D&D 2E Best Ability Bonus Progression
delericho
Legend
It depends.
For the 3/4/5e-style game where the classes are (at least in theory) balanced against one another without reference to the ability scores, then I prefer the BECMI progression but am happy with the 3/4/5e progression.
For 1st/2nd Edition, however, where a key 'balancing' factor is that Warriors get exceptional strength and uncapped Con bonuses to hit points, I think you need to retain those effects.
Since my preference is for the former, I've voted for modified "Basic".
For the 3/4/5e-style game where the classes are (at least in theory) balanced against one another without reference to the ability scores, then I prefer the BECMI progression but am happy with the 3/4/5e progression.
For 1st/2nd Edition, however, where a key 'balancing' factor is that Warriors get exceptional strength and uncapped Con bonuses to hit points, I think you need to retain those effects.
Since my preference is for the former, I've voted for modified "Basic".
I voted for modified “Basic”. Otherwise, it would be the 3e+ progression even though I don’t really like how it inflates the numbers. There’s too much push to have the “best” ability scores in newer games. It’s gotten to the point where Pathfinder 2e hands out 18s like candy at Halloween.
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
For AD&D, my preference is the use of my tables, which use a smoothed progression. They were published in Fooprints #12, on Dragonsfoot.
Jack Daniel
dice-universe.blogspot.com
If I'm playing straight D&D, the ability score tables I use are (closest to, but a little more complex than) the ones from Swords & Wizardry:
3–8, −1
9–12, ±0
13–18, +1
If you're rolling 3d6 down the line, each stat has about a 25% chance of a −1 penalty, a 50% chance of no modifier, and a 25% chance of a +1 bonus.
In lots of D&D-derived games set in other genres (like steampunk, modern, or sci-fi), I'll use a table which is essentially the "d20 System" table cut in half:
3, −2
4–7, −1
8–13, ±0
14–17, +1
18, +2
This table leaves characters with a two-thirds chance of no modifier per stat, and only a one-sixth chance of having a penalty or a bonus. I used it in writing Engines & Empires, and I'm given to understand that Kevin Crawford did the same for Stars/Worlds Without Number.
(The S&W-derivative White Box: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game uses an even sparser table: −1 for 3–6, ±0 for 7–14, +1 for 15–18. That makes bonuses and penalties only 10% likely each, and 80% of rolls will give no modifier. That's too rare even for my tastes! But I can see the appeal of it.)
I don't use anything like exceptional Strength or extra hp for fighters with high Constitution. (Even when I was more inclined to play AD&D by-the-book, while I did keep the high hp bonus for fighters — and also granted it to monks — I made sure to completely eliminate exceptional Strength from the game and replace it with another mechanic.)
3–8, −1
9–12, ±0
13–18, +1
If you're rolling 3d6 down the line, each stat has about a 25% chance of a −1 penalty, a 50% chance of no modifier, and a 25% chance of a +1 bonus.
In lots of D&D-derived games set in other genres (like steampunk, modern, or sci-fi), I'll use a table which is essentially the "d20 System" table cut in half:
3, −2
4–7, −1
8–13, ±0
14–17, +1
18, +2
This table leaves characters with a two-thirds chance of no modifier per stat, and only a one-sixth chance of having a penalty or a bonus. I used it in writing Engines & Empires, and I'm given to understand that Kevin Crawford did the same for Stars/Worlds Without Number.
(The S&W-derivative White Box: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game uses an even sparser table: −1 for 3–6, ±0 for 7–14, +1 for 15–18. That makes bonuses and penalties only 10% likely each, and 80% of rolls will give no modifier. That's too rare even for my tastes! But I can see the appeal of it.)
I don't use anything like exceptional Strength or extra hp for fighters with high Constitution. (Even when I was more inclined to play AD&D by-the-book, while I did keep the high hp bonus for fighters — and also granted it to monks — I made sure to completely eliminate exceptional Strength from the game and replace it with another mechanic.)
Last edited:
If I were playing AD&D still, I'd use Basic.
I don't really buy the idea that warriors would need something to make up for exceptional Strength/Con, because if their balance was based around having 18s and 17s that's not really balance now is it? If it turns out they need it, I'd do something like give fighters an additional +1 to hit and +2 to damage.
I don't really buy the idea that warriors would need something to make up for exceptional Strength/Con, because if their balance was based around having 18s and 17s that's not really balance now is it? If it turns out they need it, I'd do something like give fighters an additional +1 to hit and +2 to damage.
aco175
Legend
I do not quite understand the question being asked. There seems to be something with a need to change the way strength is used. There is no option for keep it the standard way as now.
I guess if I wanted to change things, I would allow fighters to advance past 20 strength. Would this lead to allowing rogues to go higher in Dex or wizards Int?
Edit: Just saw this is a 2e thread, so I have no opinion.
I guess if I wanted to change things, I would allow fighters to advance past 20 strength. Would this lead to allowing rogues to go higher in Dex or wizards Int?
Edit: Just saw this is a 2e thread, so I have no opinion.
Similar Threads
