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

[Storm Raven]

HOWEVER, even if I am remembering this correctly, it does seem to be a nerfing of multiclassed characters as described in the PHB, and thus would seem to make the point that multi-classing caused problems more clearly (after all, why nerf something that isn't getting out of control?).

I recall this crystallized (for me) in a letter written to Dragon during an era when there was much consternation about Monty Haul campaigns (which seemed to be a huge problem in the early 1980s, as there was little real guidance as to how to run a "balanced" campaign outside of various editorials and advice articles in Dragon). The writer was describing his encounter with a DM who ran such a campaign (that, if I remember correctly included things like 75 foot tall mutant orcs and magic-users blasting entire cities with fireballs and so on). The player asked if he could play the most powerful legal character he could think of - a half-elven 5/8/8 cleric/fighter/magic-user armed with Stormbringer and the Ring of Kings. Note that the most powerful character he could think of was a multiclassed demi-human. (The "shocker" was that the DM rejected the character as not powerful enough, this was evidence as to how Monty Haul the campaign was).

 

[Raven Crowking]

MerricB,

Wish I did, and not sure I'm right. But, if I am right, it serves to point out that people had real issues with what the PHB seems to indicate. IOW, whether I'm right or wrong about Sage Advice, my experience re: powergaming using multiclass (or lack thereof) is probably not typical.

 

[Rothe]

...

Not just BETTER bonuses. Astoundingly better bonuses.

If you see percentile strength as sensible and good, then good on ya.

I thought it was stupid then, and I think it's stupid now.

But God knows, we can't have a 1st Edition advocate admitting that there were any problems with the system! Percentile strength? It makes perfect sense. Fighters are just ... stronger ... somehow ... than other people .... with the same attribute score. It was such a good idea it should have carried over into other stats. Wizards could have 18/00 Int. Clerics could have 18/00 Wis.

Stupid? Maybe not, ad hoc and a poor design choice, yes. A standardization of ability benefits and scales would have been a good idea.

One thing I never liked about the percentile table was invariably a female player would note the limitation to % strength based on gender. And we wonder why some women consider D&D an adolescent male power trip, in the negative sense, and very condescending. I once had them quip that maybe men should have a cap on wisdom or better yet constitution, as women live longer than men and are better at enduring pain, don't even think of contradicting a women on this last one if she's given birth.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have agreed to disagree with you, and simply stated that you have not demonstrated the logic or reasoning to convince me. Since you are incapable of simply doing the same, I will be the more mature party here, and leave it at that.

Cheers.

Trying to get the last word isn't being "the more mature party". If it was, I wouldn't have just done it!

Seriously, if you want to say that the game made you cheat, who am I to say otherwise? People have been saying D&D is Satanic for years...maybe it "possesses" certain players.

 

[Storm Raven]

I respectfully disagree. When the system only really rewards people who have 18/91+ strength, then you're not really going to see anything else. That's what I saw, then. Or everyone had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, strangely. The fiat came through DM item granting (you just HAPPENED to find it), or through modified dice schemes (like the one mentioned in UA) or simply through player iniative.

The easiest (and most reliable) way of getting an 18/00 strength using legal methods was to play a Cavalier. If you used the alternate stat generation method in UA, you rolled the following dice (and keep the highest three for each stat) for your ability scores: Str 8d6, Int 6d6, Wis 4d6, Dex 7d6, Con 9d6, and Cha 3d6. If, using this method, you somehow rolled lower than Str 15, Int 10, Wis 10, Dex 15, and Con 15, you got the minimums.

But, here is the reason you made a Cavalier: each such character rolled percentile dice for Strength, Dexterity and Consitution. At each level, the cavalier would roll 2d10, and add that much to his percentile amount. If the percentile amount went over 100, the Cavalier's base stat went up by one, until all three reached 18/00 (which had no real effect for Constitution or Dexterity over simply having an 18 in the score). The Cavalier could exceed even racial or gender based limitations in these scores. Given the high minimum scores, most Cavaliers would have 18s in all three by mid-levels, and probably an 18/00 Strength about the same time.

For extra abuse, make the character a paladin, who, as of UA, got all of the cavalier abilities as well as all of the standard PHB paladin abilities. The Paladin rolling method in UA was: Str 7d6, Int 5d6, Wis 8d6, Dex 3d6, Con 6d6, Cha 9d6. Once again, a paladin can train their physical stats each level. They are likely to start a little behind the straight cavalier (because they get fewer dice for the physical scores), but since they just write in "15" if they don't make the minimum using this method, they are pretty well-off as well.

 

[molonel]

Stupid? Maybe not, ad hoc and a poor design choice, yes. A standardization of ability benefits and scales would have been a good idea.

Stupid, silly, ad hoc, poor design choice. Pick any or all at your leisure. Being an effective fighter meant having a high strength. Not just an 18 strength, which is very unlikely on a 3d6 system, but also a subsequent percentile role in the upper 80s to 90s, at least. Even a 17, which by all accounts should be a character of tremendous physical strength, only gave you a +1/+1. A 16? +0/+1.

One thing I never liked about the percentile table was invariably a female player would note the limitation to % strength based on gender. And we wonder why some women consider D&D an adolescent male power trip, in the negative sense, and very condescending. I once had them quip that maybe men should have a cap on wisdom or better yet constitution, as women live longer than men and are better at enduring pain, don't even think of contradicting a women on this last one if she's given birth.

Heh. Yeah. Those were the days!

 

[molonel]

The easiest (and most reliable) way of getting an 18/00 strength using legal methods was to play a Cavalier. If you used the alternate stat generation method in UA, you rolled the following dice (and keep the highest three for each stat) for your ability scores: Str 8d6, Int 6d6, Wis 4d6, Dex 7d6, Con 9d6, and Cha 3d6. If, using this method, you somehow rolled lower than Str 15, Int 10, Wis 10, Dex 15, and Con 15, you got the minimums. But, here is the reason you made a Cavalier: each such character rolled percentile dice for Strength, Dexterity and Consitution. At each level, the cavalier would roll 2d10, and add that much to his percentile amount. If the percentile amount went over 100, the Cavalier's base stat went up by one, until all three reached 18/00 (which had no real effect for Constitution or Dexterity over simply having an 18 in the score). The Cavalier could exceed even racial or gender based limitations in these scores. Given the high minimum scores, most Cavaliers would have 18s in all three by mid-levels, and probably an 18/00 Strength about the same time. For extra abuse, make the character a paladin, who, as of UA, got all of the cavalier abilities as well as all of the standard PHB paladin abilities. The Paladin rolling method in UA was: Str 7d6, Int 5d6, Wis 8d6, Dex 3d6, Con 6d6, Cha 9d6. Once again, a paladin can train their physical stats each level. They are likely to start a little behind the straight cavalier (because they get fewer dice for the physical scores), but since they just write in "15" if they don't make the minimum using this method, they are pretty well-off as well.

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?

 

[MerricB]

One thing I never liked about the percentile table was invariably a female player would note the limitation to % strength based on gender. And we wonder why some women consider D&D an adolescent male power trip, in the negative sense, and very condescending. I once had them quip that maybe men should have a cap on wisdom or better yet constitution, as women live longer than men and are better at enduring pain, don't even think of contradicting a women on this last one if she's given birth.

"You will find no pretenious dictums herein, no baseless limits arbitrarily placed on female strength or male charisma..." - Gary Gygax, preface to AD&D Players Handbook, page 6.

Cheers!

 

[Rothe]

The easiest (and most reliable) way of getting an 18/00 strength using legal methods was to play a Cavalier. If you used the alternate stat generation method in UA, ....snip.

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?

 

[Rothe]

"You will find no pretenious dictums herein, no baseless limits arbitrarily placed on female strength or male charisma..." - Gary Gygax, preface to AD&D Players Handbook, page 6.

Cheers!

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.