Opinions on Class-Based Ability Minimums.

LadyEibhilinRhett

Ability minimums in the BG series have always bugged me, because a good number of them just feel completely and totally arbitrary, ESPECIALLY the ones for specialist mages, where the minimums aren't even needed to make the class itself effective. Thoughts on this?

GygaxianProse

The sub-classes are supposed to be rare, and require exceptional individuals. So even in 1st edition, where the illusionist has its own, separate spell list, I think they needed 16 Dex to master the intricate hand movements of illusion magic. I think its an important game balance, and they don't seem arbitrary. they support and define the class archetype.
I don"t think all the speciality mages represent a distinct archetype, which might be why they seem more arbitrary.

reedmilfam

But given infinite rolls, game balance is sort of compromised to begin with.

Mortianna

The 2nd edition Complete Wizard's Handbook offers very good explanations for why specialists need minimum scores in abilities other than INT. Like @GygaxianProse said, Illusionists need an exceptional DEX score in order to master the school and be able to cast Illusion spells more precisely than a plain old mage. The same logic applies to the other wizard specializations.

I never understood why they did away with them in 3rd edition.

Mungri

^^ Because of dumbing stuff down.

GygaxianProse

reedmilfam said:

But given infinite rolls, game balance is sort of compromised to begin with.

Dice abusers can be dealt with. Like having them roll at the table, and limiting re rolls. And in a computer game, they're making it their own and harming no one else's experience.
Homogenizing all PCs by point system, though, removes a lot of the ability mins logic, and to me, kills some of the magic of PC creation. Not all rolls are equal. I like that. Some characters are blessed, other have to make do. Not everyone can be a Paladin or Ranger.
I have often seen leaner stated characters, played better, survive much longer than super characters anyway, the players of which tend to make a lot of dumb errors , like rushing into encounters.

LadyEibhilinRhett

@Mortianna
But why do Conjurers need a minimum Con?
The only specialist mage minimums that made sense to me were the ones for Illusionists and for Enchanters.
...That being said, if I want to create an ineffectual character with stats that are not conducive to their class, that should be my right. I should be able to play a super shitty rogue with 6 Dex if I want to.

Mechalibur

Mungri said:

^^ Because of dumbing stuff down.

Which is a good thing, in quite a few cases (for example THAC0 and AC calculations being simplified). Though it's odd that you would say that, since the most common complaint I've heard from AD&D to 3.5 is that it became too complicated.

Anyway, here's a quote why specialist mages need certain stat minimums, per Wizard's handbook

Abjuration: "A wizard must have strong intuition and exceptional willpower to master abjuration spells..."
Alteration: "Because alternaton spells have somewhat more complex somatic components than spells from other schools..."
Conjuration: "A wizard must have exceptional stamina to spend a lifetime casting conjuration and summoning sells, since he is at times tapping into his own life force in order to created conjured matter or lure summoned creatures."
Enchantment: "Since influencing the will of others is in part a manifestation of the caster's personal charm..."
(Greater) Divination: "A wizard must have a strong intuition and exceptional willpower to master divination spells..."
Illusion: "The somatic components of most medium-level and high-level illusions require precise physical maniuplations."
Invocation: "Because of the powerful energies involved, a lifetime of casting invocation spells is extremely stressful to a wizard's health."
Necromancy: "Since only the most enlightened, strong-willed, and intuitive wizards can become specialists of this school..."

Most of these are good explanations, although Abjuration and Divination are basically saying "you need good wisdom because these spells need good wisdom."

CamDawg

reedmilfam said:

But given infinite rolls, game balance is sort of compromised to begin with.

Oh, it's worse than that--setting a class/kit minimum in BG2 is actually an advantage. I.e. if you select a paladin and (actually) roll a 3 for charisma, the game will helpfully re-roll that until you get the minimum of 17. This is why you see so many of the ZOMG I ROLLED 90 posts about rangers--they've got a guaranteed 60 out of the gate.

HaHaCharade

Mungri said:

^^ Because of dumbing stuff down.

Ya know, I've played 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D for *years*, never had any of the problems some folks have with THACO calculations (who needs a THACO chart?) and plus magic items subtracting from armor class, etc. Its easy after awhile.

That being said, to this day 3rd Edition boggles my mind. Dumbed down my ass! With the feats and classes and races and abilities and skills... its a straight up mess. The whole excuse that the system was supposed to be easier is a fricking joke. I can make an AD&D 1st Edition cleric in about 2 minutes. It would take me personally several times that to make a 3rd Edition cleric, and I'd probably have something wrong. Lol.

Jaxsbudgie

Necromancer's having high wisdom kinda makes sense since you know, they cast necromancy spells and... well, divine spellcasters cat necromancy spells, and well... they have high wisdom too. Yussss.

LadyEibhilinRhett

Mechalibur said:

Mungri said:

^^ Because of dumbing stuff down.

Invocation: "Because of the powerful energies involved, a lifetime of casting invocation spells is extremely stressful to a wizard's health."

I just realized that this offers a very good explanation as to why Xan specialized in a field that has Invocation as a barred school...
With his CON score, it'd probably have been dangerous for him to try using Invocation spells at all, and you know he would have been far too certain of his doom to risk it.

Quartz

LadyEibhilinRhett said:

Mechalibur said:

Mungri said:

^^ Because of dumbing stuff down.

Invocation: "Because of the powerful energies involved, a lifetime of casting invocation spells is extremely stressful to a wizard's health."

I just realized that this offers a very good explanation as to why Xan specialized in a field that has Invocation as a barred school...
With his CON score, it'd probably have been dangerous for him to try using Invocation spells at all, and you know he would have been far too certain of his doom to risk it.

Yup. There are very, very few accidents in BG1 NPC's stats ... lots of little details like that all around.

Also, @Mechalibur, awesome post, thanks very much.

GygaxianProse

HaHaCharade said:

Mungri said:

^^ Because of dumbing stuff down.

Ya know, I've played 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D for *years*, never had any of the problems some folks have with THACO calculations (who needs a THACO chart?) and plus magic items subtracting from armor class, etc. Its easy after awhile.

That being said, to this day 3rd Edition boggles my mind. Dumbed down my ass! With the feats and classes and races and abilities and skills... its a straight up mess. The whole excuse that the system was supposed to be easier is a fricking joke. I can make an AD&D 1st Edition cleric in about 2 minutes. It would take me personally several times that to make a 3rd Edition cleric, and I'd probably have something wrong. Lol.

Well , to be fair, 3E both simplifies AND complicates. On the whole, I think it is a much slower system, depending on DM of course. I much prefer a brisk, narrative combat, but with plenty of tactical improv. I can see how 3E and + is better for some players and DMs.
And yes, THAC0 was some kind of scapegoat. AC that goes up just plain sucks. Even though its basically identical lol
@LadyEibhilinrhett: I think where you are leaning , with the 6 Dex thief, and disliking class minimums, is into more of a class-less RPG, and more skill based. To have a thief class at all invokes a standard...but then, if only to have an exception, it could certainly be allowed in a PnP game...

Mortianna

LadyEibhilinRhett said:

@Mortianna
But why do Conjurers need a minimum Con?
The only specialist mage minimums that made sense to me were the ones for Illusionists and for Enchanters.

@Melchalibur 's list from the Complete Wizard's Handbook explains why Conjurers need a high CON: "A wizard must have exceptional stamina to spend a lifetime casting conjuration and summoning sells, since he is at times tapping into his own life force in order to created conjured matter or lure summoned creatures." It's safe to say there are no frail Conjurers, since they need to be hardy in order to specialize in that school.

LadyEibhilinRhett said:

...That being said, if I want to create an ineffectual character with stats that are not conducive to their class, that should be my right. I should be able to play a super shitty rogue with 6 Dex if I want to.

In order to be a Thief, one must be able to perform thieving skills. Opening locks, finding/removing traps, moving silently, picking pockets, etc. requires that a character possess a requisite amount of finesse, coordination, and balance. 9 DEX is the minimum score one must have in order to accomplish these skills (and those with 9-12 DEX receive penalties on their thieving skills). Those with 8 or less DEX simply do not have what it takes to be a thief; even though a character may desperately want to be a thief, he or she does not have the ability to be one.

This same reasoning applies to the other classes. A character with an 8 or less INT lacks the capacity to comprehend the complex magical formulae and incantations that is needed to cast even a 1st level wizard spell. An aspiring cleric with an 8 or less WIS doesn't possess the intuition, judgment, willpower, and enlightenment to cast cleric spells and to adequately serve as a "man/woman of the cloth."

Just as in real life, most professions and vocations require that one possess certain minimum abilities and talents. A person with a below average INT cannot become a physicist. He or she does not have the intellectual ability to understand calculus or theoretical physics. Similarly, someone with a low STR and CON score would fail the test to become a firefighter. Since you need to be able to carry someone over your shoulder, hack open doors with an axe, etc., those who cannot would have been weeded out long before training as a firefighter began.

So, a super shitty Thief would be one with a 9 DEX. That character you mentioned with the 6 DEX would never have passed the tests to earn the title of Thief in the first place. They would have gotten a nice rejection letter from the local guild.