# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## Anatomy of Failed Design: D&D 2nd edition.

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

107 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

- Quote

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:15 pm

> RandomCasualty2 wrote:

> > Lago PARANOIA wrote: God, this book is so bad!

> Yeah, the 2E PHB was pretty damn horrible. The worst part was that they'd go off on a crazy tirade about how you were a shitty roleplayer if you needed high ability scores, but they'd also go and print out NPCs with multiple 18s and no stat under a 16.

I looked at a D&D 2E FRPG manual in HPB (God, I love being within walking distance of that store) and this one fighter woman had straight 17s. Seriously, nothing but 17s.
I wonder if anyone ever confronted the game designers on this hypocrisy.
Anyway, I don't think we give 3rd Edition D&D enough credit. That game went a long way towards eliminating the whole 'NPCs are better than you why do you want to become powerful you shitty roleplayer' crud that plagues RPGs. This affliction still apparently plagues Exalted.

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by tzor » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:00 pm

> RandomCasualty2 wrote:Yeah, the 2E PHB was pretty damn horrible. The worst part was that they'd go off on a crazy tirade about how you were a shitty roleplayer if you needed high ability scores, but they'd also go and print out NPCs with multiple 18s and no stat under a 16.

The more I think back, the more I remember that being actually backwards. The general impression was the core book writers were more or less correct but they could not design a module or an NPC whatsoever.

> mean_liar wrote:King Arthur (dude had straight 18s or some shit) or Merlin (20+ INT?), you realize that something has gone fucked.

But wasn’t King Arthur and Merlin in the Arthurian Legends section of Deities and Demigods or something like that? They were supposed to be bad ass kick ass super examples that were supposed to make you drool or something like that.
Really, if you want to see stats done right, check out the 2E source books for Lankhmar. I don’t have them with me at the moment, but Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser’s stats were all in the reasonable range. (There was one odd feature; they showed the levels of the two over the course of the book series and at one point they had lost both levels and stats.)
Top

mean_liar
  Duke
  Posts: 2187
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Boston

###

- Quote

Post by mean_liar » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:04 pm

They were indeed in D&D - however, isn't that what you're supposed to aspire to? Isn't Lancelot (or Galahad or one of the other knights) one of the example Paladins? King Arthur and Merlin are advanced PCs, which means that giving them an arbitrarily-high, stupendous level is totally fine and cool. What is not cool is telling you that your PC can be Lancelot, when the die rolling structure implies that he's Lancelot's squire's man-at-arms.
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by tzor » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:22 pm

> mean_liar wrote:They were indeed in D&D - however, isn't that what you're supposed to aspire to? Isn't Lancelot (or Galahad or one of the other knights) one of the example Paladins? King Arthur and Merlin are advanced PCs, which means that giving them an arbitrarily-high, stupendous level is totally fine and cool. What is not cool is telling you that your PC can be Lancelot, when the die rolling structure implies that he's Lancelot's squire's man-at-arms.

“Aspire” is an interesting term, but the point is most people aspire to the generalities and not the details. Secondly, seeing that these characters are, as it were, leftovers from the First Edition Days, one has to take the “great divorce” into consideration when talking about the 2E core books, especially the great distain in the core book writers for all things “Gygax.” The result is seen in a number of places where, frankly, the product seems at philosophical odds with the other parts of the product which was still developed under the old mindset.
Top

RandomCasualty2
  Prince
  Posts: 3295
  Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RandomCasualty2 » Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:57 pm

> Lago PARANOIA wrote: Anyway, I don't think we give 3rd Edition D&D enough credit. That game went a long way towards eliminating the whole 'NPCs are better than you why do you want to become powerful you shitty roleplayer' crud that plagues RPGs. This affliction still apparently plagues Exalted.

Well 3E generally did the same thing, the only difference is that stats were significantly less important in 3E, so just handing out big numbers wasn't enough to make uber NPCs.
Most of it required a lot of dumpster diving through sourcebooks and crap, and for the most part, NPCs never used shit that was out of any book except core and the books they happened to appear in. You never saw Forgotten Realms NPCs with Complete Warrior PrCs and feats for instance. And that pretty much killed 3E NPCs from a power standpoint to the point that they went in the opposite direction. Not only was Elminster not that good, he was pretty much a total joke whose only power came from a ridiculous amount of class levels that the designers dumped on him.
Top

shadzar
  Prince
  Posts: 4922
  Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:08 pm

###

- Quote

Post by shadzar » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:14 pm

> Lago PARANOIA wrote:

> > PHB, page 25 wrote: Obviously, Rath's ability scores (often called 'stat's) are not the greatest in the world. Yet it is possible to turn these 'disappointing' stats [ed: Rath had a total ability adjustment of -1] into a character who is both interesting and fan to play. [After the previous paragraph mentioned 'thus, you might play Rath as an irritating, smart-alecky twerp forever ducking out of range of those who want to squash him--that's AD&D's idea of an interesting character?]
> > 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! [considering that fighters get a fucking experience bonus for a STR of 16 or higher, you'd think so] 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 roleplay him.

> This is about the part where I burst out laughing in the bookstore. I knew this book was a keeper. Roy abuses the word 'fail' a lot but he was really being too kind here. Anyway, here's the rest of it.

If you only wanted a collection of stats, (A)D&D wasn't made for that in older editions. Probably why a lot of people didn't like it.
So in truth ANY character's ability to survive is simply based on the player's willingness to play them.
Play the game, not the rules.

> Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.

> Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.

good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Top

Hicks
  Duke
  Posts: 1313
  Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:36 pm
  Location: On the road

###

- Quote

Post by Hicks » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:06 pm

Bullshit. Total and complete Bullshit you 2urd. You are a liar, and a bad one at that. You are so completely full of shit that you stick your face into the toilet every morning to relieve yourself. You are so full of shit that the whites of your eyes are brown. You are so full of shit that you sweat shit. You are full of shit.
You cannot survive a 1e or 2e game without 2 things:

- 1: High Stats. You cannot get a high enough attack roll to hit any armor classes (STR), you cannot get a low enough armor class (DEX), you do not have good enough saves against mind affecting spells (WIS), and you don't have enough HP to survive attacks (CON). Tell me that a wizard gets anything level appropriate to do past level 8 with the "minimum" of 9 INT. THERE IS NO WAY TO RAISE ABILITY SCORES, except through the 2nd thing.
  2: DM pity. There is no rule limiting what monsters the player's encounter, there is no way for fighters to get the magic swords they need to damage enemies like shadows and ghosts, and there is no way for wizards to get mother fucking scrolls to cast. And there is NO WAY[/i] you are ever going to get the Stats you need to use your fucking class abilities without DM pity.

You have no idea what you are talking about, and nigh everything that comes out of your mouth, including that bullshit post above mine, is a 100%, grade A, USDA approved bullshit lie, so sit down and shut the FUCK up you bullshit spouting liar.
Last edited by Hicks on Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Besides, my strong, cult like faith in the colon of the cards allows me to pull whatever I need out of my posterior!"
-Kid Radd

> shadzar wrote:those training harder get more, and training less, don't get the more.

> Lokathor wrote:Anything worth sniffing can't be sniffed

Stuff I've Made
Mage
Dread Necromancer
Spell Breaker
Scaling Magic Weapons
True Dragon
AVATAR: THE LAST RPG
Favored of Nerull
Top

souran
  Duke
  Posts: 1113
  Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:29 pm

###

- Quote

Post by souran » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:41 pm

I am gonig to second Hicks on this in a big fucking way.
Look, Shad if you actually had played a single session of 2e you would realize things like
A wizards maximum spell level is limited by his intellegence. That means that without 18 There is no 9th level magic (note you also not all races can reach high enough level to get 9th level spells, but no race gets less than 7th level than can be a wizard. )
Therefore, being a wizard with anything EXCEPT an 18 int is a total fucking WASTE unless you KNOW that your game isin't going to be continuing beyond a single adventure.
Additionally, scores in the LOW range for a class are beyond terrible. A 9 intellenge lets you play a wizard yes, but with a very LOW (I think 1st but it may be 3rd) maximium spell level.
ANY divine caster without a wisdom of 13 or higher has a spell failure chance.
A warrior with a 9 strength and a rogue with a 9 dex suffer no listed limits to their "powers" such that they have, EXCEPT that these characters are relying on their physical stats to survive and having low ones results in them being usless.
Honestly, the bullshit about "anybody is playable as long as you want to play them" is really old and tired. Yes, technically those are LEGAL characters but the idea that the game was designed for people to play them? Thats just crap.
2e actually EXPECTED you to have higher ability scores than 3e. In 2e It pretty much assumed that you had an 18 in your main stat to actually get ot play your class long term. A fighter/Paldin/ranger without an 18/xx strength was a basically a waste until you found him gauntlets of ogre power.
A rogue without an 18 dex was basically behind the difficulty curve for his powers. We have alreaydy covered that long term clerics and wizards without 18s were just SOL. I guess you didn't actually want that earth shattering magic did you.
Whats more, the dual classing entry requirement was having at least a 16 in the imporant stat for that class. How much clearer could it get that HIGH stats where expected rather than beneficial.
Top

Doom
  Duke
  Posts: 1470
  Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:52 pm
  Location: Baton Rouge

###

- Quote

Post by Doom » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:39 pm

(edit: disregard unless you want to read a pointlessly irrelevant response using AD&D rules)
Oh come on now.
First off, armor class in 2nd edition D&D didn't get all that low, at least for the monsters. The lowest AC was the will-o-wisp -8, and that's really super low; Asmodeus, the king of hell, is at -7. Most monsters, even fairly high end monsters, had positive AC. Storm giants, for example, are AC 1, Otyughs are AC 3, Ogre Magi are AC 4. Even the dreaded Beholder is AC 0 (or 2 or 7, if you attack the eyes...screwy system, I admit).
A 7th level fighter hits AC 0 on 16 (and gets 3 attacks every 2 rounds, to boot). Granted, such a fighter isn't ready to take on the King of Hell, but that gives him a 20% chance to hit the toughest giant in the books, and against hill giants (still tougher than what he should be facing, to judge by published modules, and AC 4), he'll have a 45% chance.
A 17 strength isn't out of the question, nor is having a +1 sword by 7th level; together he'll have a better than even chance of hitting most non-unique monsters in the book, including things well above his level.
And that's just a 7th level fighter with non-18 strength and a basic magic sword, with no buffs or any other assistance.
So no, you don't need uber stats to hit things.
Assuming the 7th level fighter is wearing non-magic plate and shield, the hill giant will hit him back some 55% of the time. Perhaps not the best, but it's not out of the question he'll have picked up a ring of protection or +1 shield or something.
Actually, there are ways to raise ability scores, at least where it counts (combat and spellcasting). Girdles of giant strength, or gauntlets of ogre power, add dramatically to a non-strong fighter's combat ability (effectively giving high strength), Ioun stones add to all the other stats, as well as some magic books. Yes, you'll need DM pity, I suppose, to find such items (common enough in many campaigns, and scrolls are usually DM allowed for players of sufficient level to make).
Of course, you need gm pity for this in DnD4.0--the gm there can always house rule whatever he wants, or simply say the 'create magic item' ritual doesn't exist, or decide the arcane componentns/residuum economy is crap and it'll cost players much, much, more to get than what the books say.
As far as being a wizard with less than an 18 in intelligence? Well, non-human wizards couldn't make 18th level anyway, so such an issue doesn't concern them. In any event, the experience point rules were written in such a way that, realistically, a player couldn't possibly accrue enough experience to make 18th level without DM fiat.
For example, killing Asmodeus is worth 71,000 ep, assuming you do it single-handedly. You need 3,000,000 to make 18th level wizard. Do the math, there, but I imagine after the 40th time you kill Asmodeus, he'll probably just avoid you from that point on (I'm avoiding some small print here, since it would preclude killing Asmodeus multiple times, which would still be necessary). In a party of 5 or more characters, the 'standard' of most modules of this era? Not going to happen on top of not going to happen.
Even as a human, it was quite and very possible to play with a sub-18 intelligence and still do the vast majority of what the class had to offer. If it turned out the campaign was actually going to make 18, the DM could toss a few ioun stones in, or one of those books (wishes were problematic for getting high stats).
Alternatively, the human could simply get older, and gain bonuses to his intelligence that way.
Not saying 2e was perfect by any means, but getting by with less than an 18 was quite possible (and less than 16 only decent for multiclassed characters); to assert that you can't play more than 1 session with a sub-18 intelligence wizard is extreme.
But, yeah, 18s are better.
Last edited by Doom on Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:18 pm, edited 6 times in total.

> Kaelik, to Tzor wrote: And you aren't shot in the face?

> Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!

Top

Orca
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 877
  Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:31 am

###

- Quote

Post by Orca » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:51 am

I think the most stat-dependent class was actually the rogue. When your only real shtick is those % based skills, and you get bonuses from high dex, high dex is really important.
High int for wizards was actually more important for the % chance of learning a spell than for some limits on casting spells which you'd never reach anyway.
Clerics ... really didn't need high wisdom. They generally had it anyway.
Fighters could be fairly varied.
Top

Doom
  Duke
  Posts: 1470
  Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:52 pm
  Location: Baton Rouge

###

- Quote

Post by Doom » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:11 am

Indeed, there were other advantages to having high intelligence, so that, even though making level 18 (and gaining access to those busted 9th level spells) was essentially impossible, there was still a reason to have it high.

> Kaelik, to Tzor wrote: And you aren't shot in the face?

> Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!

Top

Hicks
  Duke
  Posts: 1313
  Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:36 pm
  Location: On the road

###

- Quote

Post by Hicks » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:31 am

> Orca wrote:Fighters could be fairly varied.

Fighters are the booby prize a player gets play for not winning the ability score lottery; They can and do have shit ability scores because if you rolled better you would've put paladin or ranger or some other awesome class on your character sheet, and they are supposed to die off so you can play one of those other real characters. Both of a fighter's super special awesome class abilitys (18/xx Strength and Higher HP) are dependent on having high ability scores! And even then a fighter's Strength is out and out surpassed and made meaningless by by gauntlets + girdles. Every level past Fighter 7 is a joke, and the only one laughing is Gygax from his grave.
Last edited by Hicks on Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Besides, my strong, cult like faith in the colon of the cards allows me to pull whatever I need out of my posterior!"
-Kid Radd

> shadzar wrote:those training harder get more, and training less, don't get the more.

> Lokathor wrote:Anything worth sniffing can't be sniffed

Stuff I've Made
Mage
Dread Necromancer
Spell Breaker
Scaling Magic Weapons
True Dragon
AVATAR: THE LAST RPG
Favored of Nerull
Top

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp
  Knight
  Posts: 447
  Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:12 am

###

- Quote

Post by Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:02 am

Here's a list of some of 2e's flaws.
1. Stats as previously mentioned. Requiring wizards to have 18 for 9th and 17 for 8th level spells is stupid. As is requiring clerics to have 18 wis for 7th and 17 wis for 6th level spells.
2. Rolling scheme. 3d6 is the default method, but you need 15 or higher in a stat to get any significant nicety. So basically players and DMs are encouraged to cheat. So to get that 18/51 to 18/00 Strength for the fighter to be useful
3. Unbalanced classes. Seriously, a mage has 1d4 hp (+1 or +2 if they rolled well) and can cast 1 spell per day. If they use a sling, they might risk hurting their buddy in melee. So truly, the most useless class at low levels. The mage isn't allowed to use any freaking armor. So they *should* die at astronomical rates.
4. Sense of DM entitlement - It's amazing hearing DMs that don't like players attacking twice with a bow, or don't like the damage from weapon specialization, or don't like you raising undead, or don't like you sleeping in the dungeon, or don't like you searching the dungeon, or don't like players having magic items, etc. etc. etc.
This edition continued a very bad precedent from previous editions.
Black Marches
"Real Sharpness Comes Without Effort"
Top

Jacob_Orlove
  Knight
  Posts: 456
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Jacob_Orlove » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:43 am

> Doom314 wrote: As far as being a wizard with less than an 18 in intelligence? Well, non-human wizards couldn't make 18th level anyway, so such an issue doesn't concern them. In any event, the experience point rules were written in such a way that, realistically, a player couldn't possibly accrue enough experience to make 18th level without DM fiat.
> For example, killing Asmodeus is worth 71,000 ep, assuming you do it single-handedly. You need 3,000,000 to make 18th level wizard. Do the math, there, but I imagine after the 40th time you kill Asmodeus, he'll probably just avoid you from that point on (I'm avoiding some small print here, since it would preclude killing Asmodeus multiple times, which would still be necessary). In a party of 5 or more characters, the 'standard' of most modules of this era? Not going to happen on top of not going to happen.

Didn't you also get 1 XP per GP of treasure found? Or had that turned into an optional rule by 2E? That kind of XP will add up fast--take a look at the random treasure tables. Go kill a dragon in its lair, get a few hundred thousand XP if you roll well. Maybe more, if you get enough major magic items.
Top

Leress
  Prince
  Posts: 2767
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Leress » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:00 am

That became an optional rule.

> Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!

> Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!

> Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.

> I want him to tongue-punch my box.

]

> The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.

Top

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

###

- Quote

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:15 am

So if I storm a bank, gank the guards, then make off with all of the loot in my Santa Sacks do I get to be 10th level?

> Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
> In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.

Top

ggroy
  Knight
  Posts: 386
  Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:51 pm

###

- Quote

Post by ggroy » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:16 am

Last edited by ggroy on Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

ggroy
  Knight
  Posts: 386
  Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:51 pm

###

- Quote

Post by ggroy » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:17 am

Last edited by ggroy on Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Absentminded_Wizard
  Duke
  Posts: 1122
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Ohio
  Contact:
  Contact Absentminded_Wizard
  Website

###

- Quote

Post by Absentminded_Wizard » Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:37 am

IIRC, there were two optional XP for treasure rules in 2e. One was for the whole party, while the other was only for rogues (class group that consisted of thieves and bards).

> Doom314's satirical 4e power wrote:Complete AnnihilationWar-metawarrior 1
> An awesome bolt of multicolored light fires from your eyes and strikes your foe, disintegrating him into a fine dust in a nonmagical way.
> At-will: Martial, Weapon
> Standard Action Melee Weapon ("sword", range 10/20)
> Target: One Creature
> Attack: Con vs AC
> Hit: [W] + Con, and the target is slowed.

Top

hogarth
  Prince
  Posts: 4582
  Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:00 pm
  Location: Toronto

###

- Quote

Post by hogarth » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:09 pm

> Hicks wrote: 2: DM pity. There is no rule limiting what monsters the player's encounter, there is no way for fighters to get the magic swords they need to damage enemies like shadows and ghosts, and there is no way for wizards to get mother fucking scrolls to cast. And there is NO WAY[/i] you are ever going to get the Stats you need to use your fucking class abilities without DM pity.

Every D&D game ever made is 100% dependent on "DM pity"*. No XP or treasure will ever come your way without "DM pity", and the only thing that's stopping omnipotent monsters from wandering by and smashing your pitiful character into a fine paste is "DM pity". So don't get your panties in a twist over this one, madame.
*I'd make an exception for solo modules, but those are just glorified "Choose Your Own Adventure" books.
Last edited by hogarth on Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

souran
  Duke
  Posts: 1113
  Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:29 pm

###

- Quote

Post by souran » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:51 pm

> Doom314 wrote:
> First off, armor class in 2nd edition D&D didn't get all that low, at least for the monsters. The lowest AC was the will-o-wisp -8, and that's really super low; Asmodeus, the king of hell, is at -7. Most monsters, even fairly high end monsters, had positive AC. Storm giants, for example, are AC 1, Otyughs are AC 3, Ogre Magi are AC 4. Even the dreaded Beholder is AC 0 (or 2 or 7, if you attack the eyes...screwy system, I admit).

Ok this is just wrong. The "Old" dragons have AC-12, yes that is correct, TSR simply put them at a level they said was not possible for everybody else to reach because the system is closed at -10.
There are a number of other monsters with uber -ac in the -5 to -15 range but your are essentialy correct. However, by the time you are facing those monsters you are wearing a girdle of frost giant strength and have a 25 strength.
The real issue is for low levels because if you did play a fighter without 18/xx strength by 7th level you have 18/00 through your gauntlets. (note that if you do however have exceptional strength you can pass those to the cleric or rogue actually making your party better)
However, a 1st to 3rd level fighter with a +1 magic sword and specilization has a 18 THAC0 (remember at 1 everybody has a 20 even fighters) +1 for specialization and +1 for magic. That means that he hits a zero on a 16. A 3/4/5 level cleric in platemail +1, a shield and with ANY dex bonus is AC 0. The fighters exceptional strength is now the ONLY thing that allows him to hit things that are not push overs.
With high strength THAC0 is basically irrelevant for fighters and it becomes all about how much damage they can do. In the later game this is all that matters anyway because even with a -5 armor class the THAC0 5/6/7 monsters still hit you basically half the time.

> A 17 strength isn't out of the question, nor is having a +1 sword by 7th level; together he'll have a better than even chance of hitting most non-unique monsters in the book, including things well above his level.

Here is the thing, if you play a fighter/paladin/ranger with a 17 strength you give up one of your class features. That blows. Especially because besides the paladin these classes don't have a lot of class features anyway.
18/xx strength is only availablae to characters of the warrior subtype. If you DON'T have it then its like playing a rogue who gives up ability to pick locks and gets nothing back for it.
Additionally, basically all the non combat actions 2e assumes warrior types will make are tied to their strength
Breaking things, lifting things, and the ability to crush/bend things are all tied directly to your strength.
Its not just about hitting things, although at low levels it is about that, and its not just about damage, although that is vital as well, and its not just about being able to use everything offered to your class, or about being able to perform your role. Its about how strength becomes a one stop shop for doing these things.
Sure you can play a fighter or a paladin or a ranger with a 17 strength. Or even a 16. You suck and if there is a guy with 18/xx strength the difference in power will appear immedatly as he one shots every 1 hd monster because his minimum damage is 8. If you are say a fighter/mage or a fighter/cleric I would say that putting the 18 into the other main stat is more important anyway.
Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Theif all need 18 in their main stat to get access to all their class abilities.

> As far as being a wizard with less than an 18 in intelligence? Well, non-human wizards couldn't make 18th level anyway, so such an issue doesn't concern them. In any event, the experience point rules were written in such a way that, realistically, a player couldn't possibly accrue enough experience to make 18th level without DM fiat.

As somebody else has already pointed out, your chance to learn spells is tied to your intellegence. Also it doesn't really matter how you get there, without the 18 int you are not going to be able have those higher spell levels.
A cleric gets bonus spells per day based on a High Wisdom. Its the only stat that actually provides those in 2e. Without those bonus spells a cleric does not really have enough spell slots avaiable at low levels to actually heal people and get to do anything fun. Without an 18 the fun part of being a cleric runs out sooner.

> Not saying 2e was perfect by any means, but getting by with less than an 18 was quite possible (and less than 16 only decent for multiclassed characters); to assert that you can't play more than 1 session with a sub-18 intelligence wizard is extreme.

As you pointed out, it takes a fairly long time to level at the high end in 2e. If you don't have high stats then actually gaining those levels becomes not worth your time you might as well reroll.
However, I do think I need to clarify.
2e lets you be a Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Thief with a 9 Str/9Int/9Wis/9Dex respectively.
Until you get to a 13 in each of those stats, You are basically more of a finderance as that class than an asset. Clerics have spell failure. Fighters have no real ability to lift crush or throw anything. Rogues will fail more often than not at their abilities and so forth.
So EVEN THOUGH you could play a basic class with a main stat in the 9-13 ACTUALLY doing so is not possible.
The 13-15 range has the problem that these spots are all basically dead. 15 dex gives a -1 ac but really the 13 to 15 stat range is quite useless. These stats don't give a penalty but their chance of actually using the stat for anything is also basically nothing.
16-17 actually lets you play a class with that ability as a requirement. Thieves start getting bonuses to their skills, wizard spell learning and max spell level are high enough that multiclassing or dual classing would be a good idea. Clerics have some bonus spells, Fighters get a decent bonus to hit.
However, even with these stats you still lose out on class features. Fighters don't get exceptional strength, clerics/wizards lose maximum spell level, chance to learn spells, and for clerics bonus spells, High wisdom.
So having said all that: The idea that the game ACTUALLY supports low ability scores I say is FALSE. It may let you play but below a 16 (hardly a "low" score in any edition) is just untrue and the fact that they staked so much a fair amount of a characters long term power on having an 18 in your main stat means that for long term play an 18 in a principle stat was expected.
Thats why the npc's look the way they do. All that crap talk about playing people with low scores and the game never expeceted you to play Abergale the fighter whose stats are 15/13/14/9/12/10. That guy just doesn't work in 2e.
Top

Hicks
  Duke
  Posts: 1313
  Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 3:36 pm
  Location: On the road

###

- Quote

Post by Hicks » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:25 pm

> hogarth wrote:..."DM pity". So don't get your panties in a twist over this one, madame.

My post was not typed with no context, but as a response to this:

> shadzar wrote:So in truth ANY character's ability to survive is simply based on the player's willingness to play them.

Which is nothing but bullshit. But please, tell me how am I to argue that Shadzar was full of shit without presenting counter arguments?
"Besides, my strong, cult like faith in the colon of the cards allows me to pull whatever I need out of my posterior!"
-Kid Radd

> shadzar wrote:those training harder get more, and training less, don't get the more.

> Lokathor wrote:Anything worth sniffing can't be sniffed

Stuff I've Made
Mage
Dread Necromancer
Spell Breaker
Scaling Magic Weapons
True Dragon
AVATAR: THE LAST RPG
Favored of Nerull
Top

mean_liar
  Duke
  Posts: 2187
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Boston

###

- Quote

Post by mean_liar » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:33 pm

Haha! Trick question. You don't have to present counter arguments to make that claim.
Top

ubernoob
  Duke
  Posts: 2444
  Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 12:30 am

###

- Quote

Post by ubernoob » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:34 pm

> Hicks wrote:

> > hogarth wrote:..."DM pity". So don't get your panties in a twist over this one, madame.

> My post was not typed with no context, but as a response to this:

> > shadzar wrote:So in truth ANY character's ability to survive is simply based on the player's willingness to play them.

> Which is nothing but bullshit. But please, tell me how am I to argue that Shadzar was full of shit without presenting counter arguments?

You don't. Shadzar is almost universally ignored at this point, so ignoring him actually saves everybody a fair amount of time.
Top

TOZ
  Duke
  Posts: 1159
  Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:19 pm

###

- Quote

Post by TOZ » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:10 pm

I still enjoy when someone else makes the mistake of trying to respond to him. They deal with the headache of his posts and I get to read the counter-argument.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

107 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next

Return to “In My Humble Opinion...”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS