Training and the Tyranny of Six

[Gary V. Foss]

WILLELA@aol.com wrote:

> Giving the player a set number of points for PC stats is clearly the way to
> go for AD&D 3. There is no reason to rely on the luck of the dice to get a
> PC you want. Nor do we need to suffer dice cheats (obviously the other guy.
> You & I would never do such a thing, tho if a die is "cocked"...) But then
> we have to handle exceptional strength (unless we get rid of it).
> The proposed 1 (2 may be better) point per category is distinctly
> superior to 1 point per 10%. When 10% is used, you end up with a large
> number at 18.01, a few at 18.00, and almost nobody in between. It is also
> impossible to have a strength of 18.95 so an entire category is missed. We
> clearly prefer that other choice be reasonable.
> 1 point per category means the PC gain +1 per hit or damage for each
> extra stat point added, just as was gained going to 16, 17, & 18. (Since
> going from 18.95 to 18.00 gains +1 to hit & damage, the cost of that gain
> should be double.) The result is that the intermediate choices become more
> reasonable.
> Even so, the temptation to mini-max is pretty strong, and you may want a
> higher cost, say, increasing the cost of each category by 1 cumulative, so
> that 18.00 costs 18+1+2+3+4+12 = 40. That should make super high strenght as
> rare as it is supposed to be.
> Yours for deeper dungeons
> David Argall

Two things:

1. For the 80 pt distribution rule (this is BR related because I first found it
on BR PBeMs--in case anyone was worried about me going off topic :-) I was
thinking of setting a maximum, maybe 15 or 16 for first level characters' ability
scores. Since I'm planning on allowing ability scores to go up 1pt/level, I
think that is fair. A player could still have an 18 by 3rd or 4th level pretty
easily, so I don't think they should squawk about it.

NOTE: The static ability scores of AD&D have long been one of the game's greatest
weaknesses in my opinion. (Anyone who knows my take on this sort of thing will
understand why I'm prefacing the following remarks by saying that this is not a
call for greater "realism" in the game... BUT....) The fact of the matter is
that people get stronger, smarter, wiser, more charismatic as they age and gain
experience.. OK, the last one may be questionable, but if anyone over 25 out
there would care to go back to an old high school annual and check themselves out
at 17-18 they should feel free to scan those photos and send them to me as
proof.... Personally, I am vastly more suave, debonair, handsome and charming
than I was ten years ago, so I am quite sure that is the case.... The point is
that ability scores go up just as skills do. (Another weakness in the standard
rules.)

Allowing ability scores to go up with level (especially using a 1pt/level system
that we're discussing here which is simplicity itself) would solve numerous
problems with the game mechanics. Things like the fact that you can have really
strong 1st level fighters contrasted with relatively weak 10th level ones. Oh,
it could still happen using this system, of course, but it would be much less
likely.

2. As long as we are discussing the 3rd edition stuff.... Maybe we can finally
get away from the 3-18 ability score range. Why not 2-20 or 3-30? A wider range
of ability scores would help make each character different from the other and
could also eliminate this whole exceptional strength problem which doesn't fit
into this ability score improvement thing. OK, OK, the entire game shouldn't
revolve around this one idea, but I actually think this is a good enough one that
it might be reasonable.

We can also start using numbers for monsters with truly "exceptional" strength.
I mean, just the fact that the range of strength scores goes up to 25 is pretty
feeble IMNSHO. It takes a creature the size of a storm giant to be twice as
strong as the strongest human. That just seems incorrect to me. A humanoid
creature that was 26' tall seems like it could be quite a bit stronger than that
and the damage from its blows proportionately higher. Not just dice rolled, I
mean, but the strength of the blow that swings it.

Similarly, I'm bothered by the fact that godlike creatures (the avatars of the
gods themselves for that matter) are a scant 7 points max away from scores
naturally occuring in human beings. Such things should be way out of the scope
of mortals.

Personally, I think the 3-18 ability score range came from the hoary old days of
the gaming hobby when people could really only get their hands on 6-sided dice.
I remember Traveller used to only use 6-siders, even for "percentile" rolls.
There were 11-66 charts long after other dice became readily available. Man,
that was weird. You know how DOS 3.0 or something could only handle 128k of
memory when computers were starting to get a meg or two on board? (Or whatever
it was--my memory on this is quite fuzzy.) I think the 3-18 system is like
that. Well, it's time to throw off the tyranny of the six-siders, my friends!
Release us from the yoke of cubic oppression! Let us begin to think outside of
the box! Rise up, my fellow hobbyists! Rise up!

I know these comments may spark some resistence because they are something of a
drastic change from the standard rules, but I really think they make some sense.
What do you guys think?

Gary

[Sidhain]

>NOTE: The static ability scores of AD&D have long been one of the game's
greatest
>weaknesses in my opinion. (Anyone who knows my take on this sort of thing
will
>understand why I'm prefacing the following remarks by saying that this is
not a
>call for greater "realism" in the game... BUT....) The fact of the matter
is
>that people get stronger, smarter, wiser, more charismatic as they age and
gain
>experience.. OK, the last one may be questionable, but if anyone over 25
out
>there would care to go back to an old high school annual and check
themselves out
>at 17-18 they should feel free to scan those photos and send them to me as
>proof.... Personally, I am vastly more suave, debonair, handsome and
charming
>than I was ten years ago, so I am quite sure that is the case.... The
point is
>that ability scores go up just as skills do. (Another weakness in the
standard
>rules.)

Eh Alzheimer's must be setting in *L*
Truthfully though AD&D doesn't need the basic stats change, or the way they
are rolled...if you have mature role-players you'll end up with fait stats
11-12 are average 13 is above average...18 is top of human scale...very few
people ever reach top of human scale regardless of how old they get...and
how much experience they gain. It takes a life of hard work or study
dedicated to expanding ones knowledge and intelligence, or physically
increasing ones powers.
Marylyn Von Savant is the record holder for the highest IQ, and from what I
have read her IQ various up and down as much as any human when tested....but
is top end of scale (i.e. in other words she hasn't gained a point in AD&D
Int score)

Sometimes role-playing isn't only about wish fulfillment (I want to play an
a Powerful Wizard!) it can be about interesting and diverse people for
example the Peasants who dreamed of being a Wizard but never got the chance
or training...
Random stats are IMHO the best way to go with Mature Role-players Sadly I
don't always deal with Mature Roleplayers so I end up using some system that
limits the players choices...ie points etc....
I will say the best games I have ever run had players not getting to play
what they wanted because of bad stats....such as a Human Wizard who really
admired Elves (the player wanted to be one--he ended up finding out he had
an Elfin Soul) things like that are less likely to happen in a game where
the players make exactly what they want...

[Mathieu Roy]

Sidhain wrote:

> Random stats are IMHO the best way to go with Mature Role-players Sadly I
> don't always deal with Mature Roleplayers so I end up using some system that
> limits the players choices...ie points etc....

The debate of random vs. point-based generation is an old and long one. =)
Mature roleplayers and munchkins alike are found in both camps. Those
"roleplayers" who prefer point-based character systems (like yours truly) point
out that they prevent a character being sadled by unlucky rolls and being forced
to adventure next to a virtual demigod, and that such systems permit players to
create characters true to the conceptions they have of them. It is also usually
a lot easier to achieve game balance in these systems.
I also find that the idea that lower stats is somehow "purer roleplaying"
odd. It's simply a different style of play. I personally prefer higher stats for
various reasons. Foremost among them is the fact that most novel heroes have
"high stats"; browsing through the character stats set out for the Forgotten
Realms and Birthright NPCs pretty much proves that the game designers have the
same opinion. I've always felt that PCs should always have as much potential as
any NPC.
Furthermore, without high stats, I've always felt that PCs should always
have as much potential as any NPC there is not much game effect to
differentiate, for example, the quick fighter (str 9, dex 14) from the strong
burly one (str 14, dex 9). Though that's more a problem caused by AD&D's
somewhat buggy attribute tables than any problem with a playing style.
Then again, I'm fond of superhero roleplaying, so maybe I'm biased. =)

Mathieu

[Gary V. Foss]

Sidhain wrote:

> Eh Alzheimer's must be setting in *L*
> Truthfully though AD&D doesn't need the basic stats change, or the way they
> are rolled...if you have mature role-players you'll end up with fait stats
> 11-12 are average 13 is above average...18 is top of human scale...very few
> people ever reach top of human scale regardless of how old they get...and
> how much experience they gain. It takes a life of hard work or study
> dedicated to expanding ones knowledge and intelligence, or physically
> increasing ones powers.

Exactly. Part of the point of PCs (and exceptional NPCs) is that they can be
among those "very few" who "reach the top of the human scale..." In the
experience level based gaming system that AD&D is all about I think coupling
ability scores to experience is an apt way of handling that increase in
"ability".

At least, I hope that is the point. I mean, I play characters because I want a
shot at being the hero and such. Playing PCs with low stats may be challenging
and all, but frankly being playing a basically normal person is kind of
pointless to me. I mean, if I want to be normal why do I need AD&D? Why not
just go off and be normal someplace? I needn't even bring dice....

Gary

[Bob Cauthron]

> Two things:
>
> 1. For the 80 pt distribution rule (this is BR related because I first
found it
> on BR PBeMs--in case anyone was worried about me going off topic :-) I was
> thinking of setting a maximum, maybe 15 or 16 for first level characters'
ability
> scores. Since I'm planning on allowing ability scores to go up 1pt/level,
I
> think that is fair. A player could still have an 18 by 3rd or 4th level
pretty
> easily, so I don't think they should squawk about it.

You are seriously considering this? Wow. Are you players that good not
to try to abuse this? THis is not meant to be an inflammatory statement.

> NOTE: The static ability scores of AD&D have long been one of the game's
greatest
> weaknesses in my opinion. (Anyone who knows my take on this sort of thing
will
> understand why I'm prefacing the following remarks by saying that this is
not a
> call for greater "realism" in the game... BUT....) The fact of the matter
is
> that people get stronger, smarter, wiser, more charismatic as they age and
gain
> experience.. OK, the last one may be questionable, but if anyone over 25
out
> there would care to go back to an old high school annual and check
themselves out
> at 17-18 they should feel free to scan those photos and send them to me as
> proof.... Personally, I am vastly more suave, debonair, handsome and
charming
> than I was ten years ago, so I am quite sure that is the case.... The
point is
> that ability scores go up just as skills do. (Another weakness in the
standard
> rules.)

Overall, I tend to agree. Especially with regards to physical scores,
and with wisdom (primarily the common sense and willpower aspects). I do
think, though, that they can go down just as easily. I think that the rules
are set up this way to be more consistent, not to take away from any form of
realism (this is true of many rpgs). Still, you make a solid case.

> Allowing ability scores to go up with level (especially using a 1pt/level
system
> that we're discussing here which is simplicity itself) would solve
numerous
> problems with the game mechanics. Things like the fact that you can have
really
> strong 1st level fighters contrasted with relatively weak 10th level ones.
Oh,
> it could still happen using this system, of course, but it would be much
less
> likely.

This is somewhat stunning to me. One point per level potential is,
well, unknown to me. This would seem to be potentially powerful in so many
ways. What would be the exact boundaries on this idea?

> snip <

> Similarly, I'm bothered by the fact that godlike creatures (the avatars of
the
> gods themselves for that matter) are a scant 7 points max away from scores
> naturally occuring in human beings. Such things should be way out of the
scope
> of mortals.

A heartfelt agreement here. You are quite in line with my views on this
matter. I cannot reconcile that either. As a matter of fact, I changed the
range of scores on the upper limits to be more conducive to my outlook on
upper-end ability scores. I do wish that this was done differently in the
core game.

>snip<

> I know these comments may spark some resistence because they are something
of a
> drastic change from the standard rules, but I really think they make some
sense.
> What do you guys think?
>
> Gary

I am in general agreement with you. I like ten-sided dice, and
percentile, and it's not just because of my rolemaster and white wolf days.
;o)

Bob

[Sidhain]

Foremost among them is the fact that most novel heroes have
>"high stats"; browsing through the character stats set out for the
Forgotten
>Realms and Birthright NPCs pretty much proves that the game designers have
the
>same opinion. I've always felt that PCs should always have as much
potential as
>any NPC.
> Furthermore, without high stats, I've always felt that PCs should
always
>have as much potential as any NPC there is not much game effect to
>differentiate, for example, the quick fighter (str 9, dex 14) from the
strong
>burly one (str 14, dex 9). Though that's more a problem caused by AD&D's
>somewhat buggy attribute tables than any problem with a playing style.
> Then again, I'm fond of superhero roleplaying, so maybe I'm biased. =)
>
>Mathieu
>
>************************************************** *************************

Nothing Wrong with High Stats, as long as they are obtained legitimately and
are there for rare i.e. because they are a random roll. However I think thar
bringing up TSR Forgotten Realms, or 90% of the published NPCS put out by
TSR is like proving my point, they write up much higher than they should be
because of the premise of trying to make the NPC's hard to kill because they
still suffer the impression that many gamers like to massacre the NPCS just
to see if they can do that...

These days I would prefer other systems other than AD&D even GURPS for
Birthright (and no I don't use Random Attributes for those games) I do
however have a random roll to determine starting points (a percentage of the
max allowed)

[Sidhain]

Just as an aside, while I advocate random rolls the one campaign I have an
am running in BR using AD&D I started all the players a 0 level average stat
blooded cousins...all descended from a King of the land one only one would
have the right to rule.
Since they were adolescents and mostly untrained being the children of a
Noble family they had the chance to increase their stats....but used logic
based on their actions....I didn't just allow them to increase their
attributes, I as DM decided when it was best and appropriate as well as if
it made sense.....

For example one was the Son of a Nobleman whose household was wilder than
the others, he raised hounds, hunted etc...and he tended to enjoy more
physical pastimes himself, so there was no reason to increase his
intelligence...

[Kenneth Gauck]

I think there is a place for the 3d6 method, especially when its not
corrupted into the 6d6 drop the low three. Buying stats is good for games
where everyone expects to start at the same place. I can see a truly
exceptional character in D&D, in other games it doesn't seem right.

Buying stats is so egalitarian, antithetical to heroic campaigns. One of
the things that makes D&D different is its use of bell curves like few other
games. Games based on the strict percentiles can achieve the same result,
but often don't make use of it.

I am pleased to see the latest RPG I picked up uses d6 exclusively.
You buy stats, but skills are checked against d6 rolls. I like the way it
works.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Gary V. Foss]

Bob Cauthron wrote:

> > Two things:
> >
> > 1. For the 80 pt distribution rule (this is BR related because I first
> found it
> > on BR PBeMs--in case anyone was worried about me going off topic :-) I was
> > thinking of setting a maximum, maybe 15 or 16 for first level characters'
> ability
> > scores. Since I'm planning on allowing ability scores to go up 1pt/level,
> I
> > think that is fair. A player could still have an 18 by 3rd or 4th level
> pretty
> > easily, so I don't think they should squawk about it.
>
> You are seriously considering this? Wow. Are you players that good not
> to try to abuse this? THis is not meant to be an inflammatory statement.

Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of "abuse".... I hear a lot of
people bashing what they call "munchkinism" around here.

Personally, I don't have a big problem with people who try to maximize their
characters abilities, skills, etc. Heck, I like doing it myself. To me "abuse"
would be exploiting a loophole in the rules to give one character a ridiculous
advantage over the other players. BR elves, for instance, are immortal.
Depending on your interpretation of what that means; ever young, exceptionally
long-lived or simply undying, that could mean an 18th level elven mage could
cast as many Wish spells as s/he liked without facing the aging attributed to
mortals. To me, THAT is abuse. Using rules that apply to everyone, NPCs and
PCs alike, to maximise the abilities of one's character. To me, that's not
abuse.

What kind of abuse are you thinking of?

> Overall, I tend to agree. Especially with regards to physical scores,
> and with wisdom (primarily the common sense and willpower aspects). I do
> think, though, that they can go down just as easily. I think that the rules
> are set up this way to be more consistent, not to take away from any form of
> realism (this is true of many rpgs). Still, you make a solid case.

I think you're right. I'm considering methods to have abilities scores go down
aside from aging, but I'm not really coming up with much. I don't like most of
the monsters that "drain" ability scores. The lamia's ability to drain wisdom,
for instance, seems outrageously unfair to me.

I do use the -10hp rule usually. (Actually I made it the -5 rule.) Maybe I can
rule that a character will lose a point from a randomly determined ability score
if that happens or if he is actually killed and brought back to life? Raise
Dead lowers Con, so that's an easy one.... Hmmm. I'll have to think about how
to do this. Anyone have ideas?

> > Allowing ability scores to go up with level (especially using a 1pt/level
> system
> > that we're discussing here which is simplicity itself) would solve
> numerous
> > problems with the game mechanics. Things like the fact that you can have
> really
> > strong 1st level fighters contrasted with relatively weak 10th level ones.
> Oh,
> > it could still happen using this system, of course, but it would be much
> less
> > likely.
>
> This is somewhat stunning to me. One point per level potential is,
> well, unknown to me. This would seem to be potentially powerful in so many
> ways. What would be the exact boundaries on this idea?

I'm thinking right now that

1. 1pt per highest level attained. Maybe I'll change that to go along more
close with proficiency scores. Like 1pt every 3 levels. I'm going to have to
think about how I want it to work.

2. At 1st level characters can't have more than a 15 in any given ability.

3. It can't be use to raise scores above racial maximums.

> > Similarly, I'm bothered by the fact that godlike creatures (the avatars of
> the
> > gods themselves for that matter) are a scant 7 points max away from scores
> > naturally occuring in human beings. Such things should be way out of the
> scope
> > of mortals.
>
> A heartfelt agreement here. You are quite in line with my views on this
> matter. I cannot reconcile that either. As a matter of fact, I changed the
> range of scores on the upper limits to be more conducive to my outlook on
> upper-end ability scores. I do wish that this was done differently in the
> core game.

What range in scores did you use? How has it worked out for you?

Gary

[Gary V. Foss]

"Gary V. Foss" wrote:

> I'm thinking right now that
>
> 1. 1pt per highest level attained. Maybe I'll change that to go along more
> close with proficiency scores. Like 1pt every 3 levels. I'm going to have to
> think about how I want it to work.
>
> 2. At 1st level characters can't have more than a 15 in any given ability.
>
> 3. It can't be use to raise scores above racial maximums.

Actually, I've changed my mind. I'm thinking that giving someone both a point to
add to his ability scores when he gains a level AND the actual level in a single
training action is too much.. When a character gains enough experience to gain a
level he will have to train for a month (just like the Train domain action) to
actually gain that level, additional hp, etc. He then has the capacity to Train for
a second month to add a point to an ability score. He might also train to add a
hp. In no case can anyone train to add more point to his ability scores than his
highest level of experience, or more hp than the maximum possible for his class and
level.

Someone--I apologize for not remembering who--said they thought the average (rounded
up) hit dice per level I was thinking of using penalized fighters, so I'm thinking I
might allow them to add 2hp in a single training action to counter that, but I'm
still undecided. One of the reasons I got onto this train of thought was because
fighters seem to have so much free time compared to mages who have to spend a lot of
days/weeks/months scribbling down their spells, creating magic items, etc. If
fighters can train for months to add those hp it will certainly give them something
to do while mages are studying....

Laters,
Gary

[Pieter Sleijpen]

Gary V. Foss wrote:

> I think you're right. I'm considering methods to have abilities
> scores go down aside from aging, but I'm not really coming up with
> much. I don't like most of the monsters that "drain" ability scores.
> The lamia's ability to drain wisdom, for instance, seems outrageously
> unfair to me.
>
> I do use the -10hp rule usually. (Actually I made it the -5 rule.)
> Maybe I can rule that a character will lose a point from a randomly
> determined ability score if that happens or if he is actually killed
> and brought back to life? Raise Dead lowers Con, so that's an easy
> one.... Hmmm. I'll have to think about how to do this. Anyone have
> ideas?

I use the -10 rule, but I also know the potential abuse in this rule.
Afterall, how many times do all the PC's die in combat or are distracted
long enough (in fact it happened only twice now in my recent campaign
and in both cases it was to stupidity on the dying PC's side)? So I
decided that they would lose a charisma point due to ugly scars and a
loss in self-esteem. With time and the right kind of magic (regenerate
spell) they can recover this charisma point. It helps greatly and people
withdraw from combat now, when they get low on hp. I could also see a
loss of constitution, strength and dexterity in this case, but wisdom
and intelligence seem strange to me (unless you got a hit to the head
:-) ).

To stay strong and healthy a lot of training and a certain way of life
is needed. Reducing constitution after a long time without proper food
and water is perfectly reasonable. Do the PC's eat too much fat food or
stop their daily excersise for a long time? Feel free to lower strength,
constitution and especially dexterity. Diseases might permanently
influence attributes, though that might be a little unfair because a
character has got little influence on it.

I would say, take a look at RL and try to determine what makes people
lose their "attributes" in RL. If nothing else, you can at least have
magical curses in AD&D to reduce the scores. Ever used the reverse of
remove curse? Even a temporary reduction of a random score to 3 can be
devastating or create embarassing situations :-)

Pieter Sleijpen

[JNeighb934@aol.co]

In a message dated 04/17/99 3:19:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time, madfox@wxs.nl
writes:

>

I use a negative hit point scheme that I developed specifically for
Birthright. It takes into account the possibility (indeed, the liklihood) of
mortal wounds so that Battlefield Investitures could play a role in the
campaign. But it also serves to make my players very nervous about their
characters going into the negative, which is how it should be. Players
should not feel it's no big deal to go into negative hit points because they
can get healed right back up and jump right back into the action without any
rest or worries. I know my scheme is kind of complicated but I feel it works
very well for Birthright so here it is for you to look at, use, modify,
delete, or whatever. By the way, this also relates to game effects related
to minor differences in attributes, as in this system a character can go up
to his CON in negative hit points (but at least -10). So here it is:

If a character falls below one hit point he has suffered a grievous wound and
immediately
becomes incapacitated. He is in great pain and agony at that point, drifting
in and out of
consciousness. The character begins to lose one hit point every round until
he is attended to by binding his wounds or receiving other appropriate
emergency treatment. The one hit point loss per round represents the gradual
loss of blood and life force of the unattended character. Once a character
reaches a negative hit point total equal to his constitution, but at least
- -10, he character has reached his limit. Beyond that limit is death.
Healing magic applied to the fallen character brings the character
back to one hit
point. (Only the Heal spell can do more, actually fully healing the
character to his full hit
point total.) The character remains at one hit point until he has fully
rested for one day.
Additional cure spells do no good. During this period the character is
extremely weak, can only move with the help of others, and finds it difficult
to speak. Such things as combat, running, and riding a horse unassisted are
impossible. If forced to defend himself, the weakened character can only
manage to wield a small sized weapon or cast very simple spells at -4 to hit,
- -4 to saves, and +4 to AC with no dex.
Fallen characters who receive no healing magic, after 2d4 hours have
elapsed, must
make a system shock roll to survive. If they live, they heal at the rate of
one hit point per day until they reach one hit point, at which point they
physically recover and begin to heal normally. A character under the care of
someone with healing and herbalism (other than himself) heals two points per
day. A system shock roll to survive must be made every day the character is
below zero hit points, with a cumulative +5% bonus being added every new
check. While below zero hit points, the character is bedridden and extremely
weak. A character who heals in this manner is bound to have significant
scarring from the ordeal.
Cure Light Wounds and Cure Serious Wounds are not always enough to
save a
character who has gone deep into negative hit points. If a character reaches
a negative hit point total that is over half his constitution, or at least
- -6, then he has suffered a mortal
wound. The bleeding cannot be stopped by normal means, a Cure Light Wounds
spell will only delay death by 2-12 rounds (after the character has reached
his maximum limit). At least a Cure Serious Wounds must be cast to save the
character and bring him to one hit point. A character reaching negative hit
points equal to his constitution (or, again, at least -10) or just one under
will die in one to two rounds unless a Cure Critical Wounds spell is cast
immediately. Cure Light Wounds prolongs death by 1-6 rounds, Cure
Serious Wounds by 1-4 turns. As always, a Heal spell will immediately heal
the character
to full hit points with no ill effects, even in these grave circumstances.
One last little twist. Any character who is exactly at zero hit
points can make a CON check. If failed, they are incapacitated but do not
lose further hit points due to
bleeding, etc. Such characters are not in danger of dying and heal normally
(after a day of rest). If check is made character is in same weakened state
as described above for characters brought to one hit point from negative hit
points by a cure spell, but at least the character can crawl out of danger
without immediate aid.
Normally, a character can heal one point per day if he engages in no
more than light,
non-strenuous activity. Under the care of a healer this increases to two
points per day, or one point per night of good rest if heavy activity is
encountered during the day (such as combat). If the healer is also an
herbalist, three points per day can be regained if, again, no more than light
activity is done. Otherwise, the only way to heal three points a day is with
complete rest and relaxation. Complete rest also enables a character to add
his CON bonus, if any, at the end of every week.
One last note: a mortal wound only comes about via an opponent's
attack placing you
that far in the negative. In other words, if you go into negative hit points
and bleed for
several rounds before anyone helps you, you don't have to worry about dying
from a mortal wound, as long as someone attends to you before you bleed to
death.

[Gary V. Foss]

Pieter Sleijpen wrote:

> Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
> > I think you're right. I'm considering methods to have abilities
> > scores go down aside from aging, but I'm not really coming up with
> > much. I don't like most of the monsters that "drain" ability scores.
> > The lamia's ability to drain wisdom, for instance, seems outrageously
> > unfair to me.
> >
> > I do use the -10hp rule usually. (Actually I made it the -5 rule.)
> > Maybe I can rule that a character will lose a point from a randomly
> > determined ability score if that happens or if he is actually killed
> > and brought back to life? Raise Dead lowers Con, so that's an easy
> > one.... Hmmm. I'll have to think about how to do this. Anyone have
> > ideas?
>
> I use the -10 rule, but I also know the potential abuse in this rule.
> Afterall, how many times do all the PC's die in combat or are distracted
> long enough (in fact it happened only twice now in my recent campaign
> and in both cases it was to stupidity on the dying PC's side)? So I
> decided that they would lose a charisma point due to ugly scars and a
> loss in self-esteem. With time and the right kind of magic (regenerate
> spell) they can recover this charisma point. It helps greatly and people
> withdraw from combat now, when they get low on hp. I could also see a
> loss of constitution, strength and dexterity in this case, but wisdom
> and intelligence seem strange to me (unless you got a hit to the head
> :-) ).

I think you could justify a loss of intelligence or wisdom. A head wound is
one example, but brain injuries can be caused by blood loss too, so any old
injury can effect someone's noggin'.... Aside from that, it could be
symbolically correct for a character to lose a point of Int or Wis if using the
- -10 rule. If the injuries resulted from a rather stupid or unwise decision on
the players part, for isntance, I think you could justify it on a pure gaming
basis. Lastly, there are psycological effects. A character so terribly
injured in combat might be more timid and less willful (lower wisdom) after
such an experience. He could also be less willing to dare and challenge
himself mentally--didn't thinking so recklessly get him into trouble
already?--and suffer Intelligence effects.

Gary

[Bob Cauthron]

> Well, I suppose that depends on your definition of "abuse".... I hear a
lot of
> people bashing what they call "munchkinism" around here.
>
> Personally, I don't have a big problem with people who try to maximize
their
> characters abilities, skills, etc. Heck, I like doing it myself. To me
"abuse"
> would be exploiting a loophole in the rules to give one character a
ridiculous
> advantage over the other players. BR elves, for instance, are immortal.
> Depending on your interpretation of what that means; ever young,
exceptionally
> long-lived or simply undying, that could mean an 18th level elven mage
could
> cast as many Wish spells as s/he liked without facing the aging attributed
to
> mortals. To me, THAT is abuse. Using rules that apply to everyone, NPCs
and
> PCs alike, to maximise the abilities of one's character. To me, that's
not
> abuse.
>
> What kind of abuse are you thinking of?

I have a different definition than yours. Mine comes about more from
players that have their ability scores shaping their character, rather than
the other way around (which is what I prefer). While I agree that most game
systems, including adnd, encourage the high ability score concept and that
part of this is necessary, I believe it is overdone, which can hinder
character development and roleplaying. This tactic is quite prone to abuse,
since the concentration is on numbers to begin with, often at the expense of
characterization.
What this does is have players who are more concerned about numbers
than anything else. Example: "I need this score to get this bonus, so that I
can have this number for this...ad infinitum." The min/max philosophy, which
in my experience is widely prevalent. Some of this is justified, but not to
the level that I have been exposed to, especially as a gm. Note that I am
not condemning anyone here, as this is a personal preference only, my style
so to speak. What is truly bizarre about this is that my players tend to
have very high scores anyway.

> I think you're right. I'm considering methods to have abilities scores go
down
> aside from aging, but I'm not really coming up with much. I don't like
most of
> the monsters that "drain" ability scores. The lamia's ability to drain
wisdom,
> for instance, seems outrageously unfair to me.

Agreed. I am uncomfortable with such things, although I have used them,
just very rarely. Draining in general is not a concept I am fond of. What I
have done with that is usually make any kind of draining temporary unless
death occurs. So far this has been effective in my campaigns.

> I do use the -10hp rule usually. (Actually I made it the -5 rule.) Maybe
I can
> rule that a character will lose a point from a randomly determined ability
score
> if that happens or if he is actually killed and brought back to life?
Raise
> Dead lowers Con, so that's an easy one.... Hmmm. I'll have to think
about how
> to do this. Anyone have ideas?

I also use the -10 method, but I am afraid I cannot be of much help to
anyone on this, as my campaigns do not normally have raise dead or
resurrection options available to the pcs. What I do to help with this is
have more healing options available, as in alchemy, herbs/plants, etc. Which
makes the healing and herbalism skills quite valuable in my games. Note also
that combat is rare in when I gm, as I can have several sessions go by
without seeing any fighting.

> I'm thinking right now that
>
> 1. 1pt per highest level attained. Maybe I'll change that to go along
more
> close with proficiency scores. Like 1pt every 3 levels. I'm going to
have to
> think about how I want it to work.
>
> 2. At 1st level characters can't have more than a 15 in any given ability.
>
> 3. It can't be use to raise scores above racial maximums.

I allow the characters to increase their ability scores on an irregular
basis, as when they could do so without such they tended to concentrate
primarily on ability scores. Unlike many people, I use the players option
tomes, and therefore so do my players. The ability score advancement system
I use is dependent on many variables , such as race, class, the ability
score itself, the present score, the score increase, campaign and character
circumstances, and more.

> > > Similarly, I'm bothered by the fact that godlike creatures (the
avatars of
> > the
> > > gods themselves for that matter) are a scant 7 points max away from
scores
> > > naturally occuring in human beings. Such things should be way out of
the
> > scope
> > > of mortals.
> >
> > A heartfelt agreement here. You are quite in line with my views on
this
> > matter. I cannot reconcile that either. As a matter of fact, I changed
the
> > range of scores on the upper limits to be more conducive to my outlook
on
> > upper-end ability scores. I do wish that this was done differently in
the
> > core game.
>
> What range in scores did you use? How has it worked out for you?
>
> Gary

Well, I have various systems for adnd. My personal favorite is the
percentile system, along with using d10s. For this discussion, however, I
will keep it more mainstream. I have one where I kept the standard adnd
system and expanded upon it. The range is from 1-40, and the adjustments
(re: bonuses/penalties) are adjusted accordingly. This system, though, has
bonuses starting at scores of 13, unlike the standard rules. Surprisingly
enough, this has worked for me, as the players are more satisfied with
scores of 13-15 because of the bonuses, which are normally minor. Another
one of my rare successes.
The higher range in scores also works for those times when I use
powerful foes, because they are that impressive, and the players know the
range is there and they are not exactly sure what the numbers may be in
combat.

Bob

[WILLELA@aol.co]

May I point out an improvement to the -10 hp death rule. Change to
- -2d8, or some other dice combination. This has the advantage of increasing
player uncertainity where the player should be uncertain.
You had better treat that PC at -5 now. He could die at -6.
Yours for deeper dungeons
David Argall

[Gary V. Foss]

"John E. Raymond" wrote:

> > May I point out an improvement to the -10 hp death rule. Change to
> >-2d8, or some other dice combination. This has the advantage of increasing
> >player uncertainity where the player should be uncertain.
> > You had better treat that PC at -5 now. He could die at -6.
> > Yours for deeper dungeons
> > David Argall
>
> For my game..I use their Health (Constitution if I wasn't using S&P)
> modified by plus or minus 5 (ascertained by rolling a d10)

I changed it to the -5 rule in my campaigns. I also try not to tell the players
how far into the negative area they have fallen. When a PC goes into negative
numbers I just say something like, "A goblin hits Marrick in the stomach and he
goes down." Someone has to rush over and check the PC out to see if he is dead
or not.

I went with the -5 rule rather than the -10 rule because I wanted PCs and NPCs
to be able to gasp out a few last words before they expire from time to time.
Five minutes or so seemed adequate for that. Besides, an average human has 3 or
4 hp. Requiring two or three times that much damage to actually kill a person
it seems too much.

Gary

[Olesens]

> Besides, an average human has 3 or
> 4 hp. Requiring two or three times that much damage to actually kill a person
> it seems too much.

Which reminds me about my theroy of what hitpoints actually are. I mean, a 20th
level fighter will die if stabbed through the heart same as a 1st level fighter
will. IMO, hitpoints are a measure of the amount of pain the hero can take without
losing conciousness (getting below 0 hp or whatever) and thier skill at avoiding
damage (even though max damage from a longsword is 8 on everybody, that is 100% of a
regular guy's hp but only 50% of about a 2nd level warrior's hp. I hope I made
sense here...). And as a side comment for those of you who don't like AD&D because
a naked 17th level fighter can kill an elephant or a 10th level wizard can get
stabbed in the chest and not die or be badly wounded - AD&D is an abstract game and
stuff like that is the GM's fault.

- -Andrew

[the Falcon]

> 1. For the 80 pt distribution rule (this is BR related because I first found it
> on BR PBeMs--in case anyone was worried about me going off topic :-) I was
> thinking of setting a maximum, maybe 15 or 16 for first level characters' ability
> scores. Since I'm planning on allowing ability scores to go up 1pt/level, I
> think that is fair. A player could still have an 18 by 3rd or 4th level pretty
> easily, so I don't think they should squawk about it.
>
> NOTE: The static ability scores of AD&D have long been one of the game's greatest
> weaknesses in my opinion. (Anyone who knows my take on this sort of thing will
> understand why I'm prefacing the following remarks by saying that this is not a
> call for greater "realism" in the game... BUT....) The fact of the matter is
> that people get stronger, smarter, wiser, more charismatic as they age and gain
> experience.. OK, the last one may be questionable, but if anyone over 25 out
> there would care to go back to an old high school annual and check themselves out
> at 17-18 they should feel free to scan those photos and send them to me as
> proof.... Personally, I am vastly more suave, debonair, handsome and charming
> than I was ten years ago, so I am quite sure that is the case.... The point is
> that ability scores go up just as skills do. (Another weakness in the standard
> rules.)
>
> Allowing ability scores to go up with level (especially using a 1pt/level system
> that we're discussing here which is simplicity itself) would solve numerous
> problems with the game mechanics. Things like the fact that you can have really
> strong 1st level fighters contrasted with relatively weak 10th level ones. Oh,
> it could still happen using this system, of course, but it would be much less
> likely.

With PO:S&P, proficiencies start at lower ratings than in standard AD&D.
However, there's automatic succes for routine tasks and the like, and the
proficiency ratings are easily upgraded with Character Points (especially
if you award 5 per level, like I do). So proficiency scores do improve
under PO:S&P, albeit slowly. Maybe we can do the same for ability scores
- - allow players to spend CPs to improve them. Of course, it should be a
lot more expensive than just upgrading proficiencies, since high ability
scores give bonuses to proficiency scores...

> 2. As long as we are discussing the 3rd edition stuff.... Maybe we can finally
> get away from the 3-18 ability score range. Why not 2-20 or 3-30? A wider range
> of ability scores would help make each character different from the other and
> could also eliminate this whole exceptional strength problem which doesn't fit
> into this ability score improvement thing. OK, OK, the entire game shouldn't
> revolve around this one idea, but I actually think this is a good enough one that
> it might be reasonable.
> Personally, I think the 3-18 ability score range came from the hoary old days of
> the gaming hobby when people could really only get their hands on 6-sided dice.
> I remember Traveller used to only use 6-siders, even for "percentile" rolls.
> There were 11-66 charts long after other dice became readily available. Man,
> that was weird. You know how DOS 3.0 or something could only handle 128k of
> memory when computers were starting to get a meg or two on board? (Or whatever
> it was--my memory on this is quite fuzzy.) I think the 3-18 system is like
> that. Well, it's time to throw off the tyranny of the six-siders, my friends!
> Release us from the yoke of cubic oppression! Let us begin to think outside of
> the box! Rise up, my fellow hobbyists! Rise up!

Well, d6 are still cheaper and easier to get than other dice over here.
Anyways, it seems to me that they at TSR chose 3-18 for the range of
ability scores, for the reason that it works quite nicely with ability
checks on a d20. If you really want to have attributes vary a lot, you
could use a 1d20 to determine them (instead of 3d8), or maybe 1d100 if
you're to check em on d100. But I don't think that's what we really want,
cause if you do that, stats will simply very _too_ much. What seems best
to me is that high and low stats are both rare. Sure, the average of 1d20
and 3d8 are the same, but there's a lot more chance with 3d6 that you
might get something in the middle than with 1d20, where any number is as
likely to show up as the next one (a bit too random, if you ask me).
2d10? Well, then suddenly high stats become a lot more common. 3d10?
How are you ever goin to make ability checks? On a d30? I don't know any
shops where I can buy those. Then how about checks on d100, instead of
d20? In that case, what are we gonna use to roll up the stats? 5d20?
Then high stats will become nigh impossible...
Seems to me that if you wanna get rid of those d6s for ability scores, a
point system would be the best solution. Well, at least that's what I
use... :)

- the Falcon

[the Falcon]

> I do use the -10hp rule usually. (Actually I made it the -5 rule.) Maybe I can
> rule that a character will lose a point from a randomly determined ability score
> if that happens or if he is actually killed and brought back to life? Raise
> Dead lowers Con, so that's an easy one.... Hmmm. I'll have to think about how
> to do this. Anyone have ideas?

Sound critical hits can sometimes cripple ability scores...

[the Falcon]

> I went with the -5 rule rather than the -10 rule because I wanted PCs and NPCs
> to be able to gasp out a few last words before they expire from time to time.
> Five minutes or so seemed adequate for that. Besides, an average human has 3 or
> 4 hp. Requiring two or three times that much damage to actually kill a person
> it seems too much.

Well, since combat rounds last only 12 seconds on average with PO:C&T, I
think I'll just stick with the -10 rule... :)

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Gary V. Foss wrote:

> I think you're right. I'm considering methods to have abilities scores
go down
> aside from aging, but I'm not really coming up with much. I don't like
most of
> the monsters that "drain" ability scores. The lamia's ability to drain
wisdom,
> for instance, seems outrageously unfair to me.

Actually, this sparked an idea for me. One problem I have with the way my
BR games have gone is that I tend to focus on the Shadow World somewhat,
and therefore often use a fairly large number of higher-powered undead
creatures. However, I HATE the "level-draining" ability of some of those
creatures. So, now I'm thinking it might be an idea to have those
creatures drain Ability scores instead, if characters could either raise
an ability score with their level (or use XP to "buy" higher levels of
ability scores). It does make a certain amount of sense: the creature
might instill an irrational fear into a character (-1 WIS), shake the
character's self-confidence (-1 CHA), weaken the character (-1 STR or
CON), ruin the character's concentration or coordination (-1 DEX) or keep
the character from thinking clearly (-1 INT) until the character has had
time to "work through" the "phychic trauma."

Ability-draining creature don't bother me so much. For one, there aren't
very many creatures that have that ability, and for another they're very
rare (and especially in Cerilia! or at least my Cerilia).

> I do use the -10hp rule usually. (Actually I made it the -5 rule.)
Maybe I can
> rule that a character will lose a point from a randomly determined
ability score
> if that happens or if he is actually killed and brought back to life?
Raise
> Dead lowers Con, so that's an easy one.... Hmmm. I'll have to think
about how
> to do this. Anyone have ideas?

Make the Wish spell drain ability scores, so they affect elves as much as
they do humans. Perhaps casting a Wish spell subtracts 1 from ALL ability
scores. That would be a hefty penalty (esp, since it will effect the INT
of the caster, preventing him from casting the spell again until he
bought the ability back up to 18).

You could also introduce poisons that subtract permanently from ability
scores (anyone want to venture into the Spiderfell now?). And Diseases and
Plagues could subtract as well, if they weren't resisted or Cured.

> I'm thinking right now that
>
> 1. 1pt per highest level attained. Maybe I'll change that to go along more
> close with proficiency scores. Like 1pt every 3 levels. I'm going to have to
> think about how I want it to work.
>
> 2. At 1st level characters can't have more than a 15 in any given ability.
>
> 3. It can't be use to raise scores above racial maximums.

I've been thinking something along the lines of an XP cost of
100 x (target level of ability score) - (bonus for having mentor/teacher)
and then enforcing the 3d6 rule for beginning ability scores. Probably 7
3d6 rolls, drop lowest, then assign as desired.

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Alaric]

Mark A Vandermeulen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
> > I think you're right. I'm considering methods to have abilities scores
> go down
> > aside from aging, but I'm not really coming up with much. I don't like
> most of
> > the monsters that "drain" ability scores. The lamia's ability to drain
> wisdom,
> > for instance, seems outrageously unfair to me.
>
> Actually, this sparked an idea for me. One problem I have with the way my
> BR games have gone is that I tend to focus on the Shadow World somewhat,
> and therefore often use a fairly large number of higher-powered undead
> creatures. However, I HATE the "level-draining" ability of some of those
> creatures. So, now I'm thinking it might be an idea to have those
> creatures drain Ability scores instead, if characters could either raise
> an ability score with their level (or use XP to "buy" higher levels of
> ability scores). It does make a certain amount of sense: the creature
> might instill an irrational fear into a character (-1 WIS), shake the
> character's self-confidence (-1 CHA), weaken the character (-1 STR or
> CON), ruin the character's concentration or coordination (-1 DEX) or keep
> the character from thinking clearly (-1 INT) until the character has had
> time to "work through" the "phychic trauma."

I can definitely see att draining creatures, being another one who hates
level drainers. I think I might make it easier to raise up the atts,
basing it on the number that it's being brought back up to...perhaps
something like the rules relating to remaking signature items out of
PO:HLC
Thx,
Alaric