Knights & Knaves Alehouse

whenever there was a +1 added to STR, I bump them up to the lowest value in the next bracket. So a character with 18/51 and a character with 18/75 both bump to 18/76.

In days past, we used to go with +10%, but I wanted that +1 to be meaningful to all fighters, as they can make the most use of it. Plus I'm very biased toward the "swords" component of swords and sorcery.

Guy Fullerton wrote:It doesn't modify the exceptional strength because you first choose race (and apply racial stuff), and *then* choose class afterward.

Your racial stat modifiers get applied when you choose the race (and can therefore help you qualify for, or prevent you from qualifying for a class). But at this point you're not a fighter yet, so you don't have exceptional strength yet, so the half-orc's bonus can't possibly take you above 18.

Then once you choose your class(es), you get to roll your exceptional strength. And because you've already passed the step of applying racial stat modifiers, those modifiers can't possibly affect your exceptional strength roll.

Perfect.

Cheers!

MJW

The above is correct...if you have an 18 str already, play another race this time. Yes, a little metagaming during character creation is ok, even to be encouraged IMO

Want to be a fighter & have 16 in str? half orc rules 16+1 racial +1 age mod=18%. 17 works for everyone else (save hobbits).

If you have a troglodyte DM that plays 1e without age mods, then it's 17 u want/need. 18 for everyone else.

genghisdon wrote:If you have a troglodyte DM that plays 1e without age mods

Always such a charmer...

T. Foster wrote:

genghisdon wrote:If you have a troglodyte DM that plays 1e without age mods

Always such a charmer...

He has a point. There's no fun lost by using the modifiers.

Random wrote:He has a point. There's no fun lost by using the modifiers.

It wasn't the substance of what he was saying

genghisdon wrote:If you have a troglodyte DM that plays 1e without age mods, then it's 17 u want/need. 18 for everyone else.

That would be me. I never allow age mods at PC creation.



MJW

deathsdj wrote: That would be me. I never allow age mods at PC creation.



MJW

Troglodyte!!

I am also a trog. Age modifiers are for aging as the game progresses, not for character creation (IMO).

vikingv wrote:I am also a trog. Age modifiers are for aging as the game progresses, not for character creation (IMO).

Which is fine. In the Home Brew paradigm.
In the "By-the-book" it is clear in DMG p13. that determining the character's age

In order to establish the overall effects of age, it is necessary to establish a number of standard age brackets... When age ( ) is established, modify ability scores accordingly

and modifying abilities is part of the creation process.

Thorkhammer wrote:In the "By-the-book" it is clear in DMG p13. that determining the character's age

In order to establish the overall effects of age, it is necessary to establish a number of standard age brackets... When age ( ) is established, modify ability scores accordingly

and modifying abilities is part of the creation process.

I don't think it's so cut-and-dried. The effect of this is that every starting character gets a +1 Con and those who start as Mature also get a +1 Str (with the -1 and +1 in Wisdom canceling each other out) and I see that as more likely an unintended consequence than a deliberate decision. While I wouldn't begrudge a GM who chose to allow that in order to give all his players an extra "kicker" bonus, I would never say that a GM who doesn't hand out those bonuses is doing it wrong or "not BtB" and any player in one of my games who "demanded" it would be not-so-politely told where to get off (not least because it's info from the DMG that no player should have access to anyway).

T. Foster wrote:

Thorkhammer wrote:In the "By-the-book" it is clear in DMG p13. that determining the character's age

In order to establish the overall effects of age, it is necessary to establish a number of standard age brackets... When age ( ) is established, modify ability scores accordingly

and modifying abilities is part of the creation process.

I don't think it's so cut-and-dried. The effect of this is that every starting character gets a +1 Con and those who start as Mature also get a +1 Str (with the -1 and +1 in Wisdom canceling each other out) and I see that as more likely an unintended consequence than a deliberate decision. While I wouldn't begrudge a GM who chose to allow that in order to give all his players an extra "kicker" bonus, I would never say that a GM who doesn't hand out those bonuses is doing it wrong or "not BtB" and any player in one of my games who "demanded" it would be not-so-politely told where to get off (not least because it's info from the DMG that no player should have access to anyway).

Trog lover!

T. Foster wrote:

Thorkhammer wrote:In the "By-the-book" it is clear in DMG p13. that determining the character's age

In order to establish the overall effects of age, it is necessary to establish a number of standard age brackets... When age ( ) is established, modify ability scores accordingly

and modifying abilities is part of the creation process.

I don't think it's so cut-and-dried. The effect of this is that every starting character gets a +1 Con and those who start as Mature also get a +1 Str (with the -1 and +1 in Wisdom canceling each other out) and I see that as more likely an unintended consequence than a deliberate decision. While I wouldn't begrudge a GM who chose to allow that in order to give all his players an extra "kicker" bonus, I would never say that a GM who doesn't hand out those bonuses is doing it wrong or "not BtB" and any player in one of my games who "demanded" it would be not-so-politely told where to get off (not least because it's info from the DMG that no player should have access to anyway).

I'm not so sure about it not being intended that way. AD&D as published in '78 didn't have a minimum hit point roll, btb, so basically everyone getting a +1 con makes it more likely to get an extra hit point at start. Also, Gary's very clear opinion that for AD&D having two 15s (iirc) was important would point toward, not against, the idea that it must have been mistaken since it would benefit almost everyone.

Eye of the Beholder wrote: I'm not so sure about it not being intended that way. AD&D as published in '78 didn't have a minimum hit point roll, btb, so basically everyone getting a +1 con makes it more likely to get an extra hit point at start. Also, Gary's very clear opinion that for AD&D having two 15s (iirc) was important would point toward, not against, the idea that it must have been mistaken since it would benefit almost everyone.

I think that the fact this information is not in the PHB strongly suggests that in 1978 it was not conceived as a normal part of character generation. In 1979 it is pretty much anybody's guess as to whether that was frequently being used as part of the process, or if it were a transitory whim that later lost its sheen. I am like Trent in thinking it is "by-the-book" whether you apply them or not.

I thought that were the DMG expanded on material absent from the PHB, or changed it, that it was generally accepted that the DMG trumps? Like detect evil for paladins?

I haven't been consistent in applying age modifiers myself, so I am playing devils advocate a bit.