D&D General Drow & Orcs Removed from the Monster Manual

[Maxperson]

I can do the maths. My posts set out the population distribution.

In AD&D, STR 11 is not stronger than STR 10. STR 13 is not stronger than STR 12. And the only way in which STR 11 is stronger than STR 9 is a doubling of BB/LG (from 1% to 2%).

So the fact that for every Gnome of STR 10 there is a Half-Orc of STR 11 is not relevant to showing that the Half-Orcs are actually stronger.

You can try to twist the statistics all you want. When 50% of half-orcs have a 12 or higher, and only 37.5% of gnomes have a 12 or higher, half-orcs are a significantly stronger race. You can't get around that math.

 

[Hussar]

Why are you repeating wild difference? Stronger is stronger. They are not the same when it comes to strength. The difference is only wild at the upper end, which is where PCs tend to end up when playing fighters.

Except that you could only get percentile strength if you were a fighter (or fighter subclass) which means that 99.9% of the population couldn't be stronger.

After all, this is 1e, where both npc gnomes and orcs are in the monster manual. We KNOW exactly how much stronger orcs are than gnomes - they aren't. Neither gets any strength bonus or penalty to anything.

 

[Maxperson]

Except that you could only get percentile strength if you were a fighter (or fighter subclass) which means that 99.9% of the population couldn't be stronger.

After all, this is 1e, where both npc gnomes and orcs are in the monster manual. We KNOW exactly how much stronger orcs are than gnomes - they aren't. Neither gets any strength bonus or penalty to anything.

You ever look at the Village of Homlet? The NPC encounter tables in the DMG and in pretty much every module? PHB classes for NPCs were common as spit in AD&D. Not all of them had a PHB class, but a whole lot did and the overwhelming majority of those were fighters. A class that prioritized strength, so tended to be the stronger members of the race.

Plus, as proven, a whole lot more half-orcs were in the 12+ range than gnomes, making the race stronger over all.

 

[Thagdal]

If you are using non weapon proficiency, or some psionics, or generic strength ability checks, then 11 to 13 would sometimes matter. There are probably a few edge cases in modules, monsters or items where a roll under strength might be needed.
But in general, I'd agree, like most ability scores there's not much mechanical difference between 11 to 13, compared to 14 to 16.

 

[Maxperson]

I just looked at the NPC section of the 1e DMG and it says that they often had classes. If you look at the fighter class for NPCs, they got +2 to strength and +1 to con on top of their racial bonuses, so the NPCs were stronger than PCs!!!

That half-orc got +3 to strength and the gnome got +2.

That means that with an average roll of 10-11, the gnome was at 12-13, while fully half of the average half-orc fighters were at 14 strength, giving them +100 more weight allowance and 3% more bend bars lift gates.

 

[pemerton]

You can try to twist the statistics all you want. When 50% of half-orcs have a 12 or higher, and only 37.5% of gnomes have a 12 or higher, half-orcs are a significantly stronger race. You can't get around that math.

The difference between STR 11 and STR 12 is negligible: 160lb rather than 150 lb carrying capacity, and 4% rather than 2% BB/LG.

What feat of strength can someone of STR 12 perform that someone of STR 11 cannot?

 

[pemerton]

If you are using non weapon proficiency, or some psionics, or generic strength ability checks, then 11 to 13 would sometimes matter. There are probably a few edge cases in modules, monsters or items where a roll under strength might be needed.
But in general, I'd agree, like most ability scores there's not much mechanical difference between 11 to 13, compared to 14 to 16.

Right.

Non-weapon proficiency isn't part of Gygax's AD&D. Generic ability checks are found in Moldvay Basic - I don't know how common they were in AD&D play (the rules don't canvass them).

But even on a generic ability check, the difference between 11 and 12 is negligible - a slightly less than 10% better prospect of doing some thing.

Now if I was comparing an 18/91 STR Half-Orc to a 12 STR anyone, the contrast would be marked - the former can carry more, has a meaningful chance of bending bars, etc. But only a miniscule number of Half-Orcs have 18/91 STR - somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1 in 500 fighters, or 1 in 100 if one uses the rule of giving NPC fighters +2 to rolled STR.

 

[Maxperson]

The difference between STR 11 and STR 12 is negligible: 160lb rather than 150 lb carrying capacity, and 4% rather than 2% BB/LG.

What feat of strength can someone of STR 12 perform that someone of STR 11 cannot?

Carrying 160 pounds and succeeding on a roll of 3% or 4% to bend bars lift gates. Those are feats of strength an 11 cannot do. However, the average NPC fighter strength roll for a gnome is 12-13, and 13-14 for half-orcs. So you should be asking what can a 14 do that a 13 cannot, which is very nearly the same.

 

[Faolyn]

I think telling disabled people that they need a computer to generate art for them, based on a written prompt, is crummy. And bringing up disabled people, who to my knowledge have never made this claim, as a human shield to deflect criticism of people too lazy to put in the effort to make art is even worse.

NaNoWriMo recently tried to make that claim, that disabled and poor people needed AI to write because they lack the ability to write and can't afford to take writing classes. They got a huge (and rightfully earned) bashing for it and a lot of people decided to boycott them.

 

[ezo]

The difference between STR 11 and STR 12 is negligible: 160lb rather than 150 lb carrying capacity, and 4% rather than 2% BB/LG.

What feat of strength can someone of STR 12 perform that someone of STR 11 cannot?

They can carry more? Seems sort of obvious... 160 vs. 150..., nearly a 7% increase.
They can bend more bars and lift more gates? 4% vs 2%, a 100% increase.

Now, you've argued the increases are negligible, but of course that is subjective. For myself, if someone offered me a 7% pay raise, I would think that is significant. A 100% increase, hell yeah!

But regardless of how negligible you believe it to be, it doesn't change the fact that "stronger is stronger", it doesn't matter by how much. And, of course, we know the potential strength of the male half-orc is much higher than the male gnome. Are the numbers "much higher" to you? Probably not--again, it's subjective. But they are still "stronger" no matter how you slice it.

Non-weapon proficiency isn't part of Gygax's AD&D

Ah.. nice caveat with "Gygax's" thrown in.

We know AD&D had non-weapon proficiencies, even if Gygax wasn't directly involved.