Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ezo" data-source="post: 9380589" data-attributes="member: 7037866">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.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&amp;D characters with score across-the-board 14 or lower--no &quot;bonuses&quot; 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.Again, I believe you that was your experience. And you didn't like it, so fine. But in AD&amp;D scores didn't give you much until you hit 16 (15 gave you some things). Saying you &quot;needed&quot; two 15s or better in AD&amp;D is like saying you need two 13s or better in 5E... Which is pretty darn easy to get.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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />LOL my &quot;high horse&quot;? 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! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="ezo, post: 9380589, member: 7037866"] 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. 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. 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. 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. :) 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! :) [/QUOTE]

Verification