Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 5414534" data-attributes="member: 32740">The oldest versions of D&D did use the low end of scores a lot more.  Many (not all, but many) games were run with the basic assumption that you played your scores as they lie, you did what you could with the character class/race you were allowed given the scores you generated and the order they fell in.  The rules generally supported and expected this approach by attempting to balance the greater power of certain classes against the rarity of them even appearing.  The approach taken in Holmes basic for example was 3d6, in order, and then in order to try and qualify for one class or another a few 2-for-1 point trades were allowed between some abilities, otherwise you played only what you qualified for.  It WORKED a lot better than in any later editions because there simply weren't bonuses for high scores in every ability.  There weren't even to-hit/damage bonuses for strength, and it described no particular mechanics where even having high stats had much of a bearing on the ongoing game (with a few exceptions like xp bonus for high prime requisite scores). Every version since then has brought stat inflation - made stats more important, given them more significance, altered what they did/didn't do for your character in ways both large and small.  For a long time there was a fair amount of exploration of different methods of generating stats in order to CIRCUMVENT the restrictions the game was otherwise trying to maintain on the rarity of certain classes, as well as to consistently obtain the bonuses that were now offered for high stats and avoid the penalties that came with low stats. With 3rd Edition that attempt at enforcing rarity of classes as a balancing measure had been abandoned - but it had also saddled ALL stats below average with penalties, ALL stats above average with bonuses and adopted the philosophy that a signficant part of the game was about mathematical optimization of your characters abilities.  That is, it made those low scores POISOINOUS - things to be avoided at all costs because the game was TELLING you so.  To support that there were even MORE ways being created by players to generate ability scores that avoided the lows and emphasized the highs. That's pretty much where 4E is at as well - the low end of the scores are to be avoided at all costs because the approach that the game takes is that players are SUPPOSED to avoid them at all costs.  It's just a matter of how you creatively go about doing that - unless you actually defy the design philosophy and assume that low scores can still be embraced to some extent especially as roleplaying cues.</blockquote>

Verification