Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SammasterT 04-26-05, 11:51 AM	I was just thinking the other day of how high primary ability scores get one a percentage increase to one's earned XP, and then it struck me how wrong this is. Why does a high STR allow one to excell faster as a fighter? Especially seeing as how the strongest guy around is almost never the best fighter around ... save perhaps in the sandbox. Likewise, the person with the highest IQ is not the person most likely to succeed in even a highly technical market, and alot of very intelligent people have great difficulty applying their intellect in manners one would deem "smart". WIS is defined, not only as willpower, but also one's powers of perception. It is buy virtue of this STAT alone that we are able to milk our experiences for all they are worth. STR, INT, CHA, DEX, none of them (well, maybe INT, a bit) help anybody assimilate experience better .... except for WIS which is all about assimilating experiences. So, should it not be a high WIS score **alone** that yields a bonus to XP, irregardless of character class?
DarthRandal 04-26-05, 12:54 PM	The whole "prime requisite" XP bonus was really just there to reward players who built optimized characters: high-Strength fighters, high-Intelligence wizards, etc. It wasn't really supposed to be "realistic" (not that much in D&D *is*). It essentially encouraged players to min/max their characters, and is just one of the reasons I prefer 3E to earlier editions of the game. You'll also probably get a better response to this over on the Out-of-Print Board.
weasel fierce 04-26-05, 05:02 PM	yeah, I know. 3E doesnt award min / maxing at all. :rolleyes: The rationale was, I guess, that the prime characteristic is the "craft skill" of the class. Hence, intelligent wizards become good wizards master, a fighter who is physically powerfull becomes a good fighter faster. A fighter with high wisdom may have more common sense, but if he doesnt have the raw power to apply it, it wont be of much assistance. I dont see anything wrong with it, though we've played without it as often as we have used it.
Escef 04-26-05, 05:31 PM	I've also seen the arguement that you should get more XP for a lower prime requisite ability score, the rational being that you have to work harder and learn faster to make up for your disadvantage. I honestly do not understand the point of the rule. A high ability score is its own reward, it shouldn't net you extra XP too. Not to mention the fact that under 3e rules a dex based fighter is a more viable option than it was under 1e/2e. The same with the charisma based rogue.
Reinforcements 04-26-05, 05:33 PM	Something in 2nd Edition that didn't make sense? Shock!
green_yawgmoth 04-26-05, 05:43 PM	Something in 2nd Edition that didn't make sense? Shock! How dare you! THAC0 made perfect sense! I know that somewhere, a DM just started inexplicably crying. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
weasel fierce 04-26-05, 07:32 PM	Not to mention the fact that under 3e rules a dex based fighter is a more viable option than it was under 1e/2e. The same with the charisma based rogue. And if it fails, just play a half-golem dragon disciple with a few levels of monk, since well, he reads a lot. That should cover you. I dont see what the above has to do with the subject at hand, except repeating trite arguments that have likely been rehashed repeatedly. But to bite, are you referring to the idea that unarmoured fighters should be equally good as armoured ones, provided they have high dexterity ? if so, then that has no foundation in reality. Most knights of medieval times would likely have good dexterity, what with all the training and such. They still more as much armour as they possibly could, because in a melee, having steel plate beats having a shirt. While armour hinders your speed of movement, well constructed armour leaves almost complete mobility, and does not significantly hinder your ability to block and deflect blows (in fact, enhancing such, as you can perform maneuvers that are normally not possible, such as gripping the blade with a gauntleted hand, for either blocking or smashing) An unarmoured fighter is fine for sneaking around, or as an archer (where the dexterity will come in extremely handy), but in a melee, he's unprepared and pointless. As for charisma, if its considered a dump stat in an AD&D game, then your DM is not doing his job well. Particularly for a thief, who propably benefits more than anyone, from having an easier time talking his way out of things. Having a loyal henchman is not a bad thing either, especially for physically weaker classes like the thief. Ditching the XP bonus is fine. We have done so in the past, and the game works just fine without it. In my current game, its in use, because I wanted to show the players a mostly "by the book" game, as they had not previously played oAD&D (one had played 2nd edition, and two had not played D&D at all). The rationale is that if you are good at what your class, does, you'll have an easier time getting better, than if you are average or incompetent. Its not instrumental to the system and can be easily removed.
SammasterT 04-26-05, 07:55 PM	A fighter with high wisdom may have more common sense, but if he doesnt have the raw power to apply it, it wont be of much assistance. The problem is that in the RW there are people who are massively strong, but who nevertheless "punch" far below their strength level, because they don't understand .... the body mechanics that go into throwing a good punch, point of impact, angles, subsequent positioning, etc. And simply being strong won't teach a person how to throw a better punch. Nor will being strong help a person understand what he/she is being taught any faster. Being attentive however, being wise, will.
weasel fierce 04-26-05, 08:04 PM	The problem is that in the RW there are people who are massively strong, but who nevertheless "punch" far below their strength level, because they don't understand .... the body mechanics that go into throwing a good punch, point of impact, angles, subsequent positioning, etc. Then they'd have a lower strength value than a strong person who DOES know how to employ it well. The problem of course, is the same in 3.x And simply being strong won't teach a person how to throw a better punch. Nor will being strong help a person understand what he/she is being taught any faster. Being attentive however, being wise, will. Level and class determines these factors. Having the prerequisites just makes it easier. As I said, just drop it, if you dont want to use it. Since we are on the "edition hack" trail today, 3.x of course does not take ability scores into account at all. A wizard with intelligence 8 is just as quick a learner as one with intelligence 18. Nyah.
SammasterT 04-26-05, 08:04 PM	are you referring to the idea that unarmoured fighters should be equally good as armoured ones, provided they have high dexterity ? if so, then that has no foundation in reality. Most knights of medieval times would likely have good dexterity, what with all the training and such. They still more as much armour as they possibly could, because in a melee, having steel plate beats having a shirt. Actually, a number of Teutonic tribes were renowned, by Rome, for the great skill of the "naked fighters" they produced. Various Teutonic tribes barely out of theBronze Age eventually dispelled the myth of the invincibility of the Roman Legions, even as they took over the defense of the Empire.
weasel fierce 04-26-05, 08:38 PM	Thats due to their skill and individual prowess, as well as utilizing tactics that the roman legions were often ill-prepared to deal with, not some mythical ability to sidestep blows (particularly on a battlefield)
SammasterT 04-26-05, 09:03 PM	Thats due to their skill and individual prowess, as well as utilizing tactics that the roman legions were often ill-prepared to deal with, not some mythical ability to sidestep blows (particularly on a battlefield) Its an example of naked warriors defeating armoured warriors. Like the Celts, whom Rome defeated, these warriors tended to fight as single combatants, rather than as functioning as a unit after the expedient Roman standard. As somebody who has a bit of training and experience in HTH, I don't find grace and dexterity to be all that mythical a factor. Not that I wouldn't want a suit of armour and a helm if such was available(!!), but grace is far more plausible to my thinking then the mythical belief that neither fire nor iron could harm such fighters, which is right up there with pigs flying when its honed iron and not knucklebone which is making the impact. Also, I'm probably going to prefer a heavy suit of plate while on horseback, beneath a creature that has the strength and the stamina to move the extra weight. Off the horse, I would chose a lighter suit over a heavier suit, or the enemy would likely send in their walking can-openers to make short work of me.
weasel fierce 04-26-05, 10:43 PM	Its an example of naked warriors defeating armoured warriors. Like the Celts, whom Rome defeated, these warriors tended to fight as single combatants, rather than as functioning as a unit after the expedient Roman standard. If you choose to make the focus on armour vs non-armour purely, as the cause of the romans loss, sure. But war very rarely comes down to individual weapons or equipment. I agree they did well, but not that their increased dexterity made them superior to the romans. As somebody who has a bit of training and experience in HTH, I don't find grace and dexterity to be all that mythical a factor. Not that I wouldn't want a suit of armour and a helm if such was available(!!), but grace is far more plausible to my thinking then the mythical belief that neither fire nor iron could harm such fighters, which is right up there with pigs flying when its honed iron and not knucklebone which is making the impact. Most melee weapons can defeat armour, but you're a lot better off with it,. than without. If not wearing armour was as good as wearing it, why did people wear it ? Also, I'm probably going to prefer a heavy suit of plate while on horseback, beneath a creature that has the strength and the stamina to move the extra weight. Off the horse, I would chose a lighter suit over a heavier suit, or the enemy would likely send in their walking can-openers to make short work of me. Indeed, each occasion has its equipment.
Escef 04-27-05, 09:45 AM	I dont see what the above has to do with the subject at hand, except repeating trite arguments that have likely been rehashed repeatedly. What it has to do with the arguement at hand is that if I choose to make a high dex build fighter (be it a fencer or an archer) there is no reason to punish my character for not being a hulking mass of muscle by denying him XP he would have gotten if I had played a character I didn't want to play. Not to mention the fact, how would you compute bonus XP from high primary ability scores for a multiclass character in 3e? In 1e/2e you had seperate XP totals for each class, 3e has no such luxery.
Escef 04-27-05, 09:50 AM	Since we are on the "edition hack" trail today, 3.x of course does not take ability scores into account at all. A wizard with intelligence 8 is just as quick a learner as one with intelligence 18. Nyah. Except that the 8 Int wizard gets 5 fewer skill points per level, 20 fewer at character creation, and also can't cast any spells. Under older edition rules he doesn't even meet the intelligence prereq to be a mage or magic-user.
weasel fierce 04-27-05, 02:20 PM	What it has to do with the arguement at hand is that if I choose to make a high dex build fighter (be it a fencer or an archer) there is no reason to punish my character for not being a hulking mass of muscle by denying him XP he would have gotten if I had played a character I didn't want to play. An archer still needs high strength to be able to use his weapon. Archery is an extremely demanding skill, physically. As for fencers, thats fine, but then you are going outside of what is covered by D&D (rapiers arent even in the book). If you were runnng a renaisance game, let players use dex instead, if it makes more sense. Not to mention the fact, how would you compute bonus XP from high primary ability scores for a multiclass character in 3e? In 1e/2e you had seperate XP totals for each class, 3e has no such luxery. Never said I wanted it to be in 3rd edition. Except that the 8 Int wizard gets 5 fewer skill points per level, 20 fewer at character creation, and also can't cast any spells. Under older edition rules he doesn't even meet the intelligence prereq to be a mage or magic-user. Skills dont have anything to do with his ability to gain experience points. And yes, its propably safe to assume that if you are below the average, intellectually, you dont have what it takes to wield magic.
Escef 04-27-05, 02:34 PM	As for fencers, thats fine, but then you are going outside of what is covered by D&D (rapiers arent even in the book). Rapier, 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook, pg. 104. But if you mean 1e, I don't recall it being there. At any rate, regardless of edition, a high ability score is a reward enough in and of itself, and there is no justification to give an XP bonus based on that alone. If you like the rule no one could stop you from using it if they wanted to. My objection to it is that an 18+ str fighter is going to outshine a 13 str fighter in melee regardless of edition. So, just in case the guy who rolled average stats doesn't feel his character is inadequet enough, lets give the guy with the big advantage some extra XP too. This is almost as bad, in my view, as the DM who favors one character over the others for no good reason.
weasel fierce 04-28-05, 03:45 AM	I agree that a high ability score doesnt need to be further rewarded. Its not an overly elegant rule. But it has a reason for being there, which is what I pointed out, is all. Each of us are old enough to decide the rest from there :) (and yes, AD&D1 doesn't have a rapier. I figure you could use the stats for a long sword. Got me on the fighters handbook, but Im sure it was in there. Thanks)
Vanamir 04-28-05, 07:46 AM	Its not an overly elegant rule. Well, a lot of rules in the older editions are not particularly elegant. Although that does not mean that 3E is the epitome of elegant rules. ;)
weasel fierce 04-28-05, 01:48 PM	I doubt they cared back then about elegance :) One of the few RPG's, that I think manages to become elegant in its design is Godlike, by Greg Stolze.