D&D 5E "I have a 45 Strenght!"

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

At least three with 2e, 3e, and 4e.

I loved the DM option high level campains, but yea, 2e was really the same as 3e

 

[Vic Ferrari]

I loved the DM option high level campains, but yea, 2e was really the same as 3e

That seems wrong, it what way are you implying?

 

[Tormyr]

Further increasing the strength score would break bounded accuracy. 30 Strength is already at the limits of what bounded accuracy can take. The Terrasque has a 30 strength and 9 proficiency. It has a +19 to hit. That means that all but the high AC characters are hit barring an attack roll of 1. Raising the Strength even up to 40 would give a +24 to hit and would mean that pretty much everyone was hit all the time. Sure, you could use cover or have a character with plate, shield and the shield spell or other combinations to avoid being hit on a low roll, but those cases would be few and far between.

What is gained from a creature having a strength higher than 30 anyway? With the terrasque having a 30 strength, that pretty much sets 30 as the highest strength (is anything stronger in brute strength than the terrasque?).

 

[aramis erak]

That seems wrong, it what way are you implying?

When one uses the 2E Player's Option: Skills & Powers and Player's Option: Combat and Tactics books, one is playing pretty damned close to 3E combat mechanics, one has the class-mush from point build, and one has a game that can be more combat focused than 4E with a group of 12 year olds.

Adding in Campaign Option: High Level Campaigns, it added 10th level spells (expanded from Dark Sun: Dragon Kings, but without the Dark sun limits on use), and pretty much just gave "more of what you already had" up to 30th level. Due to PO:S&P, one could raise the attributes in play, and people tended to do so.

 

[Vic Ferrari]

When one uses the 2E Player's Option: Skills & Powers and Player's Option: Combat and Tactics books

And those that chose to ignore such specific options to the game?

 

[aramis erak]

And those that chose to ignore such specific options to the game?

If you used the High Level Campaigns book, you got more of what you already had. In combination (and it specifically was written to be used in combination with those), it was brutal numbers climb.

If you didn't, you still got 10th level spells and more low level spells. And a wider gap between fighters and spellcasters. And thieves with a wider array of thief skills so that they had something to do with their per-level points.

And, if you skipped CO:HLC, you had no support for high level play, so you got people kluging it up....

And it's not like people didn't extrapolate AD&D 1E to absurd, "just add more of the same" levels, either. I mean, I know of 3 groups in Anchorage (Alaska) alone that had characters worked from 1st to levels 50+ under AD&D 1E or D&D OE. Each had unique spell tables for above 25th level.

 

[Nivenus]

Arguably gods could break the cap, but then I'm not really a fan of statting gods (at least not in most circumstances).

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

When one uses the 2E Player's Option: Skills & Powers and Player's Option: Combat and Tactics books, one is playing pretty damned close to 3E combat mechanics, one has the class-mush from point build, and one has a game that can be more combat focused than 4E with a group of 12 year olds.

Adding in Campaign Option: High Level Campaigns, it added 10th level spells (expanded from Dark Sun: Dragon Kings, but without the Dark sun limits on use), and pretty much just gave "more of what you already had" up to 30th level. Due to PO:S&P, one could raise the attributes in play, and people tended to do so.

And those that chose to ignore such specific options to the game?

well that would be like us... we used the weapons from combat and tactics (that might also be where death blow came from) but none of the tactical stuff, we ignored skills and power 99% of the time, and used phb+ tome of magic for most of the time, then later used the 4 spell compendium's instead.

We found that when we added high level campaigns (the most often used book next to tome of magic for our group) all it did was add more spells per day, more hp, and more weap/non weap profs... thieves got some new % based skills... it was the same game with just bigger numbers...

If you used the High Level Campaigns book, you got more of what you already had. In combination (and it specifically was written to be used in combination with those), it was brutal numbers climb.

If you didn't, you still got 10th level spells and more low level spells. And a wider gap between fighters and spellcasters. And thieves with a wider array of thief skills so that they had something to do with their per-level points.

yea, and if you used level limits you made demi humans cry...

we once ran a game with level limits that were already slightly higher then the books, and high prime stats gave +1 or +2 to the level limits... I was a half elf Druid/Mage/Thief and when I maxed out all 3 class our human Ranger was already using high level campaigns...

And, if you skipped CO:HLC, you had no support for high level play, so you got people kluging it up....

I've never met anyone who went above 21 without using the books, how common was it?

 

[aramis erak]

well that would be like us... we used the weapons from combat and tactics (that might also be where death blow came from) but none of the tactical stuff, we ignored skills and power 99% of the time, and used phb+ tome of magic for most of the time, then later used the 4 spell compendium's instead.

We found that when we added high level campaigns (the most often used book next to tome of magic for our group) all it did was add more spells per day, more hp, and more weap/non weap profs... thieves got some new % based skills... it was the same game with just bigger numbers...

yea, and if you used level limits you made demi humans cry...

we once ran a game with level limits that were already slightly higher then the books, and high prime stats gave +1 or +2 to the level limits... I was a half elf Druid/Mage/Thief and when I maxed out all 3 class our human Ranger was already using high level campaigns... I've never met anyone who went above 21 without using the books, how common was it?

Of the 30-plus long term AD&D groups I knew of by 1996...
the "epic level groups" I knew of (with Epic meaning levels 21+)

• OE+AD&D1: levels in the 90's, rules mostly AD&D1E, alternating 2 level sequence of +1 odd levels, +1 Even levels.
• AD&D1: Levels in the mid 50's, 8+ players routinely present, Each level added a spell slot of (level-30) modulo 9
• AD&D1E: Levels into the mid 60's, new PC's at level 20 for new players or deceased players, 3 level spell progression... Lower half, upper half except peak, peak
• AD&D2: HLC, PO: S&P, PO: C&T, new players at level 20.
• AD&D2: no "option" series, no complete series. Don't know the spell progressions. Levels into the mid 30's.
• AD&D2: no "option", no complete; swapped in the Cyclopedia weapon mastery and higher level spells.
• Cyclopedia rules: Immortal 12 when the group disbanded; started as 1st level non-immortals.
• Cyclopedia Rules: (my own peak campaign) peak character was 21st level when we ported over to D&D 3.0. TPK several levels later. Note: game had run less than 8 months to get to 17th-to-21st level PC's under Cyclopedia. Note also: session bonus and RP bonus options in use; each was 1/20th of a level, as per the rules for Cyclopedia.

The AD&D group at the head of the list finally disbanded in 1999, having been playing since about 1983... with the same characters.
WAY over the top.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Arguably gods could break the cap, but then I'm not really a fan of statting gods (at least not in most circumstances).

Well, by definition - whatever the highest possible strength in the game is, Thor is slightly stronger than that. At least while wearing his stuff.