional strength of some sort. 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.
I have rolled an 18/00 in real life. It's a shame the campaign and thus character got canned before it even started...
Unfortunately, because most DMs (including baldurs gate) allowed their players to adjust their scores after they rolled, exceptional strength lost its rarity. Every warrior seemed to have exceptional strength of some sort. 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.
I have rolled an 18/00 in real life. It's a shame the campaign and thus character got canned before it even started...
I have also rolled one. It was devestating for the adventure we played, as well as party balance
OK, I'll take another attempt to throw some perspective on this, from the era of 1st Edition AD&D. When the game is first conceived and played, there are no 19+ stats - they don't exist as the Deities and Demigods rulebook has not yet been conceived. We do have a game world where players want to play heroic fighters of Conan-like proportion, distinguished in their feats of physicality from the magic users and skillful rogues of the world. Rather than simply invent a combat mechanic (already built into the class), we actually want to reflect the outright physical abilities of that physically oriented class. Having strength ranks beyond 18 for fighters appeals, as a way to describe that heroic archetype.
In the long run it fails, for many of the reasons raised above, not least that it applies only for the fighter that rolls a truly exceptional 18 strength - in the original rules on 3d6, no re-assigning stats!
It breaks significantly when we introduce diving stats that, other than strength, are mostly incremental gains on the mortal range - and further allow a non-fighter 18 to jump easily to a divine 19 without exercising the intervening range. Most PnP DMs knew how to house-rule around this, but the BG series is at a pretty extreme end of the power curve, and these issues jump out even more.
For some additional information: Deities & Demigods is a first edition supplement, so at some point during 1e, 19-25 scores for intelligence, wisdom, constitution, dexterity, and charisma were available. Gods, Demigods & Heroes from OD&D didn't have complete stats for deities and so didn't have a need for 19+ ability scores.
19-24 scores for strength were included in the 1e DMG as part of the entry for the girdle of giant strength.
AD&D had alternate rolling methods for ability scores from the start. OD&D and B/X/Becmi/RC used the the roll 3d6 six times method without alternatives.
In OD&D exceptional strength was added in a supplement (Greyhawk) and wasn't present at all in the three booklet set. I think it arrived before clerics and thieves did as playable classes, however.
this thread makes me imagine a tavern argument between fighters from four different beginning adventuring parties, all of them trying feats of strength to prove who is marginally stronger since they're all only differentiated from each other by a dozen or so percentile points on an 18, and a high level half-orc fighter with 20+ strength walks in and just pretzels all the fighters around each other and leaves
Re: emphasis on roleplay. I'm reading a Pathfinder adventure path right now (Wrath of the Righteous) and the majority of encounters emphasize roleplaying and rewards for roleplay over combat. There are some encounters that are strictly combat, but overall I don't see the strict emphasis on combat.
Re: emphasis on roleplay. I'm reading a Pathfinder adventure path right now (Wrath of the Righteous) and the majority of encounters emphasize roleplaying and rewards for roleplay over combat. There are some encounters that are strictly combat, but overall I don't see the strict emphasis on combat.
I'd argue Paizo's nerf to the Diplomacy skill from 3.5 is in large part because so many of their Adventure Paths (and Modules for that matter) have ways to get XP as per defeating something in an encounter if you can manage to RP your way past it. They want that to be RP'd, not Diplomanced out of the way (that said, there are ways to make a PF Diplomancer if you dip your toe into a few other books).
That's interesting given that several of the RP encounters appear to require diplomacy rolls to get the XP. Hmph. Then again, roleplaying it out should give circumstance bonuses to ensuing diplomacy checks.
That's interesting given that several of the RP encounters appear to require diplomacy rolls to get the XP. Hmph.
I'd argue a Diplomacy check is always a replacement for something RP'd well enough that the DM nods their assent (i.e. the player who isn't charismatic or witty in real life who is playing a character that is), but technically you are right that at least one character with a max'd Diplomacy skill is a needed mechanic for RP solutions to encounters with Rules As Written obsessed DMs.
That's interesting given that several of the RP encounters appear to require diplomacy rolls to get the XP. Hmph.
I'd argue a Diplomacy check is always a replacement for something RP'd well enough that the DM nods their assent (i.e. the player who isn't charismatic or witty in real life who is playing a character that is), but technically you are right that at least one character with a max'd Diplomacy skill is a needed mechanic for RP solutions to encounters with Rules As Written obsessed DMs.
That's a fair argument. Like I wouldn't force players to roll diplomacy in those encounters even though they seem to imply diplomacy is needed. Even so there are a lot of notes about how PC behavior changes things, how NPC behavior that goes unchecked changes things, etc.
That's interesting given that several of the RP encounters appear to require diplomacy rolls to get the XP. Hmph.
I'd argue a Diplomacy check is always a replacement for something RP'd well enough that the DM nods their assent (i.e. the player who isn't charismatic or witty in real life who is playing a character that is), but technically you are right that at least one character with a max'd Diplomacy skill is a needed mechanic for RP solutions to encounters with Rules As Written obsessed DMs.
That's a fair argument. Like I wouldn't force players to roll diplomacy in those encounters even though they seem to imply diplomacy is needed. Even so there are a lot of notes about how PC behavior changes things, how NPC behavior that goes unchecked changes things, etc.
Also, I edited my post a little.
Yeah, I'm thinking especially about the Kingmaker adventure path where certain NPCs can be made helpful and then put into administrative positions in the kingdom the PCs found, and they could die in previous adventures in the path, or the PCs could tick them off, and it would be a different story (to say nothing of PCs putting NPCs in positions they don't want when a little RP could help them figure out who is suited for what), but Paizo is good about doing that with a lot of things, including if you find out certain tidbits of information you can bring them up and basically immediately change someone's attitude towards you, stuff like that.
Exceptional STR is the stat that made the warrior class a warrior. I would imagine Conan like strength in characters because they would train their entire lives in the warrior arts; imagine practicing sword moves and other skills needed to actually wield a sword enough to punch through a suit of armor.
Yes, exception STR is a bit arbitrary with percentages that don't make a lot of sense especially in terms of scaling - a huge gap between percentages -- 18/01 to 18/50 (all had the same bonuses) while 18/51 to 18/75 had an increase, to 18/76 to 18/99 had another and finally 18/00 (max str for a human) - personally I would have liked it if the stats would have been spread out more evenly. I remember rolling 18/10 str and then another 18/50 str (wow I was happy a 40% increase) only to find out that they both had the same bonuses - "grrrr... but... I got a 40% increase why no extra bonuses ...sigh...."
What was odd about STR was not all warrior type classes could benefit from this - such as the monk - who is obviously a sub-class of a warrior; although a DM in pnp might make an exception for this.
Overall each stat that reached 18 - the pinnacle stat that a human could reach had bonuses attached to it even if it was less obvious - exceptional str is pretty obvious - you see it on your stat sheet - it has numbers and bonuses that you readily use in combat while the other stats are passive stats that are not immediately obvious after character creation. Perhaps other stats could have had a % attached to it as well like dex (imagine 18/xx - would give you a chance to better evade a fireball or an arrow and take less damage) or 18/xx cha would allow a PC to con/persuade an enemy that much easier; while int or wis with % would allow more an extra spell (or cantrip or some kind of special skill) or something or maybe a bonus to saves against certain mind spells.
As a role-player in pnp, getting 18 was great (also hard to do - I remember having to roll 6d6 for the primary stat only for each character class (STR for a warrior; INT for mage etc) and then rolling percentile if I got 18 in STR; getting 18 str made surviving a little easier during combat (did more damage) but it was not really a requirement to have - role-playing made it possible to enjoy the adventure and play it in such a way that was quirky and fun -- imagine a mage who was near sighted (low dex or for those that read Dragonlance someone like Raistlin - who was a great mage but had a chronic cough which sent him into fits all from learning the arcane arts) or a warrior with low con (maybe a chronic cough or a limp from an old injury); or a low cha (scarred or just a rude bugger or hated showering). As another poster said, having low stats just made it that much more enjoyable to role-play as you designed your PC and their personality not all adventurers can be Gandalf or Conan even if we wanted to be that eventually but my thief I remember was better than Bilbo even without the magic ring - never did find an invisible magic ring when I played ad&d that was not horribly cursed in someway.
For me at least the stats in AD&D while a bit arbitrary at times made sense (even if AC made little sense - why go down and not up or saving throws); while the 3.X edition of stats increases made somewhat less sense - can you actually be smarter, stronger, wiser, healthier especially as an adult character when you level up? (not to mention having high dex was better than wearing full armor in terms of AC was just odd - more arbitrary rules that were strange - each game has its own oddities.) It seemed that 3.x edition catered to the video game crowd that wanted to have stat increases, special feats, and customized characters with all the multi-classing possibility available. For me at least playing 3.x is quite different from playing 2.0 - an entire new rpg game system that only superficially resembled ad&d with its own unique game and rules and proved enjoyable in its own way.
Re: emphasis on roleplay. I'm reading a Pathfinder adventure path right now (Wrath of the Righteous) and the majority of encounters emphasize roleplaying and rewards for roleplay over combat. There are some encounters that are strictly combat, but overall I don't see the strict emphasis on combat.
@BelleSorciere To be clear, I was talking specifically about the core rule books (and specifically the players handbook), which should/would be any new player's introduction to the game. I haven't read any of the supplemental adventure books...although supplemental rule books for 3.5 and pathfinder are also seemingly mostly about numbers.
I would imagine that any adventure path should have more emphasis on the story seeing as it is a book dedicated to a story specifically.
For Pathfinder there are both setting and rulebooks. While I do think the rulebooks do point toward roleplay (esp. in the race and class bits) the setting materials emphasize it pretty strongly.
I just think it's interesting that a game perceived as marginalizing roleplay (which I don't agree with but set that aside) puts so much emphasis on it in its supplemental materials.
Strength adds to-hit and damage, dexterity adds to AC, constitution adds to hit points. Strength adds encumbrance so you can carry the loot you get from killing monsters. Strength gives you the ability to force doors, bend bars, and open gates to either get at more treasure (and more monsters) or possibly to get away from them.
Every class has a THAC0, every class has saving throws. Every class has abilities focused on combat, and the majority of rules in AD&D2e, like OD&D, AD&D1e, B/X, BECMI/RC and D&D3e, 3.5e, Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e, focus on combat. There is no golden age during which (A)D&D didn't care or cared less about combat. I've played most editions of (A)D&D and I honestly don't see the shift in focus.
Obviously roleplay is an important part of the game, but I never disputed that. It's just as important in later editions as it was in earlier editions. 3.5e is no less focused on RP than 2e. Either that or I played it wrong, DMed it wrong, and wrote for it wrong.
Edit: Sorry if the above comes across as confrontational, I didn't want to be but arguing on the interwebs. I do appreciate the conversation.
I agree.
Second edition is usually said to be more "rpg friendly" simply and plainly because their rules had far more holes which had to be filled by the DM as he/she liked/found appropiate. But that is not roleplaying.
2nd edition was as centered around combat as 3/3.5 (the only thing where 2nd edition cant be considered as combat oriented as 3rd one was in the spells department. 2nd edition had a few more non combat oriented spells than 3rd edition). It is simply that the 2nd edition rules, with all their holes, allowed you to use your imagination more. Allowed you to improvise things more.
Roleplaying depends on you, the other players and the DM, not on anything else.
Comments
That's cool, I've never seen it. 1:6000 is pretty bad odds, though. I would call that essentially impossible. I have definitely rolled significantly more than 6000 times and have never seen it. You are one lucky man. Ever been to Las Vegas? You might come back rich enough to purchase Beamdog.
@BelleSorciere
Whereas you are correct in your calculations and your references, I'm afraid I must strongly disagree that AD&D2e was very concerned about combat. There are only 2 out of 6 guidelines how strength affects combat: to-hit and damage, and only until strength score 16, indicating that most player's strength score wouldn't even affect combat. The other four were directly tied to adventuring and role-playing, and each point had a direct effect on those capabilities: Weight Allowance, Maximum Press, Open Doors, Bend Bars (and actually probably a 5th)/Lift Gates.
That AD&D2e frequently made self-contradicting statements in regards directly to combat between different books (sometimes within the same book), especially concerning THAC0 and armor class calculations, indicates that they were not overly concerned by it. I always got the feeling from AD&D (2e especially) that all power to interpret all "rules", as you call them (I call them "guidelines"), rested ultimately with the DM. I never got that feeling from playing 3.5, or even Pathfinder: those rules were specifically rules, not to be broken, not open to interpretation, all in the name of balance (freaking stupid druids). AD&D was more about conveying concepts and imagination, first and foremost; combat was always secondary, or perhaps not even in the picture at all, depending on the play-session.
Reading through the Player's Handbook, I feel that I am constantly bombarded with ideas for roleplaying, and that rules are up for interpretation by the DM. Some people found the monster manual to be frustrating because monsters were just short blurbs and had such inadequate (and often contradictory) information regarding the monsters. I realize it was may have been intentionally written like that in order to provide as much freedom to the DM as possible (and to save on paper costs
Time for some quotes of my own.
From he Player's Handbook:
[spoiler] [/spoiler]
Another very insightful quote:
[spoiler] [/spoiler]
And one of my favorite quotes from the Player's Handbook:
[spoiler] [/spoiler]
I have never read guidelines like these in any D&D roleplaying game released since (haven't played 5e, yet). In fact, reading through 3.5 and 4e is like reading a textbook or a dictionary. Reading through the AD&D2e player's handbook is chock full of advice on how to role-play, or scenarios of role-playing possibilities, or ideas on how to spark your imagination in creating your character concept. Playing characters with low scores was advisable and even encouraged. Such concepts as playing low-stat characters are lost in the conglomerate mass of paper-pushing, bureaucratic, rule-book researching, min-maxing powergamers of today's pen and paper roleplaying. Even I want to max out my character in Baldur's Gate (remember, I roll until my eyes bleed), because the game is so much more affected by combat than roleplaying (understandably: creating a perfectly reactive world is nearly impossible without a person behind the DM screen) and I want to succeed. Success is more easily achievable when your character's attributes are higher in such games, like 3.5 and Baldur's Gate.
Success in AD&D 2e (and 1e) was more about how much fun you had in role-playing your conceptualized character, in combat or out.
That's why I loved exceptional strength. It potentially increased conceptualization of characters.
(BTW, I'm not intending to be argumentative: I truly like talking about things like this, because I don't live around any pnp gamers anymor
Every class has a THAC0, every class has saving throws. Every class has abilities focused on combat, and the majority of rules in AD&D2e, like OD&D, AD&D1e, B/X, BECMI/RC and D&D3e, 3.5e, Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e, focus on combat. There is no golden age during which (A)D&D didn't care or cared less about combat. I've played most editions of (A)D&D and I honestly don't see the shift in focus.
Obviously roleplay is an important part of the game, but I never disputed that. It's just as important in later editions as it was in earlier editions. 3.5e is no less focused on RP than 2e. Either that or I played it wrong, DMed it wrong, and wrote for it wrong.
Edit: Sorry if the above comes across as confrontational, I didn't want to be but arguing on the interwebs. I do appreciate the conversation.
My point was that AD&D conveys that roleplaying is significantly more important than combat; it places a much greater focus, even a primary focus, on role-playing than it does on combat in almost all instances, especially in compared to the other editions. In fact, I feel that later editions focus only on combat at the expense of role-playing.
And that was my point in regards to exceptional strength. It may affect combat, yes, of course, anyone can see that, I do not dispute it because it is completely obvious; but its greater value is as a role-playing device, over and before combat. This can be argued of all the stats, as only half of them really even affect combat to any real extent; the value of all the stats lies not in combat, but as a role-playing interpretation tool. Thus, strength's exceptional strength table is more valuable as a role-playing interpretation tool than it ever could be in combat.
Continuing in spoilers:
No, there is no golden age, you are correct. AD&D had many glaring flaws, most of which were unforgivable, especially in regards to guidelines continuity. The 3.5 and 4e player's handbooks both have an incredibly different focus from AD&D2e player's handbook, I'm surprised you don't notice it. I'm sure you didn't "play it wrong," but were just positively influenced by previous D&D editions; that's good! I have played with many gamers in the past who have no exposure to AD&D, and it is a very stark contrast...almost like playing a video game on paper, which sucks without a computer to do the actual calculations! My suggestions to these players that the DM make a judgement call so we could take our noses out of the books and keep the game moving were not only surprising and unheard of, but welcome reliefs to these players.
But where 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e player's handbook all improved on rules communication, they failed to deliver imaginative resonance and thought provoking scenarios of adventure and role-playing (unless you count secondary subsequent releases of supplemental material, which I don't...I don't have that kind of pocket book).
I had briefly participated in play-testing for 5e (just emails and research and such), and was surprised to find that many of the playtesters were frustrated at the way D&D had turned into lawyer battles recently, even before 4e (I thought I was alone in that). Thankfully, WotSC seemed to take that feedback and do something with it. I haven't any exposure to 5e other than research, but the books are much more focused on imagination and creativity than columns and columns of rules and numbers and mounds of complicated texts.
(Also not confrontational: my mashedtaters are happy to nerd-talk)
I picked up the Pathfinder humble bundle a couple of months ago and just started actually reading the books and I am finding a lot of material that inspires more than just tactical combat scenarios. I find the 5e books do similar, although there's a different balance.
Exceptional strength seems to be an inherent unbalancing tool. I can understand you wanting to have warriors being stronger than mages (though I myself don't subscribe to that view), but why the convoluted percentile die where the combat bonus triple, and not just a "Warriors get +1 to attack, +2 damage +25%bend bars/open gate and +50pounds carrying capacity"? This will make it so not only the rare str 18 warrior gets the bonus you envision, but every single one of them. Exceptional strength seems to exist only to punish any warrior that did not roll an 18, or decided it would be more interesting to spend that roll somewhere else.
In a way, it is a "numbers are everything" device, but with random numbers defining the whole carreer of a character.
Of all the flaws of 2nd edition, the exceptional strength die is the most polarising and unbalancing one.
In the long run it fails, for many of the reasons raised above, not least that it applies only for the fighter that rolls a truly exceptional 18 strength - in the original rules on 3d6, no re-assigning stats!
It breaks significantly when we introduce diving stats that, other than strength, are mostly incremental gains on the mortal range - and further allow a non-fighter 18 to jump easily to a divine 19 without exercising the intervening range. Most PnP DMs knew how to house-rule around this, but the BG series is at a pretty extreme end of the power curve, and these issues jump out even more.
Whatever!! That any RPG systems are even close to satisfying is a continually amazing and awesome human achievement!!!
19-24 scores for strength were included in the 1e DMG as part of the entry for the girdle of giant strength.
AD&D had alternate rolling methods for ability scores from the start. OD&D and B/X/Becmi/RC used the the roll 3d6 six times method without alternatives.
In OD&D exceptional strength was added in a supplement (Greyhawk) and wasn't present at all in the three booklet set. I think it arrived before clerics and thieves did as playable classes, however.
Also, I edited my post a little.
Yes, exception STR is a bit arbitrary with percentages that don't make a lot of sense especially in terms of scaling - a huge gap between percentages -- 18/01 to 18/50 (all had the same bonuses) while 18/51 to 18/75 had an increase, to 18/76 to 18/99 had another and finally 18/00 (max str for a human) - personally I would have liked it if the stats would have been spread out more evenly. I remember rolling 18/10 str and then another 18/50 str (wow I was happy a 40% increase) only to find out that they both had the same bonuses - "grrrr... but... I got a 40% increase why no extra bonuses ...sigh...."
What was odd about STR was not all warrior type classes could benefit from this - such as the monk - who is obviously a sub-class of a warrior; although a DM in pnp might make an exception for this.
Overall each stat that reached 18 - the pinnacle stat that a human could reach had bonuses attached to it even if it was less obvious - exceptional str is pretty obvious - you see it on your stat sheet - it has numbers and bonuses that you readily use in combat while the other stats are passive stats that are not immediately obvious after character creation. Perhaps other stats could have had a % attached to it as well like dex (imagine 18/xx - would give you a chance to better evade a fireball or an arrow and take less damage) or 18/xx cha would allow a PC to con/persuade an enemy that much easier; while int or wis with % would allow more an extra spell (or cantrip or some kind of special skill) or something or maybe a bonus to saves against certain mind spells.
As a role-player in pnp, getting 18 was great (also hard to do - I remember having to roll 6d6 for the primary stat only for each character class (STR for a warrior; INT for mage etc) and then rolling percentile if I got 18 in STR; getting 18 str made surviving a little easier during combat (did more damage) but it was not really a requirement to have - role-playing made it possible to enjoy the adventure and play it in such a way that was quirky and fun -- imagine a mage who was near sighted (low dex or for those that read Dragonlance someone like Raistlin - who was a great mage but had a chronic cough which sent him into fits all from learning the arcane arts) or a warrior with low con (maybe a chronic cough or a limp from an old injury); or a low cha (scarred or just a rude bugger or hated showering). As another poster said, having low stats just made it that much more enjoyable to role-play as you designed your PC and their personality not all adventurers can be Gandalf or Conan even if we wanted to be that eventually but my thief I remember was better than Bilbo even without the magic ring - never did find an invisible magic ring when I played ad&d that was not horribly cursed in someway.
For me at least the stats in AD&D while a bit arbitrary at times made sense (even if AC made little sense - why go down and not up or saving throws); while the 3.X edition of stats increases made somewhat less sense - can you actually be smarter, stronger, wiser, healthier especially as an adult character when you level up? (not to mention having high dex was better than wearing full armor in terms of AC was just odd - more arbitrary rules that were strange - each game has its own oddities.) It seemed that 3.x edition catered to the video game crowd that wanted to have stat increases, special feats, and customized characters with all the multi-classing possibility available. For me at least playing 3.x is quite different from playing 2.0 - an entire new rpg game system that only superficially resembled ad&d with its own unique game and rules and proved enjoyable in its own way.
To be clear, I was talking specifically about the core rule books (and specifically the players handbook), which should/would be any new player's introduction to the game. I haven't read any of the supplemental adventure books...although supplemental rule books for 3.5 and pathfinder are also seemingly mostly about numbers.
I would imagine that any adventure path should have more emphasis on the story seeing as it is a book dedicated to a story specifically.
I just think it's interesting that a game perceived as marginalizing roleplay (which I don't agree with but set that aside) puts so much emphasis on it in its supplemental materials.
Second edition is usually said to be more "rpg friendly" simply and plainly because their rules had far more holes which had to be filled by the DM as he/she liked/found appropiate. But that is not roleplaying.
2nd edition was as centered around combat as 3/3.5 (the only thing where 2nd edition cant be considered as combat oriented as 3rd one was in the spells department. 2nd edition had a few more non combat oriented spells than 3rd edition). It is simply that the 2nd edition rules, with all their holes, allowed you to use your imagination more. Allowed you to improvise things more.
Roleplaying depends on you, the other players and the DM, not on anything else.