Active Users:811 Time:23/12/2024 03:20:08 AM
That was a Warrior trait, not a human one. Fanatic-Templar Send a noteboard - 11/01/2012 07:18:09 PM
Ability charts, especially. Humans couldn't reach 19 strength, but they could do increasing fractions? So, a human barbarian with 18 1/2 strength..


Strength was a better ability than the other five, by far. If you played a Warrior (Fighter, Ranger, Paladin) and had 18 strength, you got to roll an additional d100 which were more ranks of Strength you had available. Essentially, instead of getting a score between 3 and 18, if you played a Warrior you could go up to a practical 23 in Strength. Those weren't minor either. The difference between a Priest, Rogue or Wizard's 18 Strength and a Warrior's potential 18/00 Strength is actually greater than the difference between having 18 Strength and having 6 Strength.

Except of course that you need to strike gold on your d100. If you were playing with rules like Baldur's Gate's, which allow you to switch your ability points around, getting an 18 isn't such a big deal, but you still need to roll that 100 on the d100. So your best bet is just to skip the whole thing and go directly to 19 Strength. Play a Half-Orc or other race that gives you a +1 bonus to Strength and you can get all the bonuses of Strength 18/00 and more without depending on luck. Strength 19 is effectively a 24, if this were some other stat.

So at this point, you could have a 19 Strength Half-Orc Warrior at level 1 who can swing a two-handed sword for - nothing else considered - 3d6+7* damage every round. I won't say what a level 1 Priest, Rogue or Wizard can do at level 1, even given a 19 in their specialised ability (or even a theoretical 24).

*[EDIT] Actually, that's "only" 1d10+7 damage. When I checked the tables, I mistakenly assumed the first column was for small characters and the second for medium as in 3rd Edition, but they're actually for Small/Medium and Large, respectively. Not sure why, since none of the core races are large and quite a few are small, but tying in with my overall point, I avoid asking questions of Second Edition and just roll with it. Probably involved a build that abused Enlarge or something.

And THAC0 is... no. I've seen valid complaints against 3e, but BAB seems insanely more intuitive than THAC0, and they do basically the same thing.


They do exactly the same thing. The progression is even the same. THAC0 is just harder to use. As a DM I used to just give my players the monsters' AC during fights because trying to keep it hidden was more trouble than it was worth. In retrospect, that wasn't necessary, but it did facilitate things a lot.

Fun fact, when I first played Baldur's Gate, I noticed that my heavily armoured characters had lower AC than my lightly armoured ones. I figured that had something to do with the iron crisis and unequipped everyone. I went through the Nashkell Mines completely unarmoured on my first run. Kobold Commandoes slaughtered my guys.

One of the most incomprehensibly arbitrary things in 2nd Edition to me were the Saving Throws. Both the categories and the numbers within them. It's just the sort of thing you had to accept and roll with.
The first rule of being a ninja is "do no harm". Unless you intend to do harm, then do lots of harm.
~Master Splinter

Victorious in Bergioyn's legendary 'Reverse Mafia'. *MySmiley*
This message last edited by Fanatic-Templar on 11/01/2012 at 11:08:55 PM
Reply to message
D&D 5th Edition... Hard to believe how many years this has been going. - 09/01/2012 10:47:30 PM 1490 Views
We still play 3.5 - 09/01/2012 11:05:52 PM 951 Views
Nerd! *NM* - 09/01/2012 11:13:04 PM 524 Views
Yessssssss - 10/01/2012 08:51:04 AM 977 Views
I use 3.5 rules too... - 13/01/2012 05:50:58 PM 978 Views
Thanks to 4th Edition, sadly not. - 10/01/2012 01:55:04 AM 857 Views
Hey now! - 10/01/2012 08:50:02 AM 870 Views
I found this blog entry enlightening: - 10/01/2012 01:41:12 PM 991 Views
Dunno about the "Old-School Revival," but Pathfinder is definitely pretty popular - 10/01/2012 02:21:37 PM 895 Views
I started playing when 2E came out. - 10/01/2012 03:01:45 PM 999 Views
Same here. - 11/01/2012 02:20:41 AM 849 Views
Re: Dunno about the "Old-School Revival," but Pathfinder is definitely pretty popular - 10/01/2012 04:34:39 PM 923 Views
If you want to know more, read this thread. - 11/01/2012 02:42:06 PM 921 Views
Cool, thanks. *NM* - 11/01/2012 03:40:46 PM 476 Views
I can't wait to see the Edition Wars™ flare up again. - 10/01/2012 02:55:27 PM 1065 Views
True story: - 10/01/2012 04:39:47 PM 975 Views
I still play 3.5 - 10/01/2012 04:31:27 PM 932 Views
The last time I played an AD&D CRPG, it had THAC0. - 10/01/2012 07:47:47 PM 906 Views
Baldur's Gate, woo! - 11/01/2012 03:49:49 PM 836 Views
That was a Warrior trait, not a human one. - 11/01/2012 07:18:09 PM 992 Views
That sounds insanely unintuitive. *NM* - 11/01/2012 07:37:37 PM 499 Views
That's 2nd Edition. - 11/01/2012 10:59:34 PM 807 Views
I repeat what FT said, that was 2nd edition. *NM* - 12/01/2012 04:20:28 AM 440 Views
AD&D represent! *throws up half-orc gang signs* *NM* - 13/01/2012 01:50:06 AM 570 Views
Throwing up a half-eaten rat is not throwing up a gang sign... *NM* - 13/01/2012 05:26:47 AM 494 Views
What about a half-eaten halfling? - 13/01/2012 02:41:06 PM 923 Views
*facedesk* *NM* - 13/01/2012 03:45:05 PM 430 Views
(-:,` *NM* - 17/01/2012 09:02:26 PM 485 Views
Been re-reading The Sleeping Dragon, have you? - 25/01/2012 05:29:15 PM 918 Views
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. - 25/01/2012 06:41:46 PM 960 Views
A joke in Joel Rosenbergs "The Sleeping Dragon." - 25/01/2012 07:13:26 PM 975 Views
*sign* *NM* - 13/01/2012 02:41:57 PM 494 Views
*hollas* - 25/01/2012 05:30:45 PM 824 Views
GURPS is still in 4E. - 25/01/2012 05:58:34 PM 869 Views
What? I've barely had the opportunity to play 4th Edition yet. - 11/01/2012 02:38:50 AM 815 Views
Dude.. I still remember the 1st edition books.. - 11/01/2012 12:54:27 PM 995 Views

Reply to Message