ezo
Get off my lawn!
Sure, that is why I specified it was my preference. I don't hold my players to it, but every single one has at least tried it to see what they get and have fun with it.OTOH I'm very sympathetic to folks wanting to be able to play the class they prefer.
Thankfully, with minimal house rules like "generate the set in order but then you may swap any two scores" or "generate the set as normal, but you may "'flip' it by subtracting every score in order from 21", you can usually get the best of both worlds.
I agree with the concept of -2 for +1 elsewhere. It basically represents your character's choice to not develop one ability score as much in order to work harder on the other. The classic wizard-type lowering a high Strength score to bump Intelligence (I never exercised much, worked-out, or played sports... I was always studying, solving puzzles, etc.).
As I've said, our experiences were very different. I played numerous AD&D characters with score across-the-board 14 or lower--no "bonuses" anywhere. You didn't need them to pull your weight. How well you played, the choices you made, your level of contribution were what actually mattered IME.We didn't play Basic very long; 2e became our core system and when it did, we learned you were screwed when your scores weren't Uber. Warriors lost out on a key feature (exceptional strength) if you didn't roll an 18 strength. Wizards and priests could not reach the highest level of spells and wizards had a bad chance of failure in gaining me spells (and a hard limit on how many they could learn) if their Int wasn't exceptional. On the other end, Rogues needed high Dex bonuses to thief skills if they wanted anything better than a minimal chance to succeed doing their class functions. (And as discussed in the rogue thread, most thief skills came with harsh riders, so you needed every % you could get). If you intended to survive to and play beyond 5th level, you needed super scores and HP. Otherwise, you were dead PC walking because even if your 14 Int wizard survived to name level, you were never going to have the high spell levels or spell selection to meet those challenges.
So making sure you had necessary scores was to make sure you were pulling your weight. Bob the wizard with a 14 Int and 9 HP at 5th level was a liability and an XP sponge. Pull your weight or retire and open a ration store.
Again, I believe you that was your experience. And you didn't like it, so fine. But in AD&D scores didn't give you much until you hit 16 (15 gave you some things). Saying you "needed" two 15s or better in AD&D is like saying you need two 13s or better in 5E... Which is pretty darn easy to get.And it was just assumed you did. Everyone did. The other players did, the DM knew you did and he would do it when it was his turn to play. And it wasn't like TSR was shy about showing NPCs and pre gens with sky high scores. Or allowing infinite rerolls and point customization in Baldur's Gate and other D&D games. It was practically encouraged to have high scores. So we rolled 4d6 , dropped the lowest, and rolled until we got a set of scores that worked.
Great, so like I just said (and did upthread IIRC), WotC made it easier to get the bonuses people thought they needed. They also removed all ability score requirements for classes in 3E. Everything is now a la carte. Enjoy.And it broke, finally, when 3e pushed point buy and fixed HP in RPGA and that resolved the issue of needing super high scores and cheating to stay competitive. It was a weight relief from everyone that la costra nostra was gone.

LOL my "high horse"? Really? Well, enough of that I guess. My point was never to convince you... only to point out you're missing out IMO. You don't care you're missing out? Fine. As I said above, enjoy!So you can get off your high horse about it. I was there and I saw how multiple groups interpreted it and I'm glad it's gone. You like it? Fine. But don't tell me it's better objectively or otherwise. I would never go back to it again.
