anything on dwarves

[kgauck]

Looking at most kinds of assessments about sociability, high performance in
the social skills (high charisma) is strongly correlated with a strong
interest and commitment to socialization. They tend to be highly
communicative, connective, expressive, enthusiastic, authentic, peacable,
supportive, and acceptance-seeking. In certain contexts, dwarves can be
enthusiastic or connective, but its really not a description of dwarves.

Even if this is only evidence that dwarven charisma is particular, it means
that it won`t work on differently social beings, like humans or elves. The
only race which I think could claim a universal charisma bonus are
Tolkienesque elves. Of course stardard D&D elves don`t get the charisma
bonus.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Krow]

Originally posted by Ariadne

Originally posted by Krow

While I agree somewhat to the proposition that Dwarves could stand to have a -2 to DEX, I don't think having a +2 to CON is such a good idea. As the CON stat for Dwarves increases, too much unbalancing can occur.

Sorry, but if I think of the embodiment of endurance (of humanoids), I think of dwarves. The incensement of Con is a very good idea, as well as the Str increase. Dwarves are typical fighters and train for it, since they can walk. Otherwise they are not as dexterous as other races (and not as beautiful), that’s why reduced Dex and Cha. If you sum it out, the dwarf will have the ability modifiers +/- 0. It is balanced!

Good work, Keovar...

It's obvious that +2 +2 -2 -2 = 0. What I meant by unbalancing was in respect to other player characters and races. If a Dwarf gets a +2 to strength, that makes him eligible for 20 strength. This puts him in the same catagory of strength for a 2000 pound 18" stone giant. A dwarf, with a base weight of 130 pounds + 4d10 pounds for the racial modifer has a max (usual) weight of 170 pounds. This is saying that a 170 pound creature is as strong, not relatively, but equally, as a 2000 pound creature. Both these creatures would have a max press of 700 pounds. That's roughly 4 1/2 times the dwarf's bodyweight, vs. the 35% of the giant's bodyweight that he could max press.

Let's look at damage. This allows a dwarf to have a +8 damage modifier for strength alone. Let's pit this up as a fighting combat...Barehanded dwarf vs. human with a long sword, each doing minimum damage. The dwarf hits for a minimum damage of 9. The human, 1. It would take the human 9 attacks with a sword to do the same damage as the 1 attack from the dwarf.

The To-Hit modifier is the same thing, the dwarf is fighting barehanded against an armed opponent, this gives the dwarf a -4 to his attack roll. No problem, with this 20 strength, he gets a +3 to his attack rolls. Now, try adding all this up with a weapon in his hand.

Now with constitution, there's not much difference between 19 and 20, the resurrection survival chance stays the same and the system shock percentage stays the same, as well as the number of bonus hit points, 5. However, at 20 Constitution, the Dwarf has Regeneration. Isn't the +5 to saving throws enough?

This doesn't even take into account that the dwarves in Birthright take half damage from half the different types of physical attacks. The penalty to Dexterity and Charisma are a very small price to pay. You're uglier, and you take an extra hit out of every 10. But you've got regeneration, so that's negated in the long run.

So, as a Dungeon Master, you have a dwarven tank. Then, you have all your other characters. Even if they're powerful, they cannot compete. The Dwarf kills everything in one hit, leaving all the other players bored, because they don't even fall into the same universe as the dwarf. So, you bring in bigger creatures to throw at them for a more difficult combat. Surprise, everyone is way underpowered, except the dwarf with 20 strength and 20 constitution. So, the dwarf lives, everyone else dies.

This is what I referred to as "unbalancing".

[Keovar]

Krow, it's obvious from the numbers you state that you've never played, or even seriously looked at, 3rd Edition D&D. The stat system is much less topheavy than it was in AD&D. The stat system is not capped at 25, so giants are much stronger than they were before, but the bonuses don't ramp up so sharply.

Score Modifier
1..................-5
2-3...............-4
4-5...............-3
6-7...............-2
8-9...............-1
10-11............0
12-13...........+ 1
14-15...........+ 2
16-17...........+ 3
18-19...........+ 4
20-21...........+ 5
22-23...........+ 6
24-25...........+ 7
26-27...........+ 8
28-29...........+ 9
30-31...........+ 10
etc...

Above is the chart for all the stats and the modifiers they impart to their associated skills and other character features. Technically, the chart never ends, but it's easy enough to see the pattern if you need to extend it further.

In the case of Strength, the bonus listed applies to both attack and damage rolls, as well as certain skills. I don't have my books handy, but if I remember right, ogres have a 21 Str, trolls are at 23, titans have a 35, and a great wyrm gold dragon has a 45 strength.

As you can see, a 20 strength is very good, but you won't be arm wrestling any stone giants. In fact, a creature's lifting capacity is affected by it's size category, so if a dwarf had a 21 strength like an ogre, the ogre will lift quite a bit more due it being size "large" while the dwarf is "medium".

3rd edition is much more internally consistant and balanced than previous editions, but if you do get an opportunity to try it out, remember, leave your preconcieved notions behind and look at it as if it were a completely new game. Those who have had bad things to say about it are nearly always those who look at it with alot of 1st and 2nd edition assumptions.

[Keovar]

Just a few additional notes about your post, Krow...

Your human vs. barehanded dwarf example is flawed even if you are looking at it in 2nd edition terms. Even if you make the dwarf have a 19 strength, you are comparing a maxxed out dwarf with an average human.

Furthermore, saying that having a dwarf in the group means you would have a character with 20 Str and 20 Con (or even 19 in each if you are using the 2ND edition modifiers I listed), is very suspect. Do you give your players free 18's or what? The "18 or nothing" mentality that players of older editions have produces this assumption that every "playable" character will have at least one 18 is a symptom of the topheavy stat chart. I no longer even have players roll stats, but instead use a point-buy system that is presented as an option the the 3rd edition DMG. Even though players CAN buy one or sometimes two 18's, they usually don't, because the gradually sloped modifiers mean you don't have to be in the 16+ range just to be a bit above average.

Anyway, look at my original post again and you will see that I listed two different versions of the dwarven stat adjustments. Judge them each by the standards present in the game they were listed to go with.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 17:04, Krow wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1068

Krow wrote:

Originally posted by Ariadne

Originally posted by Krow

While I agree somewhat to the proposition that Dwarves could stand to have a -2 to DEX, I don`t think having a +2 to CON is such a good idea. As the CON stat for Dwarves increases, too much unbalancing can occur.

Sorry, but if I think of the embodiment of endurance (of humanoids), I think of dwarves. The incensement of Con is a very good idea, as well as the Str increase. Dwarves are typical fighters and train for it, since they can walk. Otherwise they are not as dexterous as other races (and not as beautiful), that’s why reduced Dex and Cha. If you sum it out, the dwarf will have the ability modifiers +/- 0. It is balanced!

Good work, Keovar...

It`s obvious that +2 +2 -2 -2 = 0.

Actually it`s neither obvious or even true. It would be true if ability
scores were rolled on a d20, but we aren`t talking about a linear value
scale - ordinary (general) maths does not apply. They are rolled most
commonly with 3d6 (regardless of whether more dice were actually rolled
the pip count comes from 3d6). In some cases I have heard of DM allowing
players to set their stats from a given total point count (such a system
is patently unfair and most good DMs avoid it like the plague but I have
seen it happen ...).

In any event it is quite apparent to everyone that +1 to an ability
score of 10 has a completely different value to +1 on an ability score
of 18. The odds of rolling a 19 with 3d6 is 0%. We`ve all seen a
probability chart that shows the probability distribution of the 16
possible values. A +1 should be worth 6.25% on such a chart if it is to
be given equal weight (which it is), but the value change from 17 to 18
is 15 times that of the value change from 10 to 11. (these are the two
most extreme cases) What this means is that if there were 16 ability
scores and all but one were at 11 and the other at 17, it would be an
equal value exchange to reduce all the 11 scores and increase the 17
score.

As well, consider that you cannot trade apples for oranges here. A +1 to
one ability does not equate to a -1 in another ability. The scores may
be similar but the scales are not. In fact it is almost impossible to
even begin to set an exchange rate. The notion that all six abilities
have the same scale is ridiculous.

Not only all that (as if it isn`t enough), but the scales being used are
all human-relative. They can`t even begin to be applied once you move
away from the human norm by very much at all - fortunately dwarves and
elves are very similar to humans (although as we shall see later, even
dwarves and halflings have significant problems in this regard). Some of
this difference is reflected in restricted ranges for certain ability
scores among the demi-human races.

The constitution range for dwarves is 13 to 18 (pre-adjustment) in BR
AD&D 2nd Ed. This is only 56 of the possible 216 values, and the
distribution is not bell-curved. In fact it gives a percentile
distribution (after adjustment) of: 01-37 == 15, 38-64 == 16, 65-82 ==
17, 83-92 == 18, 93-98 == 19, 99-00 == 20.

What I meant by unbalancing was in respect to other player characters and races. If a Dwarf gets a +2 to strength, that makes him
eligible for 20 strength. This puts him in the same catagory of strength for a 2000 pound 18" stone giant. A dwarf, with a base
weight of 130 pounds + 4d10 pounds for the racial modifer has a max (usual) weight of 170 pounds. This is saying that a 170 pound
creature is as strong, not relatively, but equally, as a 2000 pound creature. Both these creatures would have a max press of 700
pounds. That`s roughly 4 1/2 times the dwarf`s bodyweight, vs. the 35% of the giant`s bodyweight that he could max press.

You`ve caught the essence of the problem quite neatly. Your typical
stone giant is 12 foot tall and weighs in at around 1400 pounds (scary
huh? - and that`s not even taking into account the fact that a stone
giant might be made of denser stuff than humans!). Now the problem with
that pesky strength table (all the abilities even) is that they are for
humans. (actually they`re based on a 6 foot tall 175 pound human male -
as all values came from the original D&D tables) You can`t make any
deductions about a Stone Giant from them, so I`m afraid that the last
part of your argument "This is saying..." is pretty much lost. (But we
can still make some deductions about the Stone Giant and what it can
lift from elsewhere - aha! .. you`ll have to read on)

Let`s look at your 170 pound dwarf. Allowing for the fact that dwarves
are about 1.9 times more dense that humans, (this time I will factor it
in - dwarves in Cerilia are being derived from stone etc - there`s a
sound basis behind the figure - just accept it for now), the dwarf would
be approximately 57 inches (4 feet 9 inches) tall - very big for a dwarf
(not unusual since it`s an extreme example).

One question that remains unanswered (so far) is where did that table in
the 2nd Ed Players handbook come from? Actually it comes largely from
the 1st Ed AD&D handbook - max press is STRx10 + WT_ALLCE/10 from the
first edition - however there`s an important distinction - 1st Ed tells
you outright - these values are for a 175 pound 6 foot human - adjust
for changes in height and weight accordingly (although they don`t tell
you "how" to adjust).

So how can we adjust - particularly in a non-human-centric way? Well,
there`s good reason and adequate support for using the average body
weight as the main adjusting factor. The values in the strength table
can now be looked at as a percentage modifier of 175 pounds - which will
give a figure (as an example) of +70% for a strength rating of 18.51.

Why 18.51? Well, 18.51 is the new 20 (at least as far as strength is
concerned). Most times when the game calls for an add of 1 it often
states "or a percentile if over 18". So a dwarf (even if given a +2 on
an 18) shouldn`t go to 20 but to 18.51 instead. (Now as for the "stone
giant" entries on the 2nd ed strength tables, who thinks that a fighter
having swallowed a potion of stone giant strength will be "exactly" like
a stone giant? - no-one? good, we`re being sensible -- certainly the
fighter is much stronger relative to the normal human values, but
realistically he`s not about to be able to mix it with the stone giant
equally in an arm-wrestling contest, he`s just not big enough

So how much can they all lift (bench)? A. Stone Giant 1400 pounds, Big
Dwarf with 20 strength 384 pounds, Average Human with 18 strength 250
pounds. Man that little guy is strong!!

Could a dwarf have a greater strength than a human and yet not be able
to bench-press as much weight? Absolutely! and why not? Strength "is a
measure of muscle, endurance, and stamina combined". (besides, by making
it relative to body weight - creating a universal bipedal scale for
strength instead of a human scale - it`s easy to see that most dwarves
are very strong due to their greater density - better weight to height
ratio - yet still will tend be weigh less than a human - but their
strength range is in the upper level of distribution - there are no
`weak` dwarves) Imagine, if you will, a 4 foot 9 inch human child
(around 7-8 years old) being able to lift weights very similar to a
full-grown man.

As for an "actual 20" versus 18.51 ("the new 20"); +3/+8 versus +2/+3
is far more sensible to adopt "the new 20".


Let`s look at damage. This allows a dwarf to have a +8 damage modifier for strength alone. Let`s pit this up as a fighting combat...
Barehanded dwarf vs. human with a long sword, each doing minimum damage. The dwarf hits for a minimum damage of 9. The human, 1. It
would take the human 9 attacks with a sword to do the same damage as the 1 attack from the dwarf.

The To-Hit modifier is the same thing, the dwarf is fighting barehanded against an armed opponent, this gives the dwarf a -4 to his
attack roll. No problem, with this 20 strength, he gets a +3 to his attack rolls. Now, try adding all this up with a weapon in his
hand.

Now, with constitution, there`s not much difference, the resurrection survival chance stays the same and the system shock percentage
stays the same, as well as the number of bonus hit points, 5. However, at 20 Constitution, the Dwarf has Regeneration. Isn`t the +5
to saving throws enough?

This doesn`t even take into account that the dwarves in Birthright take half damage from half the different types of physical attacks.
The penalty to Dexterity and Charisma are a very small price to pay. You`re uglier, and you take an extra hit out of every 10. But
you`ve got regeneration, so that`s negated in the long run.

So, as a Dungeon Master, you have a dwarven tank. Then, you have all your other characters. Even if they`re powerful, they cannot
compete. The Dwarf kills everything in one hit, leaving all the other players bored, because they don`t even fall into the same
universe as the dwarf. So, you bring in bigger creatures to throw at them for a more difficult combat. Surprise, everyone is way
underpowered, except the dwarf with 20 strength and 20 constitution. So, the dwarf lives, everyone else dies.

This is what I referred to as "unbalancing".

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Keovar]

Peter, you are making the same mistake as Krow, albeit in a more long-winded fashion. Please refer to my posts above, where I point out that 3rd Edition D&D is different from 2nd Edition AD&D.

In 3rd edition, the point-buy stat option is more balanced and fair than rolling (though rolling is still considered the standard).

There is no percentile strength in 3E, as the stat chart was created properly in the first place with no need of such a patchwork fix.

As I mentioned before, 3E handles the fact that size affects the application of strength. Let's go with a 10 strength for example. The top end of a heavy load for a medium sized creature is 100 lbs. This is the amount that they can carry and still walk (albeit slowly), and it's the amount they can lift above their head (so it's similar to the "max press" from 2E in that regard).

For creatures of other sizes, you apply the following adjustments to their lifting and load capacities:
Fine (example: insect)........ x1/8
Diminutive (toad)............... x1/4
Tiny (cat).......................... x1/2
Small (Halfling).................. x3/4
Medium (Human)................ x1 (no change)
Large (Ogre)...................... x2
Huge (Stone Giant)............. x4
Gargantuan (Purple Worm)... x8
Colossal (Great Wyrm)......... x16

Also, if the creature is quadruped (or has more than 4 legs), you would multiply the above by x1.5.

Furthermore, it's not even feasible to consider a Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature as having a strength as high as 10, just as anything over Large isn't going to be as low as 10. For example, the Great Gold Wyrm averages a 45 strength, which means that if you were to roll it, you'd have 3-18 +34, thus the lowest you could get would be a 37.

3rd edition has internal consistency and verisimilitude that is worlds ahead of 1E or 2E, which is why most of us that have actually studied and/or played it don't ever want to go back to the old rules if we can help it.

[Birthright-L]

I though this was a conversion manual for 3E. In 3E, a typical stone giant
has a Str of 27. In addition, it is Large, which among other things means
that it has a carrying capacity which is 200% normal, which equates to
another +5 Str for weight-carrying purposes. So a dwarf would have to have
32 Strength to carry around as much as a typical stone giant. And then ,
there are exceptional stone giants...

All in all, giants don`t have to fear competition from dwarves when it comes
to carrying stuff.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Krow" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>
To: <BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM>
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: anything on dwarves [2#1068]


> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1068
>
> Krow wrote:
>

Originally posted by Ariadne
>
>
>

Originally posted by Krow
>
> While I agree somewhat to the proposition that Dwarves could stand to have
a -2 to DEX, I don`t think having a +2 to CON is such a good idea. As the
CON stat for Dwarves increases, too much unbalancing can occur.

> Sorry, but if I think of the embodiment of endurance (of humanoids), I
think of dwarves. The incensement of Con is a very good idea, as well as the
Str increase. Dwarves are typical fighters and train for it, since they can
walk. Otherwise they are not as dexterous as other races (and not as
beautiful), that’s why reduced Dex and Cha. If you sum it out, the
dwarf will have the ability modifiers +/- 0. It is balanced!
>
> Good work, Keovar...
>
>

>
> It`s obvious that +2 +2 -2 -2 = 0. What I meant by unbalancing was in
respect to other player characters and races. If a Dwarf gets a +2 to
strength, that makes him eligible for 20 strength. This puts him in the same
catagory of strength for a 2000 pound 18" stone giant. A dwarf, with a base
weight of 130 pounds + 4d10 pounds for the racial modifer has a max (usual)
weight of 170 pounds. This is saying that a 170 pound creature is as strong,
not relatively, but equally, as a 2000 pound creature. Both these creatures
would have a max press of 700 pounds. That`s roughly 4 1/2 times the
dwarf`s bodyweight, vs. the 35% of the giant`s bodyweight that he could
max press.
>
> Let`s look at damage. This allows a dwarf to have a +8 damage modifier
for strength alone. Let`s pit this up as a fighting combat...Barehanded
dwarf vs. human with a long sword, each doing minimum damage. The dwarf hits
for a minimum damage of 9. The human, 1. It would take the human 9 attacks
with a sword to do the same damage as the 1 attack from the dwarf.
>
> The To-Hit modifier is the same thing, the dwarf is fighting barehanded
against an armed opponent, this gives the dwarf a -4 to his attack roll. No
problem, with this 20 strength, he gets a +3 to his attack rolls. Now, try
adding all this up with a weapon in his hand.
>
> Now, with constitution, there`s not much difference, the resurrection
survival chance stays the same and the system shock percentage stays the
same, as well as the number of bonus hit points, 5. However, at 20
Constitution, the Dwarf has Regeneration. Isn`t the +5 to saving throws
enough?
>
> This doesn`t even take into account that the dwarves in Birthright take
half damage from half the different types of physical attacks. The penalty
to Dexterity and Charisma are a very small price to pay. You`re uglier, and
you take an extra hit out of every 10. But you`ve got regeneration, so
that`s negated in the long run.
>
> So, as a Dungeon Master, you have a dwarven tank. Then, you have all your
other characters. Even if they`re powerful, they cannot compete. The Dwarf
kills everything in one hit, leaving all the other players bored, because
they don`t even fall into the same universe as the dwarf. So, you bring in
bigger creatures to throw at them for a more difficult combat. Surprise,
everyone is way underpowered, except the dwarf with 20 strength and 20
constitution. So, the dwarf lives, everyone else dies.
>
> This is what I referred to as "unbalancing".
>
>
************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives:
http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 22:35, Keovar wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1068

Keovar wrote:
Krow, it`s obvious from the numbers you state that you`ve never played,
or even seriously looked at, 3rd Edition D&D. The stat system is much less
topheavy than it was in AD&D. The stat system is not capped at 25, so giants
are much stronger than they were before, but the bonuses don`t ramp up so
sharply.

Firstly, I was responding to a comment that was (from the data supplied)
based on 2nd Ed AD&D.

Actually I have seriously (and critically) looked at it. (My conclusion:
good try, for a beginners attempt, but lacks knowledge and understanding
of role-playing basics, has mechanics that are both overly-simplified
and overly complicated, attempts combat simulation - must have
computer-based roots influencing it..., although I love the drawings and
Illustrations). Perhaps the "New, Improved" marketing label has
influenced your viewpoint. Personally, I like to make up my own mind as
to what is (a) "New", and (B) "Improved" - you generally have to back
these claims up when speaking to me. I have seen very little "new" and
even less "improved" in 3rd Ed. When I play (as opposed to DM), I play
"basic D&D", which is a pretty rare system these days - our DM Stuart is
one crazy guy but he`s very imaginative so it`s always a load of fun.
When I DM, it`s a version closest to 1st Ed AD&D but adopting some
improvements from both 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed.

(Although 2nd Ed had almost no "new", most of its` "improved" was in
what it didn`t approve rather than what it did - and was generally an
even bigger waste of money - especially the handbooks - no good drawings
and illustrations as mitigating circumstances there.)

Just to prove a point though: (while staying on subject)
3 to 18, or 1 to 50,000, it doesn`t matter: the system is still flawed.
(although, to be fair I do think that this is one of the few areas in
which 3rd Ed is an improvement - it could still be better though).


Score Modifier
1 -5
2-3 -4
4-5 -3
6-7 -2
8-9 -1
10-11 0
12-13 + 1
14-15 + 2
16-17 + 3
18-19 + 4
20-21 + 5
22-23 + 6
24-25 + 7
26-27 + 8
28-29 + 9
30-31 + 10
etc...

Above is the chart for all the stats and the modifiers they impart to their
associated skills and other character features. Technically, the chart never
ends, but it`s easy enough to see the pattern if you need to extend it
further.

So, (ahem) where does the human range start on each chart? And where
does it (the normal human range) end? ---- see the point yet? ---
and; Q. did you actually read my earlier post? apples and oranges etc.


In the case of Strength, the bonus listed applies to both attack and damage
rolls, as well as certain skills. I don`t have my books handy, but if I
remember right, ogres have a 21 Str, trolls are at 23, titans have a 35,
and a great wyrm gold dragon has a 45 strength.

As you can see, a 20 strength is very good, but you won`t be arm wrestling
any stone giants. In fact, a creature`s lifting capacity is affected by it`s
size category, so if a dwarf had a 21 strength like an ogre, the ogre will lift
quite a bit more due it being size "large" while the dwarf is "medium".

^^^ As you have already pointed out - I wasn`t discussing anything in
the context of 3rd Ed. But if you want to draw parallels - then I didn`t
champion the use of the absolute strength table in 2nd ed - I pointed
out instead that it was meant only for humans - and that this should be
interpreted in the context of the size/bodyweight of the creature - thus
coming to a similar end-result conclusion as the 3rd ed rule.

Personally I find the following faults with the 3rd Ed rule:

(i) It`s still based around a human norm
(ii) It attempts an `absolute` point of reference which leads to
`silly` numbers (e.g. how intelligent is a `smart` plant, how strong
is a `weak` troll?
(ii) suffers from linear modification to unknown distribution
disease (e.g. is a human with a 15 strength 1/3 of the strength of
a dragon with a 45 strength? -- does +1 have the same value at all
points on the strength continuum for example)

The solution I offered is (as outlined) is far more elegant but suffers
from:

(i) Does not allow for direct comparisons between different creature
types (yet it is possible to draw direct comparisons with some
calculations)
(ii) Still has that pesky +1 not having the same value at all
points; (but it does allow for dragons with a strength of 3, or even
[and this was meant to e humorous] `smart` plants, with an
intelligence of 18)


3rd edition is much more internally consistant and balanced than previous
editions, but if you do get an opportunity to try it out, remember, leave
your preconcieved notions behind and look at it as if it were a completely
new game. Those who have had bad things to say about it are nearly always
those who look at it with alot of 1st and 2nd edition assumptions.

Firstly, you are right; it is "a completely new game" (shouldn`t even be
able to take the 3rd edition tag - still they paid for the company
name). Secondly, you`re wrong I do not find it "more internally
consistent" (In fact, like many "new" games - it has more bogies and bad
points than a more refined version, worse it has inherited so many bad
points that this is doubly so). And thirdly, I don`t hold 2nd Ed up to
be any paragon of consistency or even, in this instance particularly, a
good example.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

Keovar wrote:

Hey, you do realize I was replying to the Krow post rather than to you
(and your post)?

Krow points out the inadequacy and flaws of the 2e system quite well,
but gets his example wrong. Most of the flaws are still present in some
form in 3e however, but are less severe in their effect.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 00:22, Keovar wrote:

This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?
TID=1068

Keovar wrote:
Peter, you are making the same mistake as Krow, albeit in a more
long-winded fashion. Please refer to my posts above, where I point
out that 3rd Edition D&D is different from 2nd Edition AD&D.

In 3rd edition, the point-buy stat option is more balanced and fair
than rolling (though rolling is still considered the standard).

No, I`m afraid I disagree there. `point-buy` systems have their place
for sure. Not, IMO, in role-playing at all. However that`s a matter of
taste. Given that you want a point-buy system in a game, to be fair you
have to be able to use a standard currency as base, and, it must be
understood equally. 3e does not provide a standard currency as base -
read my earlier post, although it refers to 2e, the comments still apply
to 3e when using a point-buy system that values a point of strength the
same as a point of intelligence. However, no-one said that rolling is
`fair` - so a point-buy system (even a fatally flawed one) is by default
`fairer`. `Balanced` .. oh, don`t even start with that -- the one thing
that 3e is most definitely worse than all previous D&D systems at is
`balanced`. Again, though - why? - why do you need balance? - it`s not a
competition.


There is no percentile strength in 3E, as the stat chart was created
properly in the first place with no need of such a patchwork fix.

`Properly` - no, (while agreeing that the percentile strength is also a
mistake) the stat chart for 3e may be improved but is still flawed.


As I mentioned before, 3E handles the fact that size affects the
application of strength. Let`s go with a 10 strength for example.
The top end of a heavy load for a medium sized creature is 100 lbs.
This is the amount that they can carry and still walk (albeit slowly),
and it`s the amount they can lift above their head (so it`s similar
to the "max press" from 2E in that regard).

Never disputed it old boy. Just pointed out to the other poster that the
2e system should have been interpreted that way too (as the 1st edition
was).


For creatures of other sizes, you apply the following adjustments to
their lifting and load capacities:
Fine (example: insect)........ x1/8
Diminutive (toad)............... x1/4
Tiny (cat).......................... x1/2
Small (Halfling).................. x3/4
Medium (Human)................ x1 (no change)
Large (Ogre)...................... x2
Huge (Stone Giant)............. x4
Gargantuan (Purple Worm)... x8
Colossal (Great Wyrm)......... x16

Also, if the creature is quadruped (or has more than 4 legs), you would
multiply the above by x1.5.

Furthermore, it`s not even feasible to consider a Fine, Diminutive, or
Tiny creature as having a strength as high as 10, just as anything over
Large isn`t going to be as low as 10. For example, the Great Gold Wyrm
averages a 45 strength, which means that if you were to roll it, you`d
have 3-18 +34, thus the lowest you could get would be a 37.

3rd edition has internal consistency and verisimilitude that is worlds
ahead of 1E or 2E, which is why most of us that have actually studied
and/or played it don`t ever want to go back to the old rules if we can
help it.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.