Strength Issues

Today's post is only going to be this. I'm not a hundred percent sure of my facts; I searched the Players Handbook and DMG and couldn't find anything discounting this:

Strength

What we see on the right hand table are the benefits that fighters — and where the number 18 appears beside additional notes, only fighters — gain from having a strength above 15. The five rows that begin with "18/(01-50)" are described as "percentile strength," which we will discuss, but which first must wait while we discuss the bonuses offered "to hit" and "damage."

Described as hit probability by AD&D (a misnomer), the "to hit" table indicates the modifier the character with that strength adds or subtracts to the d20 when attempting to hit. Note that where strength is less than 8, a negative modifier is applied, so that a character with a 7 strength, rolling a d20 with the result of a 10, would count it as a 9. No benefit at all is gained to hit for strengths between 8 and 16, which should indicate to the player that unless they have a 16 to spend as an attribute on strength, it is not a good idea to choose a fighter as a class. True enough, the reader might remember that half-orcs gain +1 to their strength on account of being of that people; also, its worth noting that a person who is mature in age also gains +1 to their strength. Of this latter, there is only one race where the starting age permits this — the dwarf, with a 78.3% chance of rolling 11 or more on 5d4, has a good chance of reaching 51 age and thus being mature. Under these conditions, if the player had a 16 that could be placed under strength, it would be transformed to a 17 if the character were a half-orc, with a very good chance of it becoming 17 if the character were a dwarf.

Described as a damage adjustment by AD&D, it really is just the bonus damage that is added to the character's weapon die or dice when an opponent is hit. If a flail normally does 2-7 damage (1d6+1), then a 16 strength adds +1 to that damage, causing 3-8 damage instead. As before, choosing a half-orc or a dwarf as a character class can transform a 15 strength with adds no damage bonus, into a 16, giving at least +1.

Again, it can be seen that if a character has a strength of 5 or less (and only one character class exists that can have a strength this low, that being the illusionist), then 1 point of damage is subtracted whenever a hit against an opponent is achieved.

As written in AD&D, "fighters" with an 18 strength are entitled to roll percentile dice in order to generate a random number between 1 and 100. This number is obtained by rolling two d10, defining one as the 10s digit and the other as the 1s. Thus, we might roll a "3" on the first and a "4" on the second, which would be read as "34." If a zero is read on the first, then a four, the result would be read as "4." Two zeros would be read as "100." On the table, this is shown as "00" and is colloquially described as "double-zero" or "double-naught." The rolled number above is attached to "18" thusly: if the player were to roll "34", the character's strength would be described as "eighteen thirty-four" — and would give the bonuses as written (+1 to hit, +3 damage) that are found on the row 18/(01-50).

Hereafter, AD&D's rules falter. No explanation is given as to what happens if a character starts with a natural 18 attribute, rolls the strength percentage and then gains a point of strength due to maturity or background. No rule is given if a point of strength is lost due to becoming middle aged or old. No explanation is given for the existence of the line that shows an 18 strength but no percentage next to it. If a character has a 17 strength, reaches an age of maturity and adds a point of strength, or adds that point because they are a dwarf or half-orc at the start of the game, does it count as an "18 +2+3" (the manner in which the bonuses are habitually written) or do they automatically roll a percentage? These questions are not addressed. Further, the appellation "fighter" as the "only" class permitted to have exceptional strength is not defined as to whether it means only the fighter class, or if exceptional strength applies to all fighter classes, including the paladin and the ranger.

In standard practice reaching back to the 1970s with the start of D&D, these issues encouraged some to discount exceptional strength altogether, counting an 18 as +1+2 only; some argued that the excessive bonuses overbalanced the fighter anyway. Most assumed exceptional strength applied to both the paladin and the ranger. A house rule of +10% or -10% applied to adjustments to percentile strength, so that a character with an 18/34 strength would become 18/44 upon reaching maturity. As there are other ways in the game to lose or gain strength by magic, these adjustments helped solve the problem that arose through AD&D's silence. Some fixes were later brought in with the publication of the book, Deities & Demigods, but because this was not counted as one of the three original books, many did not count Deities as canon.

Because of the importance of the fighter and strength bonuses to the game, this was one of the flaws of AD&D that would prove fatal as the game community evolved.

(p.s.... passed 100,000 characters)

Physical Power Adjustments

I was shown a new trick with excel exactly a week ago and it gave me the motivation to do some work in excel programming this week - namely, going through the Character Generation program I devised some years ago.  There are some strange results that occur with it, which I've largely ignored . . . but I always knew that one day I'd get around to fixing them.

Naturally, if you're going to rework something, might as well add to it: so here is a table showing the new possible results for the physical power side of the strength table:




No doubt, some of that is going to be difficult to read.  I've done the best I could - it's huge.

To remind the reader, the "adjusted d20" roll is a d20 minus the character's strength.  Thus, a roll of 17 against an 11 strength would give a result of +6.  This would be a moderately bad roll, denying the use of a heavy warhorse, reducing weapons range, giving a penalty for using a sword, making the character slumberous after a long walk OR subtracting from the die against low intelligence creatures (out of sympathy is the idea).

The character does not get all those penalties, just one, whichever is predetermined under the five headings of toughness, energy, performance, aggression or forbearance [misspelled on the table - I'll fix that).  With the rework, those are basically random - but I plan to adjust the chance of receiving each category based on constitution (forbearance), dexterity (energy), wisdom (aggression) and so on, depending on the character's highest stats.  That means what you put under dexterity can affect what bonuses/penalties that are received under strength.

As soon as I figure out just how to do that.

Anyway, I know that players like tables full of adjustments.

Scars and Stuff

Well, here's something.

Setting aside the content of the post, which is cute and silly and I really don't care, my attention is drawn to the first comment below.  This paints a pretty picture of how poorly people understand charisma:

I remember a GM being a little surprised when another player and I started commenting on an NPC. He said, “But this guy has a charisma of like 9, he’s all scarred and stuff."

One of us said, "what’s his strength score?"

"Um, 18?"

"See, he’s buff. Our characters appreciate a buff guy with scars. Shows he’s worthy mate material, a good warrior. We think he’s hot."

Is this the fault of the DM or the player?  A little of both, actually.  It wouldn't be the first DM who rushed to the conclusion that someone with a 9 charisma had scars and stuff.  Nor would it be the first player who made the conclusion that an 18 strength = buff.  Truth is, most people don't have a clear idea of what these numbers mean, except as generalities . . . that are in turn tremendously affected by what they see on film or television.

There's a speech I used to give wannabes I met in theatre and the arts.  I would pedantically explain how no one in the movies is ugly.  This is terrifically difficult for people to understand or believe . . . because their conception of 'ugly' has been adjusted radically upwards.  Actors are, at worst, comparably ugly.  Compared to you or I, none of them are.

Consider, first, that you're in a theatre seeing the head shot of someone on screen.  That head is eight to twelve feet high - at least.  Next time you're in a bad movie, look at the 'ugly' actor's skin.  Look at their teeth.  Look at the hairline, the shape of the brow or the eyes.  Face-to-face, in real life this 'ugly' actor would look amazing.  This is a necessity.  No one wants to see an ordinary person's face blown up to 12 feet high.

Occasionally, someone will turn up in a film with bad teeth.  Or scarred skin.  One of my favorites for this is Dan Hedaya, who began playing rats, crumbs, jerks and blue collar guys.  On screen, he's 'ugly.'  But through his career, slowly, he worked his way up to playing likable characters.  Check him out on Conan.  He's plainly very charismatic.

Here's a shock for some readers.  A charisma of 9 isn't scars and stuff . . . it's normal.  It's probably YOU.  If you can bear to look at yourself in a mirror and make a guess at your own charisma, that is.  Here's a hint.  If you can spend a whole day in public and no one approaches you, starts a non-business related conversation with you or remarks on your appearance, you're absolutely less than a 13.  If any of the above happens regularly but not every time, you're probably a 12.  Otherwise, time to face reality: you're an 11 or lower.

The reverse is true.  You're nowhere near an 8 unless you're used to people changing tables or seats after sitting down near you.  It's not your face or your scars and stuff, it's the way you smell.  It's your teeth.  It's the apparent presence/probability of lice in your hair or your clothes.  If you don't see people wince as you talk to them or deliberately interact with you while plainly not looking at you, you're probably at least a 9 charisma.

I'm saying that this 9 charisma guy is painfully average.  His defining features are not the scars on his face, it's the way you have trouble remembering what he looks like.  It's his unpleasantly recessed eyes or the way his beard grows in, the slight waxiness of his skin or the receding hair line.  You know . . . like you and I have.

Is an 18 strength 'buff'?  You mean, like these guys?

Totally buff.

The problem is that all too often we associate 'strength' with 'cut.'  That's a Hollywood thing, again. Those guys with the abs and the definition?  They're fragile and prone to injuries:  lower back, tendonitis, torn muscles, other soft tissue damage, sprains, slipped discs, the list is long and painful.

So that guy with the 18 strength and the 9 charisma . . . is he hot?  Well, he may have some scars, but probably not 'hot' ones.  Let's start with the gut, the man-breasts, the hair that's falling out from overexertion (even without steroid use), the shortened arms or legs, the lack of a chin or the ears that no well-meaning physician pins back, this not being the modern era.  Let's add in the 'scars' from the last time he was burned, his broken nose, the jaw that healed improperly, the lope he has from an bone injury that fused because one leg is shorter than the other . . . none of these things being enough to make him look especially ugly.  No, he's just an average massive mountain that's been beat up a few hundred times.

Without having a consciousness about the human body, however - or rather, having a consciousness that tells you that a 'scar' equals charisma 9 and vice versa.  Instead, we should realize that it isn't having a scar, it's what scar you have.

Charisma 9?  Let's start with the 18 strength mountain looking too fucking scary - in armor and massive two-handed weapon - to be hot.

Strength & Dexterity

Strength & Dexterity

These two tables are going to come as a disappointment to some, particularly those who feel that fighters just don’t bring enough force into their campaigns. Remember, however, that my motivation for these tables did not include giving my party a lot of new powers—but to compensate for the disinterest in what I’ve been calling dump stats. Convincing players to pimp up their strength or dexterity requires no help from any table.

Strength in particular is the big disappointment. It compares very favorably with wisdom and with the father’s profession table, however. And it adds a piece of information that every player needs. This is the first time I’ve ever used a table like this without having to constantly make re-rolls. I’m quite happy with it.



I typically roll a d4 to determine which grandparents are indicated, and a d2 to determine sex of the player's siblings; I usually get asked how many older or younger siblings the player possesses, which is easily determined by rolling a die for the number of children indicated.

I haven't had much interest in rolling great-grandparents, but they could be wedged into the system if anyone wanted.

Dexterity has a bit more oomph. There may be some contentious results on it, but by and large my party has accepted them. I have a thief with a 17 Dex who rolled the “can’t fight with two weapons” result…and he gripes about it…but it’s understood that this is a peculiar circumstance that just has to occur. You may be very quick, but you don’t happen to have the balance that enables both hands to operate in tandem; one hand is far more dominant than the other.

Some might argue it belongs on the intelligence table…and I have a quick, sly answer to that. The medieval mind perceived that such abilities did not transcend from the mind, but from the body. It would not have occurred to anyone that the brain had anything with what the hand was able to do.

Perhaps that’s not fair. But Adler won’t be born for another three centuries, so I don’t worry about it.