Stats Have Suffered From Inflation

[Thunt]

I remember playing D&D in the 80's and the players freaking out cause the brick of the party had a 17 Str. Now it seems that players are used to 20, 21 or even 22 Str and a fighter type with a 17 Str is merely laughed at for being weak. Is this just my group or is it in other places too?

Also, I remember when this was AAAALLLLLL farm land as far as the eye could see....

 

[Jdvn1]

I think this is a problem that is somewhat alleviated by the point-buy system.

 

[demiurge1138]

Also part of it is the prevalence of stat-enhancing items, the ability to gain new ability points at levels and especially the fact that monsters have ability scores now. Quantifying the upper echelons of Strength makes it possible for PCs to get there. There's no more cap at 18.

Demiurge out.

 

[Bront]

Depends on the level.

However, a power fighter of moderate level will likely have a strength of at least 18, probably closer to 22 with magical help.

Actualy, stats have generaly lowers since the earlier (Pre 3.0) edditions. A 17 str gives you the equivilent bonuses to a 12 strength now. and unlike the earlier edditions, all stats are created equal for bonuses, and you get usefull stuff from them when they are 14 or less but still above 11.

Not to mention the odd 18/xx stuff.

 

[wingsandsword]

I don't see that really. Some powergaming groups may be like that, and more power to them, but I've played party bricks that have a 16 or 17 strength, and nobody laughed.

Now, thanks to point-buy we have a standard scale of how much is how much, and how powerful characters can be. If it's 25 point buy and an 18 is serious business, and you're going to be suffering in at least two scores as a result. With a 32 point buy, an 18 is what you're best at, but you can be good at something else too. WotC says that the standard is 25 points, but in most games I've seen 32 is more common.

Don't forget that dice rolling methods have changed over the years. 3d6 was a lot more standard than it is now, while now it's 4d6, drop low. The standards remain; 10 is average, 3 is practical human minimum, 18 is normal human maximum, the only changes is that PC's often start a little towards the higher end in what they are good at, and thanks to magic items and level-based improvement they can start to exceed their normal limits.

The magic item improvement is also based on a change from earlier editions. Previously, magic items would set your Strength (since few items affected other scores) to a fixed score, usually 18 or the like. For a 9 strength fighter who barely qualified for the class, he went from a marginal washout to a walking pile of destruction in a few seconds, for an 17 strength fighter, not so much. A flat bonus gives these items a fixed value.

Also, don't forget that the scale isn't as extreme at upper ends like it once was. Above 18 isn't into the realm of the godly and inhuman quite yet, just "above normal human" range, 25 doesn't mean nigh-infinite either. There isn't the wacky percentile strength either. Even in the real world, world weightlifting records are roughly in the range of what would be a 22 strength in d20 terms, so we even have real-world examples of "above 18".

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Even in the real world, world weightlifting records are roughly in the range of what would be a 22 strength in d20 terms, so we even have real-world examples of "above 18".

I don't know about you, but I never heard of somebody who could lift 1040 lbs. over his head even for one second. Most weightlifting is done in the range of 300-500 lbs., and that's not even in the Strength 18 range?

 

[Geoff Watson]

From what I remember from 1e, a fighter got laughed at if he only had 17 Strength; you needed an 18/?? to matter.

Geoff.

 

[Ron]

I can only blame TSR/Wizards for that. Back in the early days, they tried to convince players that stats should be generated by 3d6 in order, or something like it. However, when we finally grab the Rogue gallery, which included stats for Gygax and friends' player characters, it became obvious that was not the way they were doing. Additionally, stats are not that important in BD&D, but they are essential in AD&D, as many classes are only available to characters with several high scores. Unearthed Arcana also introduced new ways to generate stats that resulted in very high scores.

I also thought that d20 D&D has partially solved the problem by decreasing the range which stats give bonus. However, the idea of stats increasing with level do not help too much in keeping them low.

Recently, attending a demand from my players, I run a campaign with the D&D Rules Cyclopedia where all stats were generated by 3d6 in order. As such, bonuses were pretty low and most characters have also at least a negative modifier. As everybody were in the spirit to play a game such as this, it was a very successful game.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yep -- stats have deflated a bit since 1E/2E. You can now play a character with stats in the 8-12 range and be effective, while that would have been a commoner earlier.

Depends on the overall power level of the game, though. If one character has the highest stat at 14 while others have multiple 18s or 20+ scores, you're going to feel the stat inflation. That's one of the reasons why I like 25 point buy.

 

[Quasqueton]

I remember playing D&D in the 80's and the players freaking out cause the brick of the party had a 17 Str. Now it seems that players are used to 20, 21 or even 22 Str and a fighter type with a 17 Str is merely laughed at for being weak. Is this just my group or is it in other places too?

I never saw anyone "freak out" because of a 17 in an ability. In B/ED&D, a 17 Strength was +2 (1 point of bonus less than D&D3). In AD&D, a 17 Strength was +1. I never saw anyone with a high roll of 17 play as a fighter; as Geoff Watson said, a fighter needed an 18/?? Strength to matter. And guantlets of ogre power (18/00) and belts of giant strength (19-25) were as common for mid- to high-level fighters in B/ED&D and AD&D as they are now.

Quasqueton