Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OneRedRook" data-source="post: 8703921" data-attributes="member: 35028">I think I prefer 20 as the cap, as it keeps character creation somewhat more streamlined, but I wanted to pick up on this part here. For AD&D 1st edition ability score limits were, if you'll forgive the technical term, a complete dog's breakfast.Firstly, for maximums: dwarves, halflings and half-orcs could reach a total of 19 for Constitution, while elves could reach 19 in Dexterity; these are in line with the relevant racial bonus. However, some races has maximums of less than 18 for other abilities, and these don't necessarily track with their relevant racial penalty. Half-orcs, for example, receive a -2 penalty to their Charisma score, but also may not start with a score higher than 12.There are also racial ability score minimums which are higher than 3, and this is where things get just weird. Strength score maximums in 1e were generally different for male and female characters, which leads to this mess: male halflings have a maximum of 17 Str, and female halflings have a maximum of 14 Str, but both have a minimum Str score of 6. The "standard" 3-18 range for all abilities was really only relevant for humans.After this, of course, there were class-based ability limits...For reference, a brief look at the 2e PHB suggests these sorts of inconsistencies have been reined in a bit, but are still present; in particular, 19s are still possible if you choose the right race for your 18 stat.Back on to the topic at hand, I think it would be interesting to know what method of ability generation people prefer when suggesting ability limits. A limit of 18 plays differently, I think, in a game with 4d6(drop lowest) as compared to one that only uses the standard array. For myself, I like rolling stats, but have reluctantly come to accept that most people I game with these days prefer arrays or point-buy to keep starting characters roughly within parity.</blockquote>

Verification