AD&D Strength

[Arnwyn]

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?

Those are pretty much what I assumed the reason(s) to be.

 

[Steve Jung]

I guess since AC was capped at -10, "to hit" bonuses were more powerful in AD&D than in 3.x Ed.

 

[Quasqueton]

See, judging from all the other game elements, I just don't think *that* much thought was put into it. AD&D1 had very little in the way of game design balance thought and philosophy. So I'd be surprised if what y'all are saying is the reason.

Quasqueton

 

[diaglo]

b/c it was different from OD&D (1974)

OD&D(1974) didn't place emphasis on stats.

but with the introduction of Supplement I Greyhawk things changed. powergaming and min/maxing took over. and has escaladed to its current levels.

Supplement I introduced/changed what stat scores meant:

str 3 -2 / -1
4 -2 / -1
5 -1 / 0
6 -1 / 0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 +1 / 0
14 +1 / 0
15 +1 / 0
16 +1 / +1
17 +2 / +2
18 +2 / +3

the big thing it did was introduces % str
18/ 01 - 50 +2 / +3
51-75 +3 / +3
76-90 +3 / +4
91-99 +3 / +5
100 +3 / +6



which of course meant with an 18/ 51 to 18/ 00 str even a 1st lvl guy could "hit" like a Hero. but not necessarily go toe to toe with a Hero. since damage wise it didn't mean a kill. but by adding extra damage for higher str he was still more effective against that Hero before the Hero killed him.

 

[Melan]

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.

Because to hit modifiers are more valuable than pure damage. Consider:
A 1st level Fighter with a +1 to hit bonus is the fighting equivalent of a 2nd level Fighter. The same character with a +3 to hit bonus is as good as a 4th level Fighter with no modifiers. Granted, hit points are a difference, and so is equipment, but, especially with the less generous attack progression of 1e (where 1st level Fighters are essentially THAC0 20), it makes a heck of a difference.

Damage is less valuable: it is good to have a bonus on it, but only when you hit your opponent. Even then, I have found that there isn't much difference between 16 Str and 18/51 Str. 18/00 is, of course, insane. That's why I like the Basic D&D bonus chart better. But there is a reason for the difference between hit and damage modifiers.

 

[Gentlegamer]

See, judging from all the other game elements, I just don't think *that* much thought was put into it. AD&D1 had very little in the way of game design balance thought and philosophy. So I'd be surprised if what y'all are saying is the reason.

Them's fightin' words.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

I guess since AC was capped at -10, "to hit" bonuses were more powerful in AD&D than in 3.x Ed.

it wasn't capped at all, the charts just stopped at aC -10.

 

[Quasqueton]

Them's fightin' words.

It's all in who says them, and how they are looking back on the older game.

From an old grognard, pining for the old edition:
"The rules didn't need to be pefectly balanced because EGG expected the DM to be able to handle the game and Players well enough to keep things even."

From a current gamer, confused by the old edition:
"The game wasn't balanced and required the DM to keep a tight handle on everything and everyone to maintain stability."

Says the same thing -- the game lacked design balance -- but one statement is seen as a compliment to the players, the other statement is seen as an insult to the game.

Quasqueton

 

[JamesDJarvis]

bonuses to hit and bonuses to damage BOTH impact how much damage per round a character is likely to dish out.

Lets say you have a 50% chance to hit and you are using a longsword against amedium target.
That means someone with no bonuses is likely to dish out 4.5*.5 = 2.25 points of damage a round.

With a +1 to damage you are dishing out 5.5*.5= 2.75 points of damage a round
With +1 to hit and +3 damage you are dishing out 7.5*.55 = 4.125 points of damage a round
With a =3 to hit and +6 damage you are dishing out 10.5* .65 = 6.825 points of damage a round.

So Str 16 dishes out 122% of the damge average Str does,
Str 18/51 dishes out 183% (damage bonus alone would be 167%)
Str 18/00 dishes out 303% (damage bonus alone would be 233%)

A + to hit actually amplifies the impact of any damage bonuses.

hit bonuses alone do not carry the impact a hit and damage bonuse does:
+0 to hit means : 4.5 * .5 = 2.25 damage
+1 to hit means : 4.5 * .55 = 2.475 damage
+3 to hit means : 4.5 * .65 = 2.79 damage

 

[Henry]

Gary's answer from the Q&A thread:

As Haakon1 pointed out, Strength enables more damage from a successful blow, but it doesn't as effectively guarantee such a success.

Cheers,
Gary

So Gary felt that damage bonuses did not make as much impact as "to hit" bonuses. According to JamesDJarvis' figures, this is not necessarily the case. Interesting take on it. However, as to hit values go up, damage bonuses seem to become less important.