Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Votan" data-source="post: 5036576" data-attributes="member: 18680">Weakening the relationship between character power and ability scores is not precisely the same thing as removing this effect completely.  For example, the Cleric with a 13 wisdom does have some disadvantages relative to the Cleric with an 18 wisdom, in 1E.  However, the magnitude of these differences in 3E becomes huge; to get the same SAVE DC the wisdom 13 cleric needs to cast a spell that is 3 levels higher (requiring six levels of advancement).  That is a huge tilt.  In contrast, in 1E, the difference is bonus spells; the 18 wisdom cleric has one bonus 1st, 2 bonus 2nd, 1 bonus 3rd and one bonus 4th level spell.  She is, objectively, a better cleric.  But the 3rd edition cleric with a 13 wisdom is dramatically reduced in power relative to the 18 wisdom cleric.  This means high ability scores become essential because they make up for so much.In the same way, the uncapped nature of constitution bonuses to hit points means that a 3E wizard can easily (with a 14 base and a +5 6 amulet) get twice as many hit points as constitution bonus.  This makes the ratio between a wizard and a fighter quite narrow (the fighter with the same con and the same magic item goes up 10.5 hit points per level, the wizard goes up 7.5).  This requires tight control of ability scores and magic items because the effects are so profound.  I think the ideal point is a balance between "no influence" and "a lot of influence".  I'd even go for the dex idea (above) if the thief class did not require good initiative so much.  Now I could be wrong that the saving throw link is a problem; I get that and I am even willing to be convinced.  I just see the ability to play a viable fighter with S 12, I 9 W 11 D 12 Cn 10 Ch 13 to be an advantage in any system with highly random ability scores.  If we want to discuss point buy them the 3E approach is perfectly reasonable . . .</blockquote>

Verification