A couple of new players

[Ravana]

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

Yeah, and in 0e D&D (no "A"), they hadn't even come up with using 4d6 and dropping the lowest. WYRIWIG. Which lasted almost exactly as long as it took everyone in the group to roll stats that would have resulted in a party with three mediocre clerics, a failed tavern tart and a one-legged village idiot… followed by no one rolling more than 3 on their HP. At which point the GM would either say "move a couple stats around" or "roll it again." At least any GM not living in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin would.

(Aside: best story I ever heard about Gary Gygax… he was playing at a convention, in a party of 1st-level characters. His—a mage—had loaded up with a dozen flasks of oil, which he apparently felt was the appropriate method of overcoming the crippling rules he'd helped author, which at the time only allowed 1st-level mages a single spell a day. Got nailed by a Burning Hands; took out the entire party.)

Of course, that far back, there were also only three alignments (L, N, C) and three classes (fighter, magic user, cleric). Even thief didn't show up until the first supplement came along. Things have certainly come along a ways. Oh: and hobbits were still called hobbits. Never did get the story straight on why Tolkien's estate—or perhaps his publishers—got all bent about that.

Can't actually say I miss those days… not in terms of game play.

Anyway: as I said, I knew my options and made my choices with eyes open. If I couldn't live with them (personally, whether or not my character can), I wouldn't be joining up.

Yes, you should play your mental stats, to the best of your ability. Which is why I didn't feel like taking a caster with a sub-par INT; "idiot savant" isn't really my thing. And a 13 isn't "low": the average die roll on 3d6 is 10.5—times six is 63, so our characters are, in net terms, just above average; any stat that gives a bonus is pretty good. A 4… yeah, that's low. You've got it down: you aren't dumb, you just do things that aren't well thought out at times. A lot of the time, probably.

It's not that these are throwaway stats for fighters—they're all important, for saving throws if nothing else. But it's also like I said: your sword doesn't have a chance of causing you permanent, irreversible damage if you happen to miss with it by more than four points. No matter what it does to you, a cleric of high enough level can fix it. Even decapitation. (Okay, Steerpike: you remember seeing the original, optional Critical/Fumble tables? Worst possible result: "roll three times" on initial fumble [1% chance]; "critical hit nearest ally" [1%] twice; "critical hit self" [1%]; instant kill on each critical [10%] times three. Chances of actually happening: 1 in 1 billion. Though this assumes the GM tells you to re-roll if you get that initial "roll three times" fumble again; if not, you could slaughter as much of your allied forces as are within weapon's reach… or pass within it if you happen to be charging at the time. Yep, those were the days. )

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Not dumb... foolish. Low intelligence is dumb. Low wisdom is foolish. Baldhart is highly intelligent (I consider a +1 INT genius) but very foolish. It's a fun combination!

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Ravana, you're little blonde druid is drawn, and I used clean line-art so coloring will be quick. I'll upload the art tomorrow afternoon/evening, most likely, since I won't get home until after 9:00 tonight. My school has an open house, so I'm stuck here.

 

[Ravana]

Well, I wouldn't consider +1 "genius," but it is noticeably above average.

In fact, INT is one of only two D&D stats to ever receive a real-world numerical basis of any sort (STR is the other): they considered each point of INT to be roughly equal to 10 points of IQ. Don't think they still express it that way, but it might give you some notion of where you'd stand. Ignoring for present purposes the myriad problems associated with IQ as a concept, let alone measuring it—I said it was a "real-world" quantification: I didn't say it was an objective one—that would put you at 130, which is at the top of +2 SD (mean 100, ±15), so you'd be as intelligent as or more intelligent than 97.5% of the rest of the human populace. Or to look at it another way, you'd be into the "gifted" range according to most entities that use such a designation.

"Foolish" is as good a word as any, I suppose. There are several options: the one I normally think of with low WIS is impulsive—as I said, "not well thought out." Given a non-urgent situation and the time to ponder at leisure, I'm sure Baldhart will consider options other than whatever first strikes her. Though a low-WIS character might just as easily be indecisive: you think things through too much, and take too long to come to decisions, even (or especially) under stress. Or you could be oblivious, since WIS governs most perception tasks (other than examining in detail, which is usually INT). Or naive. Or a number of other things, I'm sure.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Well, +1 averages at 14 (13-15), so I just consider the whole +1 MOD to be ~140 IQ.

Putting 14 instead of 13 just to officially have the genius stat is bad math. That makes her a genius, but then my genius license has to be revoked.


The interpretations of the STR stat (that I've read) would make ME an 18-00 (dead-lift). C'mon... I'm nothing next to those prisoners my age who can bench 800 pounds. (My cousin's a prison guard. He sees the results of men with nothing to do other than lift weights.)

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Here's the druid! She's wearing a wolfskin hoodie. Squirrels find it quite comfortable.

We're all set on avatars now, so… nobody die!

 

[Ravana]

Yeah, well, the interpretation for STR is different here than in original D&D—though the one here makes a bit more sense to me, since it's an even progression. (I like even progressions. See comments below.) Previous interpretations listed carrying capacity—the amount you could haul around without facing encumbrance penalties, not the amount you could press, dead-lift, or tote in a fireman carry. Leaving aside the (never rational) percentile scores, an 18 would allow you to haul around 200 lbs. of gear and still operate at full capacity… in terms of no penalty to movement, die rolls, etc. Think about that for a moment: you could carry a fully-loaded infantry pack (100 lbs. or more), plus wear heavy armor, and still run at full speed. An 18/00 would allow you to bear twice that: you could have the pack, the armor, and a lightly-loaded friend riding piggy-back on your shoulders (presumably carrying a lance… ), and still run at full speed.

I challenge you to find a human being, regardless of condition, who could actually do that.

Extrapolate encumbrance capacity to something like a fireman's carry, and someone with an 18/00 STR could conceivably shoulder a full-grown donkey and still proceed at a walk.

The lifting amounts are reduced here… but since we aren't using encumbrance (as far as I can tell), it balances out somewhat. Again, it's an abstraction for play purposes. And, again, no, it doesn't necessarily make sense.

As for the INT bonus: a person with a 14 INT is still smarter than you are, just not enough so to get a better bonus on the die roll. This would probably only matter if the two of you were playing chess, since C&C doesn't use abilities as target numbers on opposed rolls. (If it did, and the two of you were engaged in an intellectual confrontation, each of you would roll against a target number equal to the other's INT: your target number for success would be 14, the other person's a 13. If you both succeeded, the one who'd succeeded by more would be the victor. In essence, the person with a 14 INT would have a +1 against you… but in general terms, you'd both be roughly equal when attempting actions that involved INT.)

This is one of the problems with having abilities cluster in terms of bonuses: who's going to take a 15—in a point-buy system—when a 13 gives him the same benefits? Maybe someone looking forward to acquiring a +1 ability item in the future, say gauntlets that increase STR… but no one else will. And no one is going to take a 14 and count on getting a +2 item… the only time someone might take a 14 is if he ended up with an extra point after all the others were spent. (And didn't have any 16s that he could turn to 17s in hopes of that +1 item.) This is a problem rooted in D&D3e, not AD&D1e: in older days, each point of an exceptional ability provided some additional benefit. Of course, as a general rule none of the stats provided a bonus unless they were 15 or higher, so you come out a bit ahead here (though a bit behind on 18s, in some cases)… but that doesn't change the fact that this system encourages min/maxing to the extent that you're only likely to take stats which fall on the break points.

In fact, the way STR is handled here, it's the only stat for which it makes sense to take a score that isn't on a break point, since at least you get something out of it—a marginally increased lifting capacity.

Ah, well. It's not easy replicating reality in a game system. You always end up making compromises somewhere. Having not only made extensive modifications to systems such as D&D, but also having designed a complete universal RPG system from scratch, I know this all too well. (I'd love to think it was publishable, but the market is so glutted I can't really see a niche available.) Most of the compromises arise from making choices between added detail and fluidity of game play: the more detail, the slower the play. That having been said, it is possible to make improvements on just about any existing game, or to at least rectify some of the more egregiously illogical elements.

•••

One could argue that the "correct" amount for lifting is closer to 30x STR, if one looks at various world records—it's hard to set a specific number, since these involve a number of different lift styles: some come closer to 40x STR—but these are also single lifts, under perfect conditions, generally with supportive equipment allowed.

Examples, for the curious: for recognized Olympic events—whether or not the record was set at the Olympics themselves—the clean & jerk record would give 32.51x STR; the snatch record would give 26.4x STR. "Press"—not sure what kind: whatever the Olympics used prior to 1972—would give 28.9x STR; unquestionably, this record will have gone up since then. The "unequipped"—no bench shirt—bench press record would yield 39.72x STR; the "equipped" 59.72. Amazing what a "shirt" can do: in the case of one lifter whose records are cited for both with and without, he managed an additional 315 lbs. with a bench shirt—almost 50% more than without one. Even "unequipped" still involves a belt and wrist straps, however. Also, in the Olympic-style cases, these numbers are for the top weight class; the bench press doesn't list weight classes, but it's a fair bet the records are held by people that would fall into the top class in a rated event.

Well… our characters don't have bench shirts. They don't even have wrist straps or lifting belts. They also don't have the benefit of modern sports medicine or scientifically-developed muscle-building techniques. (Or steroids.) And we aren't talking what they can do once, under ideal conditions, with plenty of preparation time, with an evenly-balanced, easy-to-grip dumbbell. So… my guess would be that, under certain conditions, the GM will allow a lift to exceed the listed amounts. Under routine conditions, the numbers are probably not too unreasonable. Lifting 800 lbs. once is far different from being to lift 180 or 270 lbs. routinely… which is what the current rules allow for an 18 STR. How many reps can you (not your character) manage at those numbers?

Be happy: my character's numbers come out to 60 and 90 lbs. She's the one gonna be riding on your shoulders, carrying the spear.…

 

[Ravana]

Here's the druid! She's wearing a wolfskin hoodie. Squirrels find it quite comfortable.

We're all set on avatars now, so… nobody die!

Yep, looks about right. Eyes should be blue and/or green (they change with the weather: her full description will show up soon… split the difference and make them teal, perhaps); the hair is actually even lighter than that (trivial); other than that it's dead on. The squirrel is just a visitor—which no doubt is why they've both got that "curious" look on their faces—though what normally rides on her head also finds the fur comfy.

 

[Phietadix]

Shouldn't you're Animal Compaion also have avatar? As they normally can fight it might be helpful to now where he/she is.

 

[Nihal]

We're all set on avatars now, so… nobody die!

A tough task.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

As for the INT bonus: a person with a 14 INT is still smarter than you are

Not true. 13 and 14 mean nothing. Only the +1 matters. Even when it's character vs. character.

When Baldhart arm-wrestled, she added her STR modifier and her barbarian skill modifier (and tried to intimidate her opponent to mess up his odds even more). If a level 1 orc came along with his 19 in STR, he'd have no advantage. If anything, Baldy would have a +4 or +6 advantage, depending on the success of her intimidation roll. (Maybe orcs get +2 to STR checks, but in any case, the 19 wouldn't make a difference.)

The one Dragon's Egg race that could out-muscle Baldy is a half-elf (favoring human) barbarian with a +3 (or even a +2) in strength. And even then, Baldhart could get rid of his edge (+2 to all checks) with Intimidate (-2 to all rolls) since the half-elf barbarian can't have both STR and CHA as primes. But... the half-elf barbarian would still have the edge because he has a 60% chance of intimidating Baldy, and with +3 CHA as a secondary, he'd only be 5% more likely to be intimidated than Baldhart.


I'm sure about all of the above except: for character vs. character, does it matter if the attribute is primary? If not, the charismatic barbarian half-elf will kick Baldhart's butt.

 

[Ravana]

Shouldn't you're Animal Compaion also have avatar? As they normally can fight it might be helpful to now where he/she is.

You're assuming I took one that was useful in combat.…

Not true. 13 and 14 mean nothing. Only the +1 matters. Even when it's character vs. character.

Depends on how the GM wants to run things. As I said, since C&C doesn't routinely make use of opposed ability rolls, it's unlikely ever to matter. However, if there were no difference, the stats might as well be 13 (+1), 14 (+2) and 15 (+3). Or, actually, the stats would range from 2 (-3) to 8 (+3), since there are only seven discrete levels of bonus/penalty, plus the bottom-end 1. Retaining the old D&D-style 3-18 range simply becomes pointless… apart from providing a mechanism whereby buying higher-level stats is easier to regulate. Which can be taken care of any number of more rational ways, if that's all it's doing for you.

I would never, however, say that a difference between two numbers is meaningless. It may not matter 99% of the time—it may never matter to your particular character, depending on what she does or encounters in life, it may never come up in any situation Steerpike puts our characters in, it may never make a difference to any die roll you're called upon to make—but the difference should still exist.

Don't sweat it: Baldhart is smarter than Hiljikki, anyway. My second high stat—and second prime—didn't go into INT. So you'll still be able to beat her at chess. Not speed chess, perhaps, but normal chess, sure.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Oh... I meant it doesn't matter the way this game is being played. I agree that you could just have 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 instead of 3,4,6,9,13,16,18. I think Steerpike stuck with 3-18 because people get that 18 is awesome in D&D. My guess at least. But his house rules override the stuff I hate about D&D, like rolling for stats, (I played Baldur's Gate on PC, and the re-rolling and redistribution options made me wonder why they didn't just let you pick stats.) and he let us use our max hit die roll for starting HP.

Anyway, glad you like the art. I wasn't sure if you settled on an animal, but yes, my intent is that the squirrel is a visitor. Maybe your druid is like Snow White and birds and rodents always perch on her. That would sound cute if I hadn't used the word 'rodent.'

 

[Ravana]

Oh... I meant it doesn't matter the way this game is being played. I agree that you could just have 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 instead of 3,4,6,9,13,16,18. I think Steerpike stuck with 3-18 because people get that 18 is awesome in D&D.

'S cool. Naah, he stuck with it because if he didn't he'd have to do too much rewriting.

Besides, many people are used to it.

My guess at least. But his house rules override the stuff I hate about D&D, like rolling for stats, (I played Baldur's Gate on PC, and the re-rolling and redistribution options made me wonder why they didn't just let you pick stats.)

Test of patience, I guess. They figure eventually you'll realize you aren't going to get any better and take whatever it is you've stored. Not that it should matter: after all, you paid for the game, and what you do with it isn't gonna affect them any. Some of the more recent games bug me more, really—since their point-buy systems really cripple certain classes that don't function well without multiple higher stats. Monks can be at a severe disadvantage. I've found.

Anyway, glad you like the art. I wasn't sure if you settled on an animal, but yes, my intent is that the squirrel is a visitor. Maybe your druid is like Snow White and birds and rodents always perch on her. That would sound cute if I hadn't used the word 'rodent.'

Yeah, I figure she gets a lot of that. The critter I settled on… well, I never have worked out how to post a picture properly, so, with apologies, I'll just link the wiki one.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...40px-Genetta_genetta_felina_(Wroclaw_zoo).JPG

The party will get its first glimpse at it peeking out from… well, how 'bout if I just go there instead.

 

[Sparkie]

A Druid eh Ravana? Hopefully I won't be the only healer anymore...

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Two healers? You won't get any complaints from me. With a larger party, that's more than welcome!

 

[Steerpike]

The game is mostly Castles & Crusades, which uses the 3-18 system. The modifications are mainly to the magic system. Also, what I've posted in the sticky threads aren't complete rules by any means, but a framework that forms a good basis for a play-by-post game, when most of the people don't have the actual rule books.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

The critter I settled on… well, I never have worked out how to post a picture properly, so, with apologies, I'll just link the wiki one.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Genetta_genetta_felina_%28Wroclaw_zoo%29.JPG/240px-Genetta_genetta_felina_%28Wroclaw_zoo%29.JPG

The party will get its first glimpse at it peeking out from… well, how 'bout if I just go there instead.

If I feel ambitious, I'll alter/redraw to get the proper little critter in Hiljikki's avatar.

 

[Steerpike]

Prime/Non-Prime abilities do come into play with attribute checks. A fighter with 15 STR, Prime has, is able, though experience, training or what have you, to use his natural strength to better effect in any given situation than a Wizard with 15 STR, Non-Prime.

As for giving yourself an ability score of 14 or 15, when both have a +2 modifier, the character with a 15 STR is closer to moving to the next tier in terms of STR. He's still close enough to the character with STR 14 that in terms of die rolls things are going to look the same, but a +1 item that affects STR is going to push him over the edge into the +3 mod, whereas that same magic item on the STR 14 character isn't going to be enough to do that.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Oh... okay, so items can push you up an attribute point, possibly increasing the modifier. (Well, not for me unless there are +2 items. CHA and INT have a long way to go!)