Question about 1st edition Exceptional Strength...

[Veritas]

Since there are quite a few 1e discussions going on right now...

When my groups were playing 1st edition AD&D, we gave exceptional strength to Rangers and Paladins as well as Fighters. However, it was pointed out to me recently that the text in the PHB specifically mentions only Fighters when it comes to the subject of exceptional strength. There's been some debate back and forth on this. I've found sample character stats in adventure modules that gave rangers and paladins exceptional strength, as well as entries in the Rogues Gallery suppliment, however, that's more anecdotal evidence really... I'm just curious what other people did.

Did you have exceptional strength only for fighters, or did you take "fighters" to include rangers and paladins and give it to them too?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Answered in the other thread ...

 

[Veritas]

Yeah, I saw Olgar, thanks.

I just didn't want to be hijacking Fenris' thread.

So, that's one entry for "rangers and paladins got exceptional strength", besides my own.

 

[Fenris]

Thanks Veritas, but you could of hijacked it

Don't forget high Con bonuses only went to Fighters, Paladins and Rangers. A Magic User with an 18 Con still only got +2 HP.

 

[Veritas]

See, that's the thing... the Constitution explanation text specifically mentions rangers and paladins getting the extra bonus hit points, and it specifically mentions them as subclasses of fighter, however the Strength explanation text ONLY mentions fighters.

Oh, I'll clarify that every group I ever played with, right from when I started playing AD&D (around 1981), has used exceptional strength for fighters, rangers and paladins. It's on that on a couple of other forums, people with just as much experience (or more) have said that they only allowed it for fighters.

It was supposed to be a balancing factor for the fighter, since the ranger and paladin got so much more in the ways of abilities (and they thought that this wasn't really compensated by the added experience you had to earn as one of the subclasses).

I still believe in giving exceptional strength to all three... I'm just curious if there is the same kind of split here. heh.

 

[Veritas]

Thanks Veritas, but you could of hijacked it

Okay, thanks.
I just know from other forums that some can be a bit sensitive about that kind of thing. I didn't want to start off on the wrong foot here, being new to EnWorld. heh.

 

[T. Foster]

We hashed this out over at Dragonsfoot a few months (years?) ago, and it came up near-unanimous that rangers and paladins (and, later, cavaliers and barbarians as well) get exceptional strength just the same as normal fighters. I think someone even found some textual support (revolving around the way fighter was non-capitalized, or in bold, or not in bold, or something like that) "proving" that 'fighter' in this instance meant 'fighter (including all sub-classes).' But even if there is no textual "proof," the fact that ALL subsequent sources (modules, Rogues Gallery, etc.) gave exceptional strength to rangers and paladins is pretty overwhelming circumstantial evidence that this was the intention all along.

 

[Grayhawk]

Being sub-classes of the Fighter, we let the Paladin and the Ranger roll for exceptional strength as well.

(But I can see now how the text could be interpreted otherwise, with it's 'Note that only fighters are permitted to roll on the exceptional strength section of STRENGT TABLE II: ABILITY ADJUSTMENTS'. But we never really gave it much thought and just assumed that it meant 'fighters and fighter sub-classes'.)

 

[the Jester]

I would assume it meant fighters and all sub-classes, and that seems to be how all the modules handled it. That's official enough for me.

 

[Voadam]

As subclasses of fighters rangers and paladins were still a type of fighter and got access to exceptional strength in our games.