Low ability scores -- more fun?

[billd91]

I'm not exactly sure were you are going with your post, but I agree that 3e (for example) doesn't provide enough support for a 'cunning warrior' character. It's much easier to play Ajax than Odysseus in 3e. In 4e, you'd be forced to choose a different class like 'Warlord' which is an improvement perhaps, but it is questionable whether it captures the right flavor, because while Diomedes and Oddysseus do provide leadership, Diomedes (for example) was able to beat Ajax in a boxing contest by being more cunning than his opponent.

If by "support" you mean specific fighter-oriented powers based off of Intelligence, then I'd agree. But no edition of D&D has ever really had much structure for things like Odysseus's cunning plans. So I don't see Ajax being any easier to play than Odysseus in 3e save that high mental stats are harder to successfully play than high physical stats which have effects entirely on paper. I don't see that as easier as much as being a more comprehensive treatment of the character archetype.

 

[Garthanos]

I'm not at all sure where you are getting that. In 1e in particular, in my experience most people rolled for their stats rather than used a point buy system. So, there wasn't really anything that stood in the way of a physically mediocre fighter with high int or charisma if you wanted it.

We put the stats where we wanted them rolled 4d6 and took the highest 3 ... and some characters were thrown out (I think we even re-rolled ones)... if you got a high score it was put on an attribute that helped your class. Especially if you were a fighter. It was AD&D. (We didnt end up playing an appreciable amount of the blue book edition that I was first introduced to)

 

[Garthanos]

Fourth edition is almost a 3 attribute system (like GURPS, for example) that gives you the option of determining what your three stats are going to be called. But in terms of disbanding sterotypes, I don't see that 4e has made any progress at all just yet (although the room is there to do so). We aren't nearly as far along as in 4e as even D20 Modern toward allowing you to play a 'Smart Hero' or 'Charismatic Hero' of any profession.

How does that work? Sounds good but they still have the d20 set of attributes, dont the archetypes names paste over the top of them
and get things confused anyway? Not familiar with many d20 things
except the Wheel of Time (purchased because I am a fanboy) and the Psionics handbook (purchased for art)

 

[Garthanos]

I think that's a backwards interpretation. A 14 Strength doesn't net any bonuses in combat... so a 14 is considered average? Perhaps I'm more mathy (even though I'm a letters guy), but 9-11 seems average to me; 12 at the most. A 13 or 14 is definitely someone above average on a 3d6 scale. Maybe he can't punch an iron golem to death, but that doesn't mean he isn't strong.

7-14 is just as average s 10 -11 and really isnt differentiated in game experience to be functionally different.... also We immediate used the method roll 4 take the highest 3 and put them where you want them so you could play what you wanted so 13 or 14 was an average of actual result rolls... even if it had no "functional" difference.

If we had generated a character maintaining attribute order such as you just did nobody I know would have made him anything but a magic user pretending one might do otherwise seems disingenous... and for all intents and purposes his strength will be ignored... because the once in a blue moon somebody needs strength the other guy who rolled a 16 or 18 str fighter will use his strength

My very loose Mechanic translation
inspired by "game impact" from memory

From AD&D to 4e
18 + percentile = 20 - 26 in D&D4e
18 : AD&D = 18 - 19 in D&D4e
17 : AD&D = 16 - 17 in D&D4e
16 : AD&D = 14 - 15 in D&D4e
15 : AD&D = 12 - 13 in D&D4e
7-14 : AD&D = 10 -11 in D&D4e
5-6 : AD&D = 8 - 9 in D&D4e
4 : AD&D = 6 - 7 in D&D4e
3 : AD&D = 3 - 5 in D&D4e

Note in practice I never saw attribute under 5 either in our games or at conventions so the last two are pretty much not usually significant.

 

[Garthanos]

Well, so I have agreed, but the status of Hero in greek religion is fairly uncontriversial:

Wikipedia makes this the first line of its entry on the term 'Hero', and while wikipedia isn't very trust worthy on things touching modern politics, it's usually pretty good on more academic stuff.

Not a controversy...
except maybe that hero has taken on broader definitions and includes numerous larger than life characters that dot our fiction in literary and movie formats as well as other legends and myths. One could argue humanity as a whole have divine heritage sons and daughters of God and transcending in to the divine after various re-incarnations is a feature of the worlds most common religion making the Greek hero with divine blood shrug not very divergent... The nobles of china and Vietnam descendent's of Elemental dragons. All are just wheat for the mills of our imagination.
Heros having special births... hmmm so?

Even when heros are presented as "everyman" archetypes they are blessed with something approaching well ahem "god-like" luck.

 

[Korgoth]

pretending one might do otherwise seems disingenous...

You calling me a liar?

 

[Garthanos]

You calling me a liar?

Asserting an unlikely improbability just because its possible for sake of argument?...no nobody ever ever does that <whistling and looking over shoulder /> taint lyin but taint exactly forthright or uncommon either.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Asserting an unlikely improbability...

It's not as unlikely or improbable as you seem to think it is. And your insinuations are pretty offensive, IMO.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Odysseus was brought up by somebody else to point towards the smart/clever fighter...

That would have been me.

If by "support" you mean specific fighter-oriented powers based off of Intelligence, then I'd agree. But no edition of D&D has ever really had much structure for things like Odysseus's cunning plans.

3.X has the Combat Expertise feat tree, and anyone with the smarts can learn combat engineering, or become a weaponsmith.

Yes, I know that combat engineering would be a cross-class skill for most classes, but Odysseus was a clever warrior, not a brilliant designer of weaponry, so there's no reason for us to expect him to be as good at it as Leonardo DaVinci.

As for the rest of it...I'd say that is more about role-playing then mechanics.

 

[Garthanos]

That would have been me.

Aye that it would, thank you, tis one of my favorite archetypes...

Combat engineer sounds interesting what's the definition?