An alternate way of looking at stats

[Edena_of_Neith]

The 6 main stats of Player Characters are still Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma, just as in 1st edition (everyone arranges them in a different order, of course!)
We know that there is a 1 in 256 chance of rolling an 18 with 3d6. We also known that originally, in 1E, 3d6 is what you always rolled for your stats (unless the DM was kind and allowed something better.) Then they went to different systems in the 1E Dungeon Master Guide, then 4d6 became popular, then they invented the Point Buy System that is still around today.

We know that in 1E, for Strength, you needed a 16 to obtain a + 1 to hit (nowadays, they'd say + 1 BAB, I guess.) A 17 Strength gave you + 1 to damage as well (or, + 1 overall ala 3rd edition.) 18 Strength gave + 1 / + 2, and on it went.
In 3rd Edition, I believe (I don't have the PH in front of me) that a general + 1 starts at 13 in the stat, then goes up to + 2 at 15, + 3 at 17, and so on.

But, 1st edition, 2nd edition, or 3rd edition, when did this scene ever happen:

Player: My fighter has a 13 strength! Ain't that really something!
Everyone Else: Yeah! Wow!

Or, for older players:

Player: My fighter is extremely unusual, in that he has 13 strength. It is a rare thing, to see that happen.
The other players: Agreed. It really is quite unusual. Your character is truly quite strong.

I'm willing to bet that these scenes have rarely, if ever, happened.
Why?

13 strength simply doesn't confer much in the way of bonuses. And bonuses do tend to speak for themselves.
That doesn't mean all players think in terms of bonuses. But still, one has to admit that bonuses factor into one's thinking on a stat.

What if a 13 in a stat conferred a large bonus, then?

-

Someone once told me you needed a 130 IQ to get into MENSA. They also said that only the top 1% of people had intelligence that high, and only the bottom 1% of people had IQs of 70 and below.
I'm not in MENSA, would never get into MENSA, and wouldn't want to get into MENSA if I could get into MENSA. And all that stuff about IQs is nonsense: the only thing it shows for sure is you're good at taking IQ tests. However, what the guy told me could be of use in the game. Here's why:
Gary Gygax did once say, in the 1E Player's Handbook, that an IQ of 100 roughly equalled 10 Intelligence, and an IQ of 140 roughly equalled 14 Intelligence, and so on.

Let's assume, just for the moment, that the person was right about IQ.
If he was right, then 1 in 100 people would have IQs of 130 or higher, or 70 and lower.
Thus, 1 in 100 people in the gaming scenario would have Intelligence scores of 13 or higher, or 7 and lower.
This assumes, obviously, that humans in the game world have intelligence levels equal to intelligence averages for people in the real world. And obviously, humans in the gaming world - and other races (elves, dwarves, etc.) - might have different averages.

But let's say that we are talking about humans in the gaming world, and they do have intelligence on a par with humans in real life.
1 in 100 such humans would have Intelligence of 13 or higher, or 7 or lower.

If we are going to use such a standard for Intelligence, I see no reason not to use it for all the other primary stats: Strength, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma.
A 13 indicates you're a 1 in 100 on the high end, in that stat. A 7 indicates your a 1 in 100 on the low end, in that stat.
A person who is 1 in a 100, is pretty unusual. And such unusualness should be rewarded with bonuses. After all, try armwrestling that 1 in 100 armwrestler with the 13 Strength. Try outrunning that 1 in 100 runner with the 13 Constitution. Try winning table tennis against that player with the 13 Dexterity (even if he doesn't know the game!) Consider the leader with 1 in 100 Charisma. Consider the judgement of the guy with a 13 Wisdom.
Most of us, in real life, are not so blessed, unfortunately. Certainly I myself do not possess a 13 wisdom (if I did, I'd be a lot better off than I am ...) nor a 13 Charisma (chuckles) nor a 13 strength. Then again, I am not blighted with a 7 Charisma (or, maybe I am, considering things ...) or a 7 Constitution or a 7 Dexterity (if I had a 7 Dexterity, I would have wrecked trying to drive to Gen Con ...) Likewise, most other people are not benighted with 7s in their real world ability scores, or in only one (but that one 7, affects their entire life profoundly.)
See where I am going? 13 is special. 13 is outstanding. 13 puts you in the elite group. 7 is disastrous. 7 is life altering. 7 can take away countless opportunities that you should have had.

Real life aside, if 13s and 7s are so dramatic, then they should have dramatic bonuses or penalties to suit. Again, the Why of the matter is that bonuses talk, and players listen. Some players don't bother with bonuses or care for such things, but they appreciate the roleplaying aspects of high or low ability scores. Those roleplaying aspects can be enormous. A character's career can hinge on them. All manner of things spectacular or disastrous happen because of them.

So here is a chart of bonuses, that reflect this:

10 (average) No bonus
11: Above average: + 2
12: Way above average: + 4
13: 1 in 100: + 6
14: 1 in 1,000: + 7
15: 1 in 10,000: + 8
16: 1 in 100,000: + 9
17: 1 in 1,000,000: + 10
18: 1 in 10,000,000: + 11
9: Below average: - 2
8: Way below average: - 4
7: 1 in 100: - 6
6: 1 in 1,000: - 7
5: 1 in 10,000: - 8
4: 1 in 100,000: - 9
3: 1 in 1,000,000: - 10

Every point above 18: + 1
Every point below 3: - 1

Note that above 13 or below 7 a much slower increase takes precedence, as the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Since 3rd edition assumes a linear increase in the stat, the bonus increases on a linear basis.

Ok, ok, so you will say: characters with stats of 15 and above are very unbalanced. This is quite true, but then again it is quite rare that anyone should have such stats.
But, you will say, every character has such stats. True enough. They have them, because they want to be outstanding in at least one stat, and the bonuses currently say they must have a 15 or higher to be even slightly outstanding!
With the above chart, they would be outstanding even with a 13 in a stat.

If a player was required to roll the standard 3d6 - and only 3d6 - for each stat, and be stuck with the result, the player might not be so unhappy with the result, given the chart above and the background behind it.
If his fighter's strength is 13, he can boast his fighter is one of the strongest guys around (being in the top 1%, he is one of the strongest guys around.) Or if her mage has a 13 intelligence, she can reasonably say that her mage is one of the smartest people around (and be right, since the mage is in the top 1%.)
The bonus is + 6. That's more than half the bonus for an 18 in the stat, which is + 11 ... and of course a tremendous effort is going to be needed to reach 18, through magic and level advancement and otherwise.
So the bonus is rewarding, and in roleplaying terms the player can play his or her character as one of the very best, with that 13.

So the player of the fighter can boast of (or, discuss the unusualness of) his fighter's strength of 13.

Thoughts?

 

[Staffan]

If he was right, then 1 in 100 people would have IQs of 130 or higher, or 70 and lower.

That's a load of bull. What you should do is compare the probabilities for rolling the numbers to the stats for the IQ tests. IIRC, the chance of rolling 13 or higher on 3d6 is approximately 25%.

Which of course invalidates your whole argument. 1 in 100 is more like 17 or 18 (2% chance of 17+, 0.5% chance of 18).

Oh, and the probability for rolling an 18 on 3d6 is 1 in 216 not 256.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I do realize the dice odds are different.
You do have a 25% chance of rolling a 13. You do have a 1 in 216 (ok, not 256) chance of rolling an 18.
But then again, your character was supposed to be outstanding. I think Gary Gygax intended that Player Characters be outstanding, in one or more stats, from the start. Thus the 3d6 system.
A 'realistic' system - if you take the 1 in 100 for a 13 strength at face value - would involve rolling 1d100, and giving your character a 13 in a stat if you rolled a natural 100. Then roll 1d10, and if a 10 is rolled it's actually a 14. Then roll 1d10, and if it's a 10 it's actually a 15, and so on.
Such a system would produce characters with average stats between 8 and 12. Very few players would be lucky enough to have 13s, much less 14s or higher.

I honestly think Gary Gygax considered this, then discarded it in favor of a system that allowed for much greater chances to have very high and very low scores.
Of course, if you use the 4d6 and drop the lowest dice system, you are REALLY assuming Player Characters are unusual.

The assumption I'm making, that 13 is unusual, is based on the idea that only 1 in 100 characters are likely to have a 13 in a given stat. It has nothing to do with the actual dice percentage chances.

I just think anyone with a 13 in a stat should be really glad to have it, benefit enormously from it, and have a lot of roleplaying opportunities from it. And likewise a 7 should be a problem for the character, but again create various roleplaying opportunities.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The 6 main stats of Player Characters are still Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma, just as in 1st edition (everyone arranges them in a different order, of course!)
We know that there is a 1 in 256 chance of rolling an 18 with 3d6. We also known that originally, in 1E, 3d6 is what you always rolled for your stats (unless the DM was kind and allowed something better.) Then they went to different systems in the 1E Dungeon Master Guide, then 4d6 became popular, then they invented the Point Buy System that is still around today.

We know that in 1E, for Strength, you needed a 16 to obtain a + 1 to hit (nowadays, they'd say + 1 BAB, I guess.)

That would be a +1 bonus to hit (or +1 attack bonus, if you prefer). It wouldn't let you take Weapon Specialization early, for instance.

A 17 Strength gave you + 1 to damage as well (or, + 1 overall ala 3rd edition.) 18 Strength gave + 1 / + 2, and on it went.

Did 1e have exceptional strength?

In 3rd Edition, I believe (I don't have the PH in front of me) that a general + 1 starts at 13 in the stat, then goes up to + 2 at 15, + 3 at 17, and so on.

It goes 12/+1, 14/+2, 16/+3, and so forth. It's a lot easier to remember than the 1e/2e progression, and is also more balanced.

But, 1st edition, 2nd edition, or 3rd edition, when did this scene ever happen:

Player: My fighter has a 13 strength! Ain't that really something!
Everyone Else: Yeah! Wow!

Or, for older players:

Player: My fighter is extremely unusual, in that he has 13 strength. It is a rare thing, to see that happen.
The other players: Agreed. It really is quite unusual. Your character is truly quite strong.

I'm willing to bet that these scenes have rarely, if ever, happened.
Why?

13 strength simply doesn't confer much in the way of bonuses. And bonuses do tend to speak for themselves.
That doesn't mean all players think in terms of bonuses. But still, one has to admit that bonuses factor into one's thinking on a stat.

What if a 13 in a stat conferred a large bonus, then?

]

Why should it? 13 means you're a bit stronger than average. Oh right, that's only a problem if you're not using point buy. My campaign uses point buy, and I love it as a player (preserves intraparty balance, etc) - if someone wants to start with a 15, or even an 18, they can do it.

See where I am going? 13 is special. 13 is outstanding. 13 puts you in the elite group. 7 is disastrous. 7 is life altering. 7 can take away countless opportunities that you should have had.

PCs don't actually know their own stats, however, and in a game where a "typical" fighter has a Strength of 15 at the start and a mage is virtually required to start with a 15, I don't think it fits. In any event, I use point buy, and have no patience for dice rolling.

 

[JimAde]

I think you would be a lot better off just changing the way stats are generated in your game. If you want every PC to have at least one really exceptional stat just do something like this:

1) When making a character, pick a stat.
2) For that stat, the point buy base is 14 (instead of 8 which is the usual)
3) All other stats are normal, point-buy as usual (probably with a low total point number like 20, or not depending on the flavor you want).

There. Every PC has one really exceptional stat that will give him significant bonuses, but you don't have to re-write the whole system and modify every single creature write-up.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Yes, they used Exceptional Strength in 1E.
It went:

18/01 - 18/50 + 1 / + 3
18/51 - 18/75: + 2 / + 3
18/76 - 18/90: + 2 / + 4
18/91 - 18/99: + 2 / + 5
18/00: + 3 / + 6

I remember (vaguely) that some fighters had high strength, then took double specialization.
Thus, they gained strength bonuses, then a + 3 to hit, and + 3 to damage from double specialization.
Then they introduced the Cavalier and the Cavalier Paladin, and his bonuses stacked with all of the above.
Archers would typically have 17 or 18 Dexterity, and used the Dexterity bonus (I seem to remember it was + 1 to + 2) for their archery. Then, of course, they got into Strength Bows, and then added together their Dexterity and Strength adjustments, plus any magic for the bow and magic for the arrows, and thus did a heck of a lot of damage that way.

Ah me ... 18/01 or higher strength was something of a Holy Grail of fighters back in 1E, as I remember it.
I played a fighter with 18/00 strength once. But he only had a 6 dexterity. He was a great deal of fun, especially when we went through the Dragonslair adventure (based on the laserdisc videogame with Dirk the Daring) and you had to make successful Dexterity rolls for each scene in the dungeon.
Good ole Valiante the Valorous was his name. He finally died when a specter drained him to negative one levels, he rose as a subservient specter, then was hit by a Mace of Disruption and blasted out of existence!

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Oh, I was just proposing this as one possible way of looking at it.
When I was younger, everyone had to have a character with at least two 16s. Typically, the DM would allow the character to be rerolled if he didn't have at least that (or, the DM would insist!)
Some players gave up on any character without at least one 17.
The general consensus was ... well, simply put, that only a stat of 15 or more really meant anything. 14 and under was just ... mundane. Which is perfectly alright. I'm not knocking it. Just commenting on how it was.
And just saying that I thought bonuses had a lot to do with that perception, since bonuses typically started at 15.

Nowadays, bonuses start at 12 (thanks for the info) so I guess any character with a 12 or higher can rightfully state he's exceptional in that stat.

I just thought it would be neat if sometime a player said: My fighter has a 13 strength! Look how amazing that is!

Concerning the mage, I appreciate that she has to have 10 plus the spell level in Intelligence to cast spells. Want to cast a 5th level spell? Need a 15 Intelligence.
They don't ask much, do they, of mages! They only need to have an IQ of 130 (if you go by Gary Gygax's old definition of 10 = 100 IQ and 14 = 140 IQ, etc.) to cast mere 3rd level spells! (And yeah, I know it's easy to roll a 13 ... but if a 13 is considered that 1 in 100, then that's a pretty smart mage. Heh. LOL)

One could modify the chart I gave in several ways:

10: No bonus
11: + 2
12: + 4
13: + 6
14: + 6
15: + 7
16: + 7
17: + 8
18: + 8

Or:

10: No bonus
11: + 1
12: + 2
13: + 3
14: + 3
15: + 4
16: + 4
17: + 5
18: + 5

Not much difference between the final chart and the official 3E one, except the progression from 10 to 13 is stressed as an outstanding difference.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

On a final note, I approve of the Point Buy system. I think players should be thus empowered.
For example, if my player wants to have a mage of Einsteinian Intelligence (18 Intelligence) then she has the right to buy that 18 ... at the relatively high cost to obtain an 18! Yeah, it's her right to create a character who is truly exceptional, truly incredibly smart.
Likewise, the player who wants to create a fighter who is the strongest person around should have that right. Point Buy makes it possible for him to do just that. He can create a fighter in the mold of the heroic types from films and books, with an 18 Strength.
Ditto with the thief and Dexterity. The cleric and Wisdom. And so on.
Point Buy is great. If I hinted that it wasn't, ignore that. It's a cool system.

 

[the Jester]

Is the goal to get the players to be happy rolling 3d6?

If everyone rolls 3d6, then you're above significantly above average with a 13 or 14. I'd suggest leaving the charts alone. Making the bonuses crazy high like that makes a high strength character instant death to another 1st level pc at low levels.

 

[William Ronald]

Well, player characters tend to be exceptional. All of the various generation methods -- from point buy to rolling dice -- tend to demonstrate this, by making it more likely for a PC to be exceptional in one or more areas.

Adventurers, by and large, are exceptional to begin with in any setting. They pursue risks that few others will face. So, I think most characters will seem to have impressive stats when stacked up to a commoner with 10s and maybe an 11 or two in some stats. So, if a commoner is Joe Average, a typical fighter might be thought of as the person from his area who had the natural gifts and the desire to become a great warrior. (Off the top of my head, I forget what the demographic distribution of adventurers is in most worlds.)

I think people can have very effective characters with stats of 13 or 14 in D&D. For example, in a short lived campaign, I played a fighter with 14s in Strength, Constitution,and Dexterity, and 12s in the other ability scores. So, I picked some good feats (Improved Initative, Weapon Focus, Power Attack), and made sure to have a variety of weapons. A reach weapon and missile weapons can give a fighter an edge in a combat. Although there were characters with better stats in the party, I still played a very effective fighter -- who used his wits as much as his weapons.


Point buy can be great as it gives a player some control and forces a few choices. Rolling dice, and making the best of the rolls also can be fun. So, regardless of a character's ability scores, there are always ways to make the most out of a character.