A couple of new players

[Legendary Sidekick]

Well, while waiting for blondie, your ten heads can feast their eyes on the index card doodle of Heverik.

(He probably trained that squirrel to play dead.)

 

[Ravana]

Well, while waiting for blondie, your ten heads can feast their eyes on the index card doodle of Heverik.

(He probably trained that squirrel to play dead.)

Would have to be very well trained. A Title LVII violation could conceivably get him executed. Which would probably plunge the empire into a civil war—not that anyone would go to war over him, per se: rather, that they'd go to war over the throne after his wife caught up with the emperor who ordered it. Heverik's too loyal to want to wish that on the empire. Besides, there's always the off-chance his honey might get hurt or something along the way.

…and, yes, I was briefly tempted to play Sigrelyn. It wouldn't have worked, though. Game's too low-level.

•

@Steerpike: if interested in using Sigrelyn (or, gods help us, her husband) as NPCs, here are their approximate stats:

Sigrelyn Drachteving, Baroness of Riedvin
Human, Ranger 10/Knight 6/Druid 1
Neutral Good
S: 13 / D: 18 / Co: 16 / I: 15 / W: 13 / Ch: 13
HP: around 90; AC: 16 (usually)
Primes: Str, Dex, Con
favored weapons: longbow, lance, sarcasm
favored enemy: House Helderau
special traits: most people unwilling to risk harming her—they'd have to face her mother. Given they option, they'd prefer facing Grendel's.
• yes, I know she should have S/Ch/W as primes, but I wasn't about to argue with her

Prince Heverik of House Maritsa
Human, Clothes Monkey 15
Chaotic Scatterbrained
S: rarely / D: dances well / Co: lived so far / I: putative / W: 1-ish / Ch: 12 (naked), 6 (wife picked clothes) or -4 (dressed himself)
HP: 18 (best guess); AC: 11 (or better: see special traits)
Primes: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7… see, imperial education is good for something!
favored weapons: liger-fur covered half-staff, trouser snake
special traits: difficult to look at directly (AC bonus equal to CHA penalty… normally +6, I think?)

 

[Nihal]

"Slender" bids fair to be an understatement in my case… didn't want to give numbers up front (it would have given away the punchline), but Hiljikki's around five-foot-not-so-much and a hundred-and-fewer pounds.

And, of course, she wears flats. Well, moccasins, but same result.

Short and thin as Mauve. I know only one group of people a bit more thin and shorter, the responsibles for my inability to think in normal standards... me and the other women in my family.

But wait, not every small woman is scrawny...! Some just look flat as a young teenager! *cough*
Some weight more and can have really nice curves... like miniature of brazilian women. I think you should have a pony, it's the most fitting animal for a tiny woman. Or maybe one of those detestable tiny poodles.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Yeah, those Sigrelyn stats are just a little over 66.

Actually, I love the fact that we pick stats and are given a "low" number. It forced me not to make a combat machine. I could have given my character better DEX, but I preferred dumping 10 more points than necessary in a combat-useless skill (13 in INT) just so she could RP intelligently. Charisma is actually useful, but again, it's RP. I view anything less than a 9 (with a negative mod) as an "unlikeable" character. Maybe a 6-8 is "tolerable" and 3 is "punchable."


On height, all of my Brazilian students were tall. They also thrived in my ESL* classes. We have plenty of Spanish-speakers in town that can translate for students, but not too many know Portuguese. The Brazilians thanked me for not knowing their language when, after four months, they saw the results of being forced to use English: they were progressing much faster than their Spanish-speaking classmates. (Other teachers translated for them. I wouldn't even if I could.)


*(English as a Second Language)

 

[SeverinR]

"Slender" bids fair to be an understatement in my case… didn't want to give numbers up front (it would have given away the punchline), but Hiljikki's around five-foot-not-so-much and a hundred-and-fewer pounds.

And, of course, she wears flats. Well, moccasins, but same result.

Might want to delay anything more than a sketch for the moment, LS: she's going to be traveling with an as-yet-undetermined animal and an as-yet-undetermined musical instrument, either or both of which may or may not be obvious. So the squirrel (or whatever) on her head might not be dead after all, and the instrument case might be large enough to be visible over her shoulder. Especially if I sell Steerpike on the existence of slide trombones in his world.

Oops. Channeling Heverik again. (Though Steerpike can confirm that I did already mention the trombone.) Besides, I see her as more of a didgeridoo type.…

< several of Ravana's heads chasten the one that uttered the last sentence in his "outside voice" >

No, she's not a bard.
["'I was certain of it, directly I heard you play!'"]
["Oh, shut up, you. Besides, no one's going to get the reference—even with the trombone."]
[ <sulks> "No one appreciates the classics any more."]

Anyway… she isn't a bard: she just likes music. The animal is easier to account for: she's a druid.
["Yeah, and if she wears antlers, the squirrel can hang out on her rack."]
["And what the hell is that supposed to be a reference to?"]
["Cleavage, moron."]
["She wears antlers on h—?"]
["Never mind."]
["Besides, she doesn't have—"]
["Just let it go, alright?"]
< heads continue arguing, albeit in subdued voices >

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a sitar and a ring-tailed lemur.…

< argument stops; both heads—along with all the others—stare at speaker in astonishment >

[ … ]
[ … ]
["Oh, right: he's the one who came up with Heverik."]
["In which case, it should have been a double-reed flügelsyrinx and some unheard-of species of snake."]
["Maybe he's learning restraint."]
["You think?"]
["No. But hope springs eternal."]
["At least he didn't use the line about trying to learn the Aeolian harp again.…"]
["Don't remind him."]

So from this I take it, Ravana, I mean Hiljikki is a male half elf Druid? (For those of us, keeping score at home)

 

[Nihal]

Brazilians usually aren't so petite, it's a family thing. Oh, and some English courses there use the same tatic, the teachers try to explain in English only something a student didn't understand. Translating is the last option and it works really well.

I tried to pick stats in a twisted definition of "balanced way", which makes some sense given the world's background. It can work really well or be catastrophic. I have this nagging feeling that Mauve's line of thought is going to be a greater problem than her stats.

I think so far Baldhart is doing fine, even being so clumsy. Let's wait until she needs to quickly climb something or die. *evil grin*
--



Unless Ravana's character is a transsexual (those elves, you never know...) it's actually another female.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I think so far Baldhart is doing fine, even being so clumsy. Let's wait until she needs to quickly climb something or die. *evil grin*

I think the Deerstalker skill means not needing a DEX check for certain surfaces, like "scalable cliffs." Her DEX is so low that she is guaranteed to fail a DEX check. Even if I roll 20: subtract 2, now I have 18. I need 19 to beat a level 1 challenge. There is a barbarian skill that adds 4 to the roll, but that's still a 20% chance of success. I'm not rolling to see whether I fall to my death with 95% odds in my favor, never mind 20%. If Baldhart has to roll, she's taking the stairs. Any place worth going to has stairs, or some kind of walkable surface.

Also, why does climbing have to be DEX? Didn't anybody watch The Princess Bride? Andre the Giant climbed a rope while carrying three other people. That wasn't DEX! Wesley climbing up from behind him was DEX, but Andre's character was all STR. STR is slower, but you can carry people. At least Andre could. Baldhart's no Andre, but she's the closest we've got.

 

[Phietadix]

Also, why does climbing have to be DEX? Didn't anybody watch The Princess Bride? Andre the Giant climbed a rope while carrying three other people. That wasn't DEX! Wesley climbing up from behind him was DEX, but Andre's character was all STR. STR is slower, but you can carry people. At least Andre could. Baldhart's no Andre, but she's the closest we've got.

The character was Fezzik not Andre (or maybe you were refering to the actor) but you make a good point, perhaps you should have the choice of a STR roll or a DEX roll for a succeful climb.

 

[Nihal]

Thinking logically, it's a DEX/STR test. In some systems you can choose which attribute you're going to use when rolling, but I don't think it's the case of this one, unless the DM allows. I'm not even sure if it's a DEX test, it was a wild guess to tease you.

The ideal situation would be a DEX and STR test. You must be able to grasp your way up or down and you must be able to sustain your own weight. Then, if it's a regular climb it would be a CON and DEX test, wouldn't it? You must be able to keep moving and since you passed the initial STR test and your STR didn't change, you only have to endure the climb. The same isn't true for the conditions of your climbing, the wall often changes so you must find where hold next. This kind of "checking" test is usually made in fixed intervals or when the conditions' change is noticeable.

My guess is: To avoid an unnecessary amount of tests it's usually narrowed down to DEX/STR in those hybrid systems or only DEX, because it would be used "more often" than a STR test. Only in long climbs or having extra weight you must roll something else.

The logic is the same of STR tests for swimming. You must be skillful enough to coordinate your limbs to swim properly, but it's also a STR check, specially in running water. Since you supposedly know how to coordinate your members the main issue is fighting the water push.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I knew it was an "F" name, but yeah, I referred to the actor.

No complaints that climbing is DEX. Just making an observation. But one could argue that DEX can add damage to a sword, and only STR does. So I'm not making a complaint. C&C does so many things right with feats of STR, DEX, etc. that I'm not concerned about whether climbing is STR, DEX or either.

 

[Ravana]

So from this I take it, Ravana, I mean Hiljikki is a male half elf Druid? (For those of us, keeping score at home)

Hiljikki is a female half-elf druid. Though it isn't too difficult to mistake her for a 12-year-old boy. Or a 12-year-old girl, for that matter.

Ravana is a ten-headed Hindu demon.

Yeah, those Sigrelyn stats are just a little over 66.

Hey, not everybody's average.

I'd've been thrilled with another 3-5. The magic system begs for an 18 in your casting stat. (Your sword does not explode in your hand when you miss a swing.) And, no, I don't have one. I couldn't bear being that one-dimensional. Don't know if anyone did the math, but an 18 means you can't get even a single other stat with a bonus unless you also take a penalty somewhere.

Ah, well: I've been playing D&D since back in the dark days when casters didn't receive stat bonuses on spells per day; I've found ways to cope with drawbacks. Though I'm also not sure I was ever fool enough to play a single-classed magic user under those rules… not if the character was starting at 1st level. Never could understand why the people who wrote the game were such mage-haters.

Andre the Giant climbed a rope while carrying three other people.

Right—he climbed a rope. If he'd been climbing a cliff, he wouldn't have stood a chance. You ever see an overweight mountain climber before? (Not that I believe ol' Andre could have made it up a rope, either.)

Though, yes, climbing should arguably involve an average of STR and DEX. Not to mention what happens when fatigue sets in… which is about ten or twelve feet up the rope, for most people: then CON enters play as well. In which case, no one would be able to do it. Or at least no non-human, since one of those three would be a non-prime stat.…

Swimming should never involve STR: it should be CON. It requires little strength and not even average coordination as long as conditions aren't impossible… when they are, it's impossible. Since even the 50m sprinting record only comes out to a speed of a bit more than 4 MPH, and Olympic triathlon swim splits (1500m) come out to a bit less than 4 MPH, "running water" of any speed is going to prevent meaningful headway. Which is why competent swimmers can get washed out to sea by a current. In fact, the absence of meaningful difference between 50m and 1500m speeds points to CON being the controlling factor far better than anything else I could imagine.

But one could argue that DEX can add damage to a sword, and only STR does.

I'm good with STR adding the damage… but DEX really ought to be what's affecting whether or not you hit. D&D3e at least gestures at this by allowing you to take a feat where you can use DEX rather than STR to hit… but only for small, light weapons. Believe me, big, heavy ones require at least as much coordination. My own experience with them would argue that they require more: anybody can keep a dagger on course. Not letting your sword-tip drop during the swing may have to do with wrist strength; it hasn't a thing to do with strength in any other part of your body. And anyone who thinks strength is more important than dexterity when it comes to wielding a flail has never tried to. Let alone a whip, which can't benefit from strength in any event.

Of course, this is partly a legacy of D&D using a single number to reflect both weight of protection and evasiveness, the rationale being that greater STR allows you to punch through the protection better. Which sounds fine until you examine it; it becomes completely irrational when you consider that you receive the to hit bonus whether the target is wearing armor or not. It may (does) make for quicker game play, but systems that separate hitting the target at all, and hitting it hard enough to penetrate its protection—by having armor deduct from the damage caused—make far more sense.

Sometimes we sacrifice reality to expediency.

 

[Nihal]

Swimming should be a CON check, but it's a STR too. I'm this kind of thin, bad swimmer who get rolled by the waves back to the beach or to the sea, but only when I don't have strength enough to dive under the wave, where the pull is gentler. The same is true to rivers and specially waterfalls. In running water before being able or not to swim long enough it's a question of breaking into the weaker current and start to swim.

The CON would only come into play after a while swimming... or holding your breath.

--
About attacks being DEX based, I agree with you. I was surprised when I discovered C&C uses a STR test. I'm used to DEX tests to hit then STR determining the damage.

 

[Phietadix]

Right—he climbed a rope. If he'd been climbing a cliff, he wouldn't have stood a chance. You ever see an overweight mountain climber before? (Not that I believe ol' Andre could have made it up a rope, either.)

You seem to have a slight lack of knowledge of the barbarien class. But since your're a druid that makes sense. If I remember correctly, Legendary doesn't even have to roll to climb a cliff. What he cares about is climbing a rope.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

an 18 means you can't get even a single other stat with a bonus unless you also take a penalty somewhere.

18 + 9 + 9 + 9 + 9 + 9 = 63, so technically, an 18 means it's your only bonus if you don't want any weaknesses. Anyway, that's how it should be. An 18 means you're the best at something. I don't want characters who are awesome at everything. I think Baldhart kind of treads that line, so I checked with Steerpike to see what he thought before committing to my stats. (18S-4D-18C-13I-4W-9)

If I ever ran my own game, I would also limit people to 66 points under this system. I'd probably be a bastard and throw in a max (40 or 41) for STR+DEX+CON and INT+WIS+CHA totals as well, just to force players to have fighters with brains in their heads. That rule probably isn't necessary for this crowd. I think I'm the only one who has two 18s. What can I say? Barbarians are extreme. I more than made up for it by giving myself crappy DEX, I think.


Your point about the sword is exactly why I'm not complaining about DEX being used for climbing, not having a choice, etc. (Well, that and the game is so awesome, to complain about stuff like that is counterproductive.) Again, I'd stick to the C&C rules here if I were GM'ing. DEX is already good for shooting and not getting hit, which are two totally different skills. You can't have fat mountain climbers, but you can have fat sharpshooters. My clumsy barbarian is great on offense, not so much on defense. If I needed DEX to hit, then we'd have a system that encourages dumb fighters. We can talk about how almost everything athletic is a combination of strength, dexterity and constitution--and even the three "mental" attributes for that matter--but I like this system as it is. I wouldn't change a thing.

(Well, I did talk Steerpike into letting us have a calculated HP increase [1 + CON mod + hit die/2] when we level instead of having to roll the hit die. We had so many consecutive low rolls in battle #2, I definitely won't gamble for a permanent health increase. The calculation is slightly above what an average roll would be. It's basically the average rounded up.)

 

[Steerpike]

C&C is basically a d20/OGL update of 1e Dungeons and Dragons. There are modifications, to be sure, but at its core, and in spirit, that's what it is. D&D has always used STR to hit for melee attacks and DEX to hit for ranged attacks. The idea, though somewhat of an abstraction as are most of the rules, is not that you are absolutely missing the foe, but that your blow didn't land with enough force to penetrate whatever defenses they have. So if you roll a 15 against a foe that requires a 16 to hit, you might easily say the strike glanced off of their armor, and had there been more force behind it, it might have damaged them.

 

[Ravana]

Oh, I'm not complaining or suggesting sweeping revisions: if Steerpike wanted things to work differently, he'd've chosen a different system. Just pointing out where there are logical flaws within the existing one… since someone else already started that discussion.

Likewise, I'm not complaining about not being able to be superhuman: it's just a bit bothersome to not be able to take an 18 in my spellcasting attribute (a really good idea here), and still be able to add a single 13 somewhere else without crippling myself. I made my choice in the matter and will live with it… and my choice was that I wanted that 13 and didn't want to take penalties: remaining scores are a 10 and three 9s. (There's a remote chance that will change before I actually start play. Remote.)

Had we started with 67 points, I could have gotten the 18 and 13 with all the other stats being 9s; with 68, it could have been two 16s and four 9s; with 69, I could have stayed with a 16, had two 13s, and three 9s; with 71, it would have been an 18, two 13s, and three 9s. (Or maybe 18/16/10/9x3.) Lest anyone worry about these numbers being able to create "super" characters: even with 71 points, you could have five 13s (+1 bonuses to five stats)… as long as you were willing to take a 6 (-1) in the remaining one. A good all-arounder—but hardly Superman.

Here's the thing: fighters can afford to be dumb. Spellcasters can't afford to be wimps—since they already start off weaker anyway, courtesy of lower HD, limited armor and weapon selections, and poorer hit progression. Want to stay in the back and shoot? Can't take a hit on DEX. Want to be able to fight in the front line? Can't take a hit on STR or DEX—because you can't afford to drop your AC (unless you're a cleric, at least, and can wear heavy armor), and definitely don't want to drop your to hit and damage numbers. Don't want to take a hit on CON, especially if you plan to fight in melee: don't want to lose the HP… it may not seem much of a penalty for a 1st level divine caster (7 HP instead of 8, with a CON of 6-8), but for every level thereafter, this means you'd have a 25% chance of only gaining a single HP; for arcane casters, this would be a 50% chance. (Yes, the calculated HP increase is a tremendous advantage here.) Even with the calculated HP, you still don't want to take the hit on your saves against poison, disease and energy drain… the most common special effects in the game. Though it really doesn't matter what you "plan" to do, because you're going to end up getting hit at some point anyway, and in all likelihood you're going to end up in melee anyway, because sometimes it just can't be avoided. (Even if you can manage to stay in the rear and shoot, firing into a crowd which includes your friends—who are between you and your targets, since you are in the rear—is not a good idea. Not if you want to have friends for long.) And while STR is only mentioned in terms of lifting capacity as far as I see, if carrying capacity is used, you can't take a hit there or you won't be able to wear armor. Let alone help the party haul away the loot.

While my character could conceivably take the HP loss with the leveling rule change, I'm just having trouble wrapping my mind around the notion of a druid with a low CON.…

Arcane casters have a marginally easier life here: they're more able to afford a low WIS. Divine casters… may not have to deal with penalties for low INT very often, but being stupid is not a good idea for a spellcaster (nor does it make a whole lot of sense). Besides, you don't want your spellcaster facing penalties on his magic saving throws, since he's likely the one you're counting on to fix things when you blow a save against a magical effect. Nor do you want him taking the hit on saves vs. charm and fear—both CHA-based—for similar reasons.

Besides, as good a roleplayer as I am, I'm not at all certain I could manage a sub-par intelligence consistently. Nor enjoy doing so. (Not for a spellcaster, at least; if this one dies quickly, I've got an old barbarian I might revise and bring in. He was a hoot.)

C&C is basically a d20/OGL update of 1e Dungeons and Dragons. There are modifications, to be sure, but at its core, and in spirit, that's what it is. D&D has always used STR to hit for melee attacks and DEX to hit for ranged attacks. The idea, though somewhat of an abstraction as are most of the rules, is not that you are absolutely missing the foe, but that your blow didn't land with enough force to penetrate whatever defenses they have. So if you roll a 15 against a foe that requires a 16 to hit, you might easily say the strike glanced off of their armor, and had there been more force behind it, it might have damaged them.

Oh, I know the why: it's just wrong. Go back to my point about STR still adding hit bonuses against an unarmored opponent. What is the extra force "penetrating" there? If the system were to be completely logical, without switching to armor subtracting from damage rather than making it harder to be hit, the STR bonus would only reduce the enemy's bonus for armor worn—so an 18 STR would give +3 against ring mail/studded leather or better armor, but would only give +2 against leather, +1 against padded, and have no bonus against an unarmored opponent. But that, of course, would require some extra tracking which would slow play down marginally. Well, when you're playing tabletop, at least.

Though I would add that, while D&D3e retained the same AC system, it also introduced "damage reduction" for certain spells, items, etc.—which amounts to exactly what they should have done in the first place. They could have simply fixed this altogether while they were doing it. (Some of those spells made it onto the C&C spell list… but they were changed to fit older-gen systems, providing saving throw bonuses rather than reducing damage.)

It might be argued that stronger armors would make some weapons completely unable to cause damage to a wearer. My response to which would be "And…?" Full plate can't be penetrated with a dagger—not unless there's a far greater than average force put behind it. Even then, it would have to be a thrust: no slicing attack will be able to do it. You say that it's possible to slip the blade into the joins between pieces? (A) Good luck doing that while your opponent's resisting; (B) if he isn't able to resist, it doesn't require a hit roll anyway; (C) allow a hit that exceeds the required hit number by a certain amount to avoid armor protection. You say that some weapons are designed to penetrate armor? Fine: they reduce worn armor's protective value by a certain amount… but do the same amount of damage to any target, regardless of armor worn.

Consider: in the real world, a 1st-level fighter could put on full plate, wade into battle, get whacked about all day, and come out with nothing but bruises—if that. He might actually take more damage from his armor than his enemies, if it isn't fitted precisely to his body. Or he might take several solid hits, with a cumulative effect of grinding him down and forcing him to withdraw… say, 1 HP of damage each time he receives a good whack. I've worn 16-gauge full gothic plate for hours, fought numerous single combats and melees during the time, got whacked about quite a bit (I was never that good…) with the equivalent of clubs; at the end, the only "damage" I came away with was being down a quart of fluids and the need to polish the duct tape smudges off the borrowed armor. Weren't even any dents. (I was fortunate to have this opportunity: I was, at the time, exactly the same size as the person the armor had been custom-made for. Down to the eighth-inch and pound. Most people at least come away with armor hickies when borrowing articulated plate.)

In D&D and derivatives, he's in danger of being incapacitated, even killed, the first time he takes such a hit. All but guaranteed with the second. The all-or-nothing nature of damage in the game just makes it work that way. Which is why HP increases with level—though that's no help to our first-level warrior. (Nor very logical… though this is getting long enough as is.) He may have a 30% less chance of being "hit" than if he were wearing leather, but if he is hit, he takes the same damage either way. Of course, sometimes this works out in the character's favor: if he's fighting a giant, not being hit is going to be better than reducing the damage… go ahead and work out the logic of why heavy armor should fully deflect such a shot when the giant misses his hit roll by 1. Or, better, why light armor should.

And DEX should still make it easier to hit.…

As we both pointed out, these are abstractions, for the sake of convenience. They smooth game play. But they should never be mistaken for anything to do with reality.

 

[Nihal]

Neither am I complaining, I just enjoy the fun of speculating about the reasons behind some odd choices of those developers.


@Ravana
I can understand your dilemma. For I know my twisted luck I decided that investing all I had in INT just wasn't worth it. I may roll badly anyway and I would be hopeless if I hadn't a backup plan. I don't like this idea.

The world background helped me a little when choosing my strategy... I seriously doubt ordinary spellcasters would bet everything in arcane magic. There is a reason they're feared by stupid villagers, I guess someone who relied heavily on magic would probably... die young. Heh. Unless this character is exceptionally lucky, what's not my case. It's also the reason my character is so young, so it's believable she has zero corruption points so far. Arcane casters may have the advantage of ignoring WIS, but they accumulate corruption points.

Well, I had to lower one attribute to -1 and I trust the party to watch my back in this case, hehe. All my choices fitted my character's nature really well. In the end my stats don't look like a spellcaster's stats, they compliment the spells I've picked to some degree. It's going to be a weird playstyle, but it's not a big issue for me, the fun of experimenting is worthy it. Yes, I'm this stupid, yay!

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

16-13-9-9-9-9 is a decent build. (I know there's a 10 in there, but... same result.)

Nihal, only one -1 is also good. I guess you both did the number-crunching.


I disagree that fighters can afford to be dumb. In combat, yes. But when we role-play in town, I could hardly live with myself if Baldhart talked the way she does and had a build of 18S-18D-18C-4I-4W-4. I think if your intelligence is below a 9, your character should be forced to talk like an idiot, and it has to be in the teens if you want to talk intelligently. I know that's not a rule and this is my first D&D game, but I think you should role-play low mental stats.

(Baldhart has 13 INT/4 WIS, so she can sound smart, but she also does silly, embarrassing things. Dragging Aliron by the arm, trying to win over a hardened shopkeeper with a smile, and using colored chalk to open a tactics discussion are her latest goofball behaviors.)


I totally agree with your other points. Gameplay is much smoother when the rule is "this stat does THIS." The distance from reality is easily forgivable. (Plus, if I'm right about the barbarian skills, I can still climb well. And I hit what I swing at. Barbarians rock!)

 

[Steerpike]

A lot of the decisions regarding STR v DEX, and a lot of the other game decisions, are more of a balancing tool than anything. Keep in mind, however, that a 10 INT does not make you dumb. You're of average human intelligence, and humans are pretty bright. Once you start adding bonus modifiers, you're above average in that ability. The Prime/Non-Prime thing is a C&C creation to add another layer to it. If you have an 11 INT but INT is prime, then you have an advantage over someone with an INT of 11 non-prime.

18s are supposed to be rare. In 1e AD&D, we just rolled 3d6 (or if the DM was generous, 4d6 and drop the lowest) and put the scores in the abilities in the order rolled. Then you played what you came up with

This is a low-powered game by design. You can use the same system to play higher powered characters, or you can use something like Pathfinder and give higher stats and all the modifiers PCs get from other things to get a more heroic, cinematic style of game.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I didn't want average intelligence. I wanted a genius!

But I like the low power level. I think this IS the more heroic path, as opposed to having a ton of stat points so you can have plusses in everything. It makes you really think about what skills you want to prioritize to create a character. If we had, say, 78 points, there would be +3 bonuses all over the place.


"When everyone's super, no one is." ~Syndrome, The Incredibles