There's a reason lots of people feel that playing Fighters in 1st or 2nd ed is just the punishment for not rolling high enough to play something interesting.
IMO Fighters are just as interesting as anything else, if you roleplay.
You can roleplay as much or as little as you want, in the end wizards is exactly the same level of roleplay effort plus a whole lot more of interesting things to do.
I've mostly sat out, but my whopping 50 cent piece:
Training for combat usually means training certain muscles, and as a rule it was based around performance. Greek bodybuilding was very generalized, and Roman different again: Romans figured out a good way to improve their specialized swordswinging muscles was weights, but they took lots from the Greeks who were excellent figure athletes. Roman gladiators favoured the belly fat as well, likely due to heavy barley consumption. Only retarius afaik truly favoured svelte bodies, as they were the 'pretty boy' types.
The big core is usually a sign of eating habits/training, and the reason most athletes don't worry about ab definition is that bellyfat is specialized for easy use; if the athlete got skinnier, they'd perform worse. This is a big problem for a certain body type btw, usually bigger builds have precipitous loss of performance if they get too skinny. These people will almost always be medically overweight yet still pass for normalish. I'm 250lbs, my belly does not stick out for example.
Regarding actual strength, almost nobody can military press 200lbs without training. Thats an accomplishment. Measuring effective strength though is funny, as people very strong lifting wise are often bad at yoga, which is in part strength-based. Ballet and gymnastics incidently create the best per pound strength athletes, after accounting for genetics. All the fancy crossfit and most advanced martial arts are using the same priniples. Muscle volume DEFINATELY does not equate to strength though. Its also a function of many other factors, bulk barely counting actually.
exactly the same level of roleplay effort plus a whole lot more of interesting things to do.
If you believe that, then just play a mage. But plenty of people see it differently.
I'd rather all classes have lots of abilities, skills, and powers that make all of them useful into endgame levels. Wizards are just mechanically better than warriors in 2E (and to a lesser extent 3E as well) and to talk about "realism" in a game where an ordinary person has 1-6 hitpoints and a level 30 warrior has around 120-200 is ridiculous. By all means let high-level warriors fling foes around like ragdolls, smash Stoneskins and Globes of Invulnerability with their godlike might, and let high-level rogues appear behind enemies in a puff of smoke, stab them in the kidneys, and gouge out their eyes.
And not only would you be able to use these abilties on enemies, they'd use them on you, so, for instance, you'd have to micro your mages more to prevent enemy fighters and rogues from getting all up in their face and smashing them up.
I'm okay with warriors being relatively simple to play. I've never found a high level fighter to be useless.
I only dislike when you get so fixated on balance that everything gets boring and sucks. I'm good with a few more skills but when you get too many skills and abilities, it just gets cluttered and most of the moves are useless.
Nah, that sort of balance only comes when the classes are too broad because the developer is terrified of players picking the wrong class combinations and making every class capable of dealing with anything (Pillars of Eternity syndrome). With what I had in mind, warriors' and rogues' feats would be much different from what casters do, and encourage mixed, balanced groups of warriors and casters while punishing the idiot who decided to pack his party with six mages. Enjoy getting your six mages bulldozed by Sarevok!
In any RPG, not just D&D, I always felt it made more sense when there were just regular fighters with the occasional mystical fighter (warrior types with some powers--like Monks or Paladins). I would make an exception for any world built where everyone is a magic-user of some sort. But I like it when my fighter is just a really tough guy to soak up damage and melee the front lines while magic-users and bowmen range from behind. It gives games a more tactical feel.
That, however, is just a matter of preference because I enjoy strategy. I don't really think there is a right or wrong unless it ruins the fun, the world-building, or the balance (party balance/gameplay balance rather than the kind of balance that makes all characters soloable removing the need for a party). What matters most is that people enjoy it, not that there is some sort of realism.
For those who like the concept of magical warriors, there are also mods. One being the Runescarred Berserker by @kensai for IwD:EE. While the kit is based on the 3rd edition prestige class of the same name, there was actually a similar kit in AD&D as well: the Runecaster, which can be found in the Giantcraft supplement.
exactly the same level of roleplay effort plus a whole lot more of interesting things to do.
If you believe that, then just play a mage. But plenty of people see it differently.
... in a game where an ordinary person has 1-6 hitpoints and a level 30 warrior has around 120-200 is ridiculous. By all means let high-level warriors fling foes around like ragdolls, smash Stoneskins and Globes of Invulnerability with their godlike might, and let high-level rogues appear behind enemies in a puff of smoke, stab them in the kidneys, and gouge out their eyes.
Alas, the definition of hit points is something else which has been lost to time and advancing editions of the game. Hit points are defined by Gygax as not only health, but also luck and skill. The idea behind them is not that if you have 200 hit points you can take A TON of wounds, but that you can also take a wound differently, you have the luck to survive a wound, you have the skill to turn into an injury, etc.
I'd rather all classes have lots of abilities, skills, and powers that make all of them useful into endgame levels. Wizards are just mechanically better than warriors in 2E (and to a lesser extent 3E as well) and to talk about "realism" in a game where an ordinary person has 1-6 hitpoints and a level 30 warrior has around 120-200 is ridiculous. By all means let high-level warriors fling foes around like ragdolls, smash Stoneskins and Globes of Invulnerability with their godlike might, and let high-level rogues appear behind enemies in a puff of smoke, stab them in the kidneys, and gouge out their eyes.
Again: what I said is, the guys who wrote and played the early version of these games just had a different concept in their heads, than what you have in your head. To level criticism against that and pretend it's objective is ridiculous. It just means you don't particularly like that game. I prefer Payday to Monopoly, but that doesn't mean monopoly got the rules wrong. I mean, it's the best-selling board game on earth.
If you want fighters and thieves to be able to do more interesting stuff, within the 2E concept of what those classes can do, then you might enjoy my mods...
Well I already install your mods (all of them) whenever I play Baldur's Gate, so that should tell you something right there.
I love what they do to the 2E rules and I hope if IWD2:EE becomes a reality, you or somebody else does similar mods for that game, because I love the IWD2 (as I understand, it's not fully 3E but still has leftovers from 2E) rules and class system.
Also, you're saying Sarevok was probably in violation of tabletop rules by having 163 HP? (obviously his AC and THAC0 are bogus because he doesn't have appropriate equipment for that, but his HP sounded about right for a warrior of that level whose player put a lead weight in just the right part of his hit die, who knows, he could have just been super lucky...).
I wonder if there's the issue that we're thinking about this from completely different perspectives. I have never played D&D on the tabletop and know nobody who would even consider doing so. You sound like you've been playing D&D for years. So when talking about this I'm thinking about what would make Infinity Engine games better, and the needs of a tabletop game and the needs of a cRPG are very different. You cannot tell the computer "I smash the wizard's face with my shield and try to knock him over" and let the computer figure it out like a DM would, there has to be a specific Shield Bash feat which does 2d4 damage and makes the wizard save vs. Fortitude (really just gonna go with IWD2/3E here because I can't decide which 2E save would be least inappropriate) or get knocked down for two rounds.
To say nothing of powergaming, which is encouraged by the Infinity Engine interface and mechanics (I don't think an old-school 2E DM would let you reroll until the dice total 90+ and redistribute the points to make yourself a min-maxed death god) and practiced by many of your companions (Imoen especially!) and all of the major villains. Hell, the game won't let you make a truly disastrous roll!
...You cannot tell the computer "I smash the wizard's face with my shield and try to knock him over" and let the computer figure it out like a DM would, there has to be a specific Shield Bash feat which does 2d4 damage and makes the wizard save vs. Fortitude
...To say nothing of powergaming, which is encouraged by the Infinity Engine interface and mechanics (I don't think an old-school 2E DM would let you reroll until the dice total 90+ and redistribute the points to make yourself a min-maxed death god) ...
Tabletop AD&D doesn't let you tell a DM that you're going to knock someone over with your shield. That's a "called shot" and it's something which is really not utilized in the core game at all. You would roll an attack with a melee weapon. In fact, AD&D is designed in a way which is pretty much just math and tables. Its all easy to translate to game mechanics. The one point that doesn't translate is roleplaying, which is filled in by character dialogue and journal entries.
Baldur's Gate does let you roll a more powerful character - since you are on your own. So perhaps that's not the best comparison to table top. This said, you should see what some DMs let players get away with in character creation. Lol .
But that's...really dumb, the sort of dumb thing I would see most DMs improvising a solution to. People in a real melee do not just swing their weapons at each other, especially not when in the sort of heavy armor that almost all D&D warriors wear. They grapple, they smash their shields or even their whole bodies into their opponents to try to knock them off balance, they stab an opponent in the eye through a gap in his sallet.
A lot of armored combat ended with one guy getting knocked to the ground and the other guy climbing on top of him, ripping off bits of his harness, and stabbing him in his newly unprotected face or armpit or whatever. Disabling/status-inflicting moves are absolutely realistic and appropriate for any warrior's skill set. And Stoneskin might protect you from a sword, but it probably won't protect you from the 200-pound guy holding the sword grabbing you and throwing your skinny 11 STR wizard to the ground.
If I were DMing and someone called such a move, I would definitely come up with some way to simulate it, the rulebook be damned.
But that's...really dumb, the sort of dumb thing I would see most DMs improvising a solution to. People in a real melee do not just swing their weapons at each other, especially not when in the sort of heavy armor that almost all D&D warriors wear. They grapple, they smash their shields or even their whole bodies into their opponents to try to knock them off balance, they stab an opponent in the eye through a gap in his sallet.
A lot of armored combat ended with one guy getting knocked to the ground and the other guy climbing on top of him, ripping off bits of his harness, and stabbing him in his newly unprotected face or armpit or whatever. Disabling/status-inflicting moves are absolutely realistic and appropriate for any warrior's skill set. And Stoneskin might protect you from a sword, but it probably won't protect you from the 200-pound guy holding the sword grabbing you and throwing your skinny 11 STR wizard to the ground.
If I were DMing and someone called such a move, I would definitely come up with some way to simulate it, the rulebook be damned.
It may seem uncreative, but it streamlines combat. You play in a game, with 10 people, all wanting to attack, and even using the book rules for combat, one initiative round takes 45 minutes to an hour. A lot of what you are talking about "I chop his head off", "I smash him in the knee with my mace" etc, can happen using normal attacks. But its called flavor. You rolled a 20, so this is the incredibly gruesome thing that occurs. Keep in mind that combat systems are also designed for fairness for both parties. I'm not against homegrown rules, but be prepared for the potentially unbalancing situation it could create in future encounters -- and the time variable. Not to mention the strain on the DM attempting to anticipate every special tactic, create rules for it, etc. Excuse me while I go grab a coke, lol.
@HaHaCharade I played the Rolemaster system when it started to surface. Arms Law & Claw Law were the earliest system that did a fantastic job of critical strikes, fumbles, and the like. But combats often tooks alot longer than D&D, esp, like you mentioned with more ppl involved. One big fight could often take up alot of game time but it was fun,esp. some of the descriptions. We incorporated that into 1st ed AD&D at the time, but to tell the truth the time lag just got to be to much at times. It did however give anyone the chance at killing or being killed by one very, very, lucky strike.
@HaHaCharade I played the Rolemaster system when it started to surface. Arms Law & Claw Law were the earliest system that did a fantastic job of critical strikes, fumbles, and the like. But combats often tooks alot longer than D&D, esp, like you mentioned with more ppl involved. One big fight could often take up alot of game time but it was fun,esp. some of the descriptions. We incorporated that into 1st ed AD&D at the time, but to tell the truth the time lag just got to be to much at times. It did however give anyone the chance at killing or being killed by one very, very, lucky strike.
Yep! There are systems out there that take those called shots, and make rules around them! I almost mentioned Rolemaster in my post!
I like the 1st and 2nd Ed combat systems. Its still fun, you can still describe what you're doing, but it saves time and frees up the game for non-combat aspects.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be interesting things fighters can do. Special maneuvers like knockback, knockdown; tactics like parrying; improving the combat viability of those around you by giving direction and leadership; even stuff like causing spell failure on hit (stab'em in the chakra!) or spell failure in an area of effect (a vocalization at a time that messes with the inner ear)... these are all non-supernatural things you can learn and use in a world filled with supernatural threats. All of that comports with a low-magic, "realistic," 2E concept of character abilities. That plus a few magic items gives you what you need to deal with hostile wizards. Except for liches + PfMW... but that's precisely why PfMW is stupid.
Giving fighters a "rage" ability that is so raged that it gives you magical mind-shielding abilities... giving fighters magic resistance and stuff like cast-breach-on-hit... that kind of stuff stems from a high-magic, comic-book-esque, 3E concept of character abilities. It's a different concept, which is not to my taste.
The former concept doesn't preclude making fighters more interesting and fun in the Infinity Engine. It just guides your design of how the more interesting and fun stuff works. Thus, my mod lets you cause spell failure by special attacks aimed at chakras, instead of something like "you are such a powerful fighter that your attack can supernaturally blast away a mage's magical defenses." Or for another example, compare my mods' new Archer called shots (pin someone in place, or trip them up, or make them fumble their weapon) with the ones in the "Improved Archer" mod (do special magic damage against undead, vorpal arrow, etc.) IMO both make Archers more interesting and versatile, but they communicate very different ideas of how that universe works in the author's headcanon.
I honestly forget how this relates to 2E exceptional strength and the silliness of half-orcs being as strong as giants with eight times their mass.
I don't necessarily see defeating spells as necessarily magical, especially when the existing mechanics allow non-magic-using characters to resist spells via saving throws. Spells are not infinitely powerful, there could be a blow so strong or well-targeted (especially when combined with a magical weapon) that it defeats a defensive spell (I would probably not have it defeat all active spells instantly like Breach would), or someone hulking out so hard the wizard's magic just isn't potent enough to defeat the warrior's will to kill him RIGHT NOW. Your average bulletproof vest cannot stop full-power rifle bullets, why should a defensive spell's protections necessarily be absolute?
(not to mention at least certain rage abilities provide a mind-shield effect even in 2E)
As for the 19 STR issue, I would say the problem is with the excessive non-linearity of the STR stat. A hill giant's strength should be way higher than 19, but with the extreme bonuses given above 18/50 or so, it would make them impossibly powerful. A more linear STR stat (and the total removal of exceptional strength) would allow for giant strength values well into the 20s with titans and extremely powerful monsters like pit fiends possibly reaching 30+ (I would suggest that as compensation for enormous strength stats, and as a reflection of the effect their size would have on their movement, all giants and similarly enormous monsters should receive only 1 APR--they wouldn't attack often, but a single attack would do catastrophic damage if it hits).
@Woolie_Wool This is one thing I like about 5th edition. Hill Giants have a strength of 21. It isn't "well into the 20s" but it makes a lot more sense than 19.
Well I meant giants in general. Hill giants aren't that big compared to cloud giants or storm giants, so 21 sounds fine to me for them.
E: the earlier talk of high magic vs. low magic and epic levels vs. normal levels makes me wonder if there are any notable FR campaigns that let the player's party go God of War on the entire pantheon. A Chaotic Neutral campaign where you start out as anarchist brigands assassinating minor nobles and graduating to killing dukes and then kings and then reaching level 30+ and assassinating the gods sounds like one hell of a fun power trip. NO GODS, NO MASTERS! Storm the Nine Hells and do what Caelar couldn't! Lay waste to the Astral Sea! Find Ao and then...what would happen if you killed Ao? Even against a character of truly infinite power, could he actually die?
When you put it that way, I'm wondering if BioWare wanted to make a 3E game with BGII but wanted a seamless experience and thus decided to shoehorn 3E stuff into 2E to make a 3E-esque experience without forcing the player to roll a new character. Personally I just rolled with it because by the beginning of ToB when your abilities start getting truly crazy, you're not really a mortal anymore but a demigod edging ever closer to full godhood. The limitations of human beings (or elves, or dwarves, gnomes, or halflings or whatever) no longer apply to you.
One thing I think should not have been included, though, were BG1's tomes. You should not be able boost your strength to 19 and become Conan the Barbarian halfway through the first game when you're just A Guy. If that stuff is to be included, it should be in Throne of Bhaal.
When you put it that way, I'm wondering if BioWare wanted to make a 3E game with BGII but wanted a seamless experience and thus decided to shoehorn 3E stuff into 2E to make a 3E-esque experience without forcing the player to roll a new character. Personally I just rolled with it because by the beginning of ToB when your abilities start getting truly crazy, you're not really a mortal anymore but a demigod edging ever closer to full godhood. The limitations of human beings (or elves, or dwarves, gnomes, or halflings or whatever) no longer apply to you.
One thing I think should not have been included, though, were BG1's tomes. You should not be able boost your strength to 19 and become Conan the Barbarian halfway through the first game when you're just A Guy. If that stuff is to be included, it should be in Throne of Bhaal.
@HaHaCharade That may be the case with the 'shoehornin' of things. The tomes do seem to be a little on the common side, should be pretty darn rare. Course now I am looking at it from multiple times n the game, plus newer players have all the guides online n such. I am pretty sure I did not find them all on my very first playthrough. But yeah, lying around like punkins in a patch.
I will admit that at much higher lvls (20+ ish ) the game is not quite as... fun, maybe is the word, not sure. There is just something more appealing to BGEE and SoA lvls. The adventures seem a little more realistic (if that makes since in a fantasy world). But maybe I like the starting out type of character, learning the ropes, and becoming master at least in a small area. Late game just seems to throw high lvl critters and villians around like 'dust in the wind' to quote a Kansas song.
Regarding BG strength scores, I accept that the devs didn't want to make the strength buff only go to the next % threshhold, which would be interesting, but in BG2, you're not quite an avatar, but getting darn close. 21 str would be inline w/2nd ed for a demi-god. The source of the str was sometimes divine anyways, and the ACTUAL avatar got full divine 25, which is probably too much I agree.
In my experience Gygax was prone to apoplexy if someone wanted to change the rules, despite everyone in gaming agreeing that DMs should have the final say. He was downright rude when talking about monstrous PCs, for example. Iirc, there actually wasn't too much a warrior could do in core rules, but extra handbooks offered lots of extra rules for wrestling etc, just like how 3.x's warriors benefited from expansion of feat lists.
I think there's nothing wrong with DMs making rules the fly to let players do stuff differently, but its nice if the system had the rules to help. In 3rd you certainly do not need any feat to shield bash, it just costs you the AC, is usually your offhand, and counts as a large or medium weapon depending on the shield. If you had ambidexterity, TWF and used a light spiked shield it was downright effective even without the shield bashing feat.
Regarding magic, 3.x is actually very well equipped to be low magic, with the skill system offering some very viable alternatives that were still rule based. D20 can be done for 'real world' even, and still letting it be rules based. Feats especially give significant options for non-magic characters. I personally felt 2nd and earlier editions lacked the rules needed to play a satisfying, diverse no magic game. A really intriguing d20 magic system was used in Thieves' World, despite pretentions of high magic in the anthologies: TW might have been meant to be high magic, but the writers kept it pretty small, meaning even the epic casters would be steamrolled by a FR lich.
@DreadKhan I was thinking Gygax, when talking of rules, usually was referring to the published rules he had in 1st edition AD&D, in order to standardize things (and even he did that with Unearthed Arcana), esp. for tournaments, which became popular then, but seemed open to other individual DMs and player's using their own personal house rules at 'home'. I still have the old tan D&D paper booklet set which was a bit different and less rules oriented.
He did come up with a half-ogre though. He seemed to like to keep a human centered world to better identify with every other race.
I never played the 3rd edition stuff but like alot of the ideas and prestige class stuff, to adapt earlier editions with. Ha, read the TW novels but never played the game. Yeah the books sound different than what you allude to with the game.
We added Arms Law from Rolemaster to 1st ed AD&D to give it more flavor, especially for non spell users and low magic games. Time consuming it could be with fights, though fun.
I dont know WHAT Gygax was doing when he came out with Lejendary Adventures, clean off the deep end I think, very strange looking it was (Probably had enough of TSR I reckon). Never played it though.
This isn't really in keeping with the current state of the discussion, but I just want to point out that, as much focus as we've given hill giant strength, there's another obvious benchmark, which is ogre strength. Now, ogres are about 9 feet tall on average, and pretty muscley. You might think that they have an 18/00 strength, because of the Gauntlets of Ogre Power, but a careful reading of the 2nd edition monster manual shows that the average ogre actually only has a 16 strength. Why does this matter? Because a halfling can start with a 17. That's right, a 3-foot-tall halfling can, with no magical augmentation, be stronger than the average 9-foot-tall musclebound ogre. This is 2e D&D rules as written and intended. Compared to that, a 6-foot half-orc being as strong as a 12-foot hill giant seems downright reasonable. My point is that the strength rules don't follow physics, and the half-orc is not the only, or even the worst, offender.
Now, from a game balance standpoint, that's another story entirely.
EDIT: It's been pointed out that my memory of ogre strength was incorrect, and that halflings cannot, in fact, be stronger than ogres. Gnomes, however, can be. This is unlikely, however, since the gnome needs an 18/00 strength to be stronger than the ogre. So the better comparison is gnomes-to-verbeeg. Verbeeg (which you may remember from Icewind Dale) are "small" giants, about the same size as ogres, with strength scores ranging from 18/51 to 18/00. So it's relatively easy, within the character creation rules given, to make a gnome who's stronger than most 9-foot-tall giants.
Comments
Training for combat usually means training certain muscles, and as a rule it was based around performance. Greek bodybuilding was very generalized, and Roman different again: Romans figured out a good way to improve their specialized swordswinging muscles was weights, but they took lots from the Greeks who were excellent figure athletes. Roman gladiators favoured the belly fat as well, likely due to heavy barley consumption. Only retarius afaik truly favoured svelte bodies, as they were the 'pretty boy' types.
The big core is usually a sign of eating habits/training, and the reason most athletes don't worry about ab definition is that bellyfat is specialized for easy use; if the athlete got skinnier, they'd perform worse. This is a big problem for a certain body type btw, usually bigger builds have precipitous loss of performance if they get too skinny. These people will almost always be medically overweight yet still pass for normalish. I'm 250lbs, my belly does not stick out for example.
Regarding actual strength, almost nobody can military press 200lbs without training. Thats an accomplishment. Measuring effective strength though is funny, as people very strong lifting wise are often bad at yoga, which is in part strength-based. Ballet and gymnastics incidently create the best per pound strength athletes, after accounting for genetics. All the fancy crossfit and most advanced martial arts are using the same priniples. Muscle volume DEFINATELY does not equate to strength though. Its also a function of many other factors, bulk barely counting actually.
And not only would you be able to use these abilties on enemies, they'd use them on you, so, for instance, you'd have to micro your mages more to prevent enemy fighters and rogues from getting all up in their face and smashing them up.
I only dislike when you get so fixated on balance that everything gets boring and sucks. I'm good with a few more skills but when you get too many skills and abilities, it just gets cluttered and most of the moves are useless.
That, however, is just a matter of preference because I enjoy strategy. I don't really think there is a right or wrong unless it ruins the fun, the world-building, or the balance (party balance/gameplay balance rather than the kind of balance that makes all characters soloable removing the need for a party). What matters most is that people enjoy it, not that there is some sort of realism.
I love what they do to the 2E rules and I hope if IWD2:EE becomes a reality, you or somebody else does similar mods for that game, because I love the IWD2 (as I understand, it's not fully 3E but still has leftovers from 2E) rules and class system.
Also, you're saying Sarevok was probably in violation of tabletop rules by having 163 HP? (obviously his AC and THAC0 are bogus because he doesn't have appropriate equipment for that, but his HP sounded about right for a warrior of that level whose player put a lead weight in just the right part of his hit die, who knows, he could have just been super lucky...).
To say nothing of powergaming, which is encouraged by the Infinity Engine interface and mechanics (I don't think an old-school 2E DM would let you reroll until the dice total 90+ and redistribute the points to make yourself a min-maxed death god) and practiced by many of your companions (Imoen especially!) and all of the major villains. Hell, the game won't let you make a truly disastrous roll!
Baldur's Gate does let you roll a more powerful character - since you are on your own. So perhaps that's not the best comparison to table top. This said, you should see what some DMs let players get away with in character creation. Lol .
A lot of armored combat ended with one guy getting knocked to the ground and the other guy climbing on top of him, ripping off bits of his harness, and stabbing him in his newly unprotected face or armpit or whatever. Disabling/status-inflicting moves are absolutely realistic and appropriate for any warrior's skill set. And Stoneskin might protect you from a sword, but it probably won't protect you from the 200-pound guy holding the sword grabbing you and throwing your skinny 11 STR wizard to the ground.
If I were DMing and someone called such a move, I would definitely come up with some way to simulate it, the rulebook be damned.
(not to mention at least certain rage abilities provide a mind-shield effect even in 2E)
As for the 19 STR issue, I would say the problem is with the excessive non-linearity of the STR stat. A hill giant's strength should be way higher than 19, but with the extreme bonuses given above 18/50 or so, it would make them impossibly powerful. A more linear STR stat (and the total removal of exceptional strength) would allow for giant strength values well into the 20s with titans and extremely powerful monsters like pit fiends possibly reaching 30+ (I would suggest that as compensation for enormous strength stats, and as a reflection of the effect their size would have on their movement, all giants and similarly enormous monsters should receive only 1 APR--they wouldn't attack often, but a single attack would do catastrophic damage if it hits).
E: the earlier talk of high magic vs. low magic and epic levels vs. normal levels makes me wonder if there are any notable FR campaigns that let the player's party go God of War on the entire pantheon. A Chaotic Neutral campaign where you start out as anarchist brigands assassinating minor nobles and graduating to killing dukes and then kings and then reaching level 30+ and assassinating the gods sounds like one hell of a fun power trip. NO GODS, NO MASTERS! Storm the Nine Hells and do what Caelar couldn't! Lay waste to the Astral Sea! Find Ao and then...what would happen if you killed Ao? Even against a character of truly infinite power, could he actually die?
One thing I think should not have been included, though, were BG1's tomes. You should not be able boost your strength to 19 and become Conan the Barbarian halfway through the first game when you're just A Guy. If that stuff is to be included, it should be in Throne of Bhaal.
I will admit that at much higher lvls (20+ ish ) the game is not quite as... fun, maybe is the word, not sure. There is just something more appealing to BGEE and SoA lvls. The adventures seem a little more realistic (if that makes since in a fantasy world). But maybe I like the starting out type of character, learning the ropes, and becoming master at least in a small area. Late game just seems to throw high lvl critters and villians around like 'dust in the wind' to quote a Kansas song.
In my experience Gygax was prone to apoplexy if someone wanted to change the rules, despite everyone in gaming agreeing that DMs should have the final say. He was downright rude when talking about monstrous PCs, for example. Iirc, there actually wasn't too much a warrior could do in core rules, but extra handbooks offered lots of extra rules for wrestling etc, just like how 3.x's warriors benefited from expansion of feat lists.
I think there's nothing wrong with DMs making rules the fly to let players do stuff differently, but its nice if the system had the rules to help. In 3rd you certainly do not need any feat to shield bash, it just costs you the AC, is usually your offhand, and counts as a large or medium weapon depending on the shield. If you had ambidexterity, TWF and used a light spiked shield it was downright effective even without the shield bashing feat.
Regarding magic, 3.x is actually very well equipped to be low magic, with the skill system offering some very viable alternatives that were still rule based. D20 can be done for 'real world' even, and still letting it be rules based. Feats especially give significant options for non-magic characters. I personally felt 2nd and earlier editions lacked the rules needed to play a satisfying, diverse no magic game. A really intriguing d20 magic system was used in Thieves' World, despite pretentions of high magic in the anthologies: TW might have been meant to be high magic, but the writers kept it pretty small, meaning even the epic casters would be steamrolled by a FR lich.
He did come up with a half-ogre though. He seemed to like to keep a human centered world to better identify with every other race.
I never played the 3rd edition stuff but like alot of the ideas and prestige class stuff, to adapt earlier editions with. Ha, read the TW novels but never played the game. Yeah the books sound different than what you allude to with the game.
We added Arms Law from Rolemaster to 1st ed AD&D to give it more flavor, especially for non spell users and low magic games. Time consuming it could be with fights, though fun.
I dont know WHAT Gygax was doing when he came out with Lejendary Adventures, clean off the deep end I think, very strange looking it was (Probably had enough of TSR I reckon). Never played it though.
Now, from a game balance standpoint, that's another story entirely.
EDIT: It's been pointed out that my memory of ogre strength was incorrect, and that halflings cannot, in fact, be stronger than ogres. Gnomes, however, can be. This is unlikely, however, since the gnome needs an 18/00 strength to be stronger than the ogre. So the better comparison is gnomes-to-verbeeg. Verbeeg (which you may remember from Icewind Dale) are "small" giants, about the same size as ogres, with strength scores ranging from 18/51 to 18/00. So it's relatively easy, within the character creation rules given, to make a gnome who's stronger than most 9-foot-tall giants.