Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[MerricB]

Stupid, silly, ad hoc, poor design choice. Pick any or all at your leisure. Being an effective fighter meant having a high strength.

See Palladium's ability bonus system.

I wouldn't use the word "effective" as you do. You could be an extremely effective Fighter even with a 16 Strength. My main objection to the percentile system is that luck meant that a fighter could be hugely more dangerous than another fighter, especially at low levels.

I don't mind there being some variance on abilities, but, to my mind, Moldvay Basic D&D handled it much better. 13-15 was +1, 16-17 was +2 and 18 was +3. The variance wasn't as much. +6 to damage was just so much in those days.

Cheers!

 

[Storm Raven]

Ahahahahahaha!!!

God, it's been ages since I thought in these terms.

But of course, it's all a myth. There was no such thing as powergaming back then. It was all about CHARACTER!

.... wasn't it?

Oh yeah. But the stat bonus increases (which make the "raise one stat one point every four levels" system in 3e look anemic by comparison, despite the horror that many 1e/2e players expressed at the "new" rule when 3e came out) were only one part of the munchkiness of the 1e cavalier. The cavalier could choose three "weapons of choice" (which made the bonuses given by fighter/ranger specialization seem narrow and paltry), including the lance, with which he eventually got a +3 bonus to attacks and +(his level) bonus to damage (if used while mounted, and a +2 bonus to attacks with one type of sword and either a mace, military pick, or flail. When mounted, the cavalier attacked as if he were one level higher (no penalty for attacking while on foot). The cavalier could parry - the only class that could do so. The cavalier got an array of bonuses related to riding. Good cavaliers were immune to fear, and radiated a protection from fear effect. They were 90% resistant to magic that affected the mind, and (unlike everyone else) could function at a negative hit point total.

Now add all the paladin abilities too.

 

[MerricB]

MerricB, am I off-base, I thought for sure I saw this in the PHB (first priniting is what I have) It's at home but you seem to have access to it. I thought the cap was at 18/75 or some such.

On this part: "You will find no pretenious dictums herein,..." I think those were saved for editorials in The Dragon.

Here you go:

Male/Female maximum Strengths:

Human: male 18/00 , female 18/50
Half-Orc: male 18/99, female 18/75
Dwarf: male 18/99, female 17
Half-Elf: male 18/90, female 17
Elf: male 18/75, female 16
Gnome: male: 18/50, female 15
Halfling: male: 17, female 14

There is no limitation on male Charisma. The combination of Gary's preface and the ability score tables is just really amusing. (and sad). Gary has said that he regretted later including female strength limits.

Interesting note: Male Half-orcs are made inferior to humans with strength, but the Females are stronger than human females. Weird.

Cheers!

 

[molonel]

I wouldn't use the word "effective" as you do. You could be an extremely effective Fighter even with a 16 Strength. My main objection to the percentile system is that luck meant that a fighter could be hugely more dangerous than another fighter, especially at low levels.

A dangerous fighter WAS an effective fighter. A fighter's role hasn't changed that much. They kill things. The faster they kill them, the better they are at their job.

Luck rarely had anything to do with it, either.

I don't mind there being some variance on abilities, but, to my mind, Moldvay Basic D&D handled it much better. 13-15 was +1, 16-17 was +2 and 18 was +3. The variance wasn't as much. +6 to damage was just so much in those days.

+6 damage was a LOT in those days. That's why everyone wanted it.

And, just about everyone got it, one way or another.

Oh yeah. But the stat bonus increases (which make the "raise one stat one point every four levels" system in 3e look anemic by comparison, despite the horror that many 1e/2e players expressed at the "new" rule when 3e came out) were only one part of the munchkiness of the 1e cavalier. The cavalier could choose three "weapons of choice" (which made the bonuses given by fighter/ranger specialization seem narrow and paltry), including the lance, with which he eventually got a +3 bonus to attacks and +(his level) bonus to damage (if used while mounted, and a +2 bonus to attacks with one type of sword and either a mace, military pick, or flail. When mounted, the cavalier attacked as if he were one level higher (no penalty for attacking while on foot). The cavalier could parry - the only class that could do so. The cavalier got an array of bonuses related to riding. Good cavaliers were immune to fear, and radiated a protection from fear effect. They were 90% resistant to magic that affected the mind, and (unlike everyone else) could function at a negative hit point total. Now add all the paladin abilities too.

Ay!

God, there is so much I'd forgotten.

 

[Storm Raven]

I never picked up UA but egad that's got powergaming all over it. Wasn't UA sold as Gary Gygax's houserules, now for your use?

It was "Official Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" material. From Gygax's introduction:

This new material grew from my own camapign, articles published in Dragon magazine, and input from many Dungeon Masters and players also. . . The compiled material which lies herein offers fresh new approaches to play without materially affecting any ongoing campaign adversely.

And from Jeff Grubb's introduction to the book:

In the time since the publication of the Dungeon Master's Guide in 1979, the AD&D game has not stood still. In Dragon Magazine, Gary Gygax has continued to expand the frontiers of the game, offering new ideas, experiments and rules.

In this book those ideas are made concrete. The eperiments are completed. The suggested rules are now official and final.

[Emphasis added].

That sounds to me like a little more than "Gygax's house rules".

 

[Rothe]

It was "Official Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" material. From Gygax's introduction:

"Quote:
This new material grew from my own camapign, articles published in Dragon magazine, and input from many Dungeon Masters and players also. . . The compiled material which lies herein offers fresh new approaches to play without materially affecting any ongoing campaign adversely. " ...

Got to laugh on that last one. Obviously, Mr. Gygax's use of the term "material" and that propounded by the SEC vary greatly. The cavalier sounds like an uber character that would far outshine any other, unless his xp chart was much more difficult.

That sounds to me like a little more than "Gygax's house rules".

Yes it does. [sarcasm] And I know that if I'm not playing AD&D by the official rules as written, then I'm not playing AD&D, at least according to an editorial I once read in Dragon magazine. Can I just ignore UA, isn't ignorance of the rules an excuse? [/sarcasm]


P.S. Just so it's clear. I never liked these "It's my way or the highway" pronouncements from TSR. I recall from the many I knew circa 1977-1984 we ignored them or took the highway to other games, or just more dating, sports, etc. It's not like we didn't have a social life outside of D&D.

I also never could fathom why one would antagonize your customer base unless you had dreams of this becoming something really mainstream (like professional football) and you really needed people to play one way so you could increase your tournament audience, and hence convention revenue.

Nevertheless, I still really like 1e; I just don't like or understand putting on airs about it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Obviously, the biggest differences between the 1e I played and the 1e some others here played is that

(1) The DM (or trusted alternate) was there for character generation, so the rampant cheating that some engaged in wasn't a problem,

(2) The game limitations for certain classes (such as the Cavalier's Code) were enforced, so that they were not necessarily optimal choices,

(3) The games had things other than combat going on, so again the Cavalier wasn't always the optimal choice,

(4) Excellent house rules (mostly from The Dragon at that time),

(5) Great players, and

(6) Reasonably adequate DM.

If you had at least a majority of those things, you probably enjoyed 1e. If you didn't, you probably didn't.

 

[molonel]

Yes it does. [sarcasm] And I know that if I'm not playing AD&D by the official rules as written, then I'm not playing AD&D, at least according to an editorial I once read in Dragon magazine. Can I just ignore UA, isn't ignorance of the rules an excuse? [/sarcasm]

P.S. Just so it's clear. I never liked these "It's my way or the highway" pronouncements from TSR. I recall from the many I knew circa 1977-1984 we ignored them or took the highway to other games, or just more dating, sports, etc. It's not like we didn't have a social life outside of D&D.

I also never could fathom why one would antagonize your customer base unless you had dreams of this becoming something really mainstream (like professional football) and you really needed people to play one way so you could increase your tournament audience, and hence convention revenue.

Nevertheless, I still really like 1e; I just don't like or understand putting on airs about it.

Yeah, me too. The way TSR sometimes treated their fanbase by going after people who set up websites and stuff like that completely mystified me. It was 180 degrees in the opposite direction from the OGL. And then, in Second Edition, they flooded the market with The Complete Book of My Butt Crack and other worthy tomes.

 

[Storm Raven]

Got to laugh on that last one. Obviously, Mr. Gygax's use of the term "material" and that propounded by the SEC vary greatly. The cavalier sounds like an uber character that would far outshine any other, unless his xp chart was much more difficult.

The cavalier's experience point chart was tough, but not especially so. To advance as a cavalier required the following experience points (I have listed the experience point total at which one would advance to the level listed, and what level a fighter at the same experience point total would be):

Cavalier 2 2,501 Fighter 2
cavalier 3 5,001 Fighter 3
cavalier 4 10,001 Fighter 4
Cavalier 5 18,501 Fighter 5
Cavalier 6 37,001 Fighter 6
Cavalier 7 85,001 Fighter 7
Cavalier 8 140,001 Fighter 8
Cavalier 9 220,001 Fighter 8
Cavalier 10 300,001 Fighter 8

Note that at upper levels, the Fighter is stuck at 8th level, while the Cavalier rockets past him. And the cavalier is never more than a few thousand experience points behind the fighter in advancing to a particular level (the biggest gap is 8th level, where the fighter advances to 8th at 120,001 experience points, but the cavalier needs an additional 20,000 experience points to catch up, at all other levels, the gap is smaller, or vanishes entirely and is reversed).

Oh, and one ability of the Paladin once it was attached to the Cavalier that I forgot - they would advance their Charisma score just like (and in addition to) the ability of standard Cavaliers to advance their Strength, Dexterity and Constitution scores, so they would almost certainly end up with 18/00 Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma by mid levels.

 

[Storm Raven]

Obviously, the biggest differences between the 1e I played and the 1e some others here played is that

(1) The DM (or trusted alternate) was there for character generation, so the rampant cheating that some engaged in wasn't a problem,

The alternate methods were descibed by TSR as being perfectly fine. Who were teenagers to argue with them?

(2) The game limitations for certain classes (such as the Cavalier's Code) were enforced, so that they were not necessarily optimal choices,

The cavalier's code wasn't any kind of real hindrance, if playing a good cavalier, they pretty much just reinforced what the game defined as "good behaviour".

(3) The games had things other than combat going on, so again the Cavalier wasn't always the optimal choice,

The cavalier, as defined in UA, had a host of social advantages and attributes that would make them highly effective in such campaigns. There was almost no drawback to the class of any consequence.

(4) Excellent house rules (mostly from The Dragon at that time),

Dragon is where most of UA got its genesis.