AD&D Strength

Quasqueton

First Post
AD&D: Why were the modifiers for Strength score different for to hit and damage?

16 Strength was +0/+1 - to hit/damage
18/51 Strength was +1/+3
18/00 Strength was +3/+6
Etc.

There were also magic weapons that had different bonuses on to hit and damage. "This weapon gives no bonus to hit, but gives +2 to damage rolls."

I've always wondered about the reason for the difference.

Quasqueton
 

log in or register to remove this ad


This would be a good question to post to Gary's thread and asking his thoughts on the matter. Otherwise, it's kinda similar to speculating where someone bought a really nice t-shirt, and they're in the room... :)
 

Henry said:
Otherwise, it's kinda similar to speculating where someone bought a really nice t-shirt, and they're in the room... :)

Well, since you asked, I got it from the hospital where my wife works by virtue of participating in the Diabetes: Walk for the Cure. Why this sort of thing interests you is beyond me though, Henry.
 

This would be a good question to post to Gary's thread and asking his thoughts on the matter.
Have to wade through a bunch of junk in that thread to get anything worth reading.

But I've posted the question there, none the less.

Quasqueton
 
Last edited:





Quasqueton said:
AD&D: Why were the modifiers for Strength score different for to hit and damage?

16 Strength was +0/+1 - to hit/damage
18/51 Strength was +1/+3
18/00 Strength was +3/+6
Etc.

There were also magic weapons that had different bonuses on to hit and damage. "This weapon gives no bonus to hit, but gives +2 to damage rolls."

I've always wondered about the reason for the difference.

Quasqueton

Because the accumulation of hit points tended to outstrip the development of AC? Because dishing out more damage with giant-type strength felt more appropriate than hitting that much more often?
 

Enchanted Trinkets Complete

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top