I've been rerolling a fair bit lately, and I've been sometimes quite frustrated by the amount of actual rerolling needed in order to create a new character (that's of course just because I like my my charnames insanely powerful).
And as I was doing a cleric/ranger, I realised that characters really weren't equals when it comes down to required ability scores.
Here are some examples :
Human Fighter : 9/3/3/3/3/3
Human Mage : 3/3/3/9/3/3
Human Cleric : 3/3/3/3/9/3
Human Thief : 3/9/3/3/3/3
Those are the most basics builds, and I guess it makes sense that if a character could get any possible roll, it would be one of those. But then :
Human Ranger : 13/13/14/3/14/3
Human Paladin : 12/3/9/3/13/17
Human Bard : 3/12/3/13/3/15
Why would paladins and rangers need more strength than a fighter and also more wisdom than a cleric? Why would both rangers and bards necessitate more dexterity than a rogue? Because on the other side, some classes, like monks, get a more equal treatment :
Human Monk : 3/9/9/3/9/3
Human Sorcerer: 3/3/3/9/3/9
A monk needs as much wisdom as a priest, and as much dexterity as a rogue, because he is both a pious man trained in the ways of some religion or w/e and also a badass martial artist. Yay, why not. He also needs a bit of constitution. Maybe it's bullshit? I don't know, because we don't get a base class for scale for constitution. That's the same for charisma. But, the thing is, he doesn't need more wisdom than a cleric, or more dexterity than a rogue.
Also it only gets worse when you get to the alt races :
Half elf minimals : 3/6/6/4/3/3
Elf minimals : 3/7/6/8/3/8
Gnome minimals : 6/3/8/7/2/3
Halfling minimals : 6/8/10/6/2/3
Dwarf minimals : 8/2/12/3/3/1
Half-Orc minimals : 4/3/4/1/3/3
With the exception of the half-orcs, every races get bonuses to their base stats, bonuses that, might I add, sometimes hardly make sense. Hell, Elves even get a bonus to their base constitution, even though it's supposed to be their weak ability.
And if you want to combine class and races you only keep the higher required stats, of course. An elven ranger has at the very least 13/13/14/8/14/8. Just try to roll a bad elven ranger, it's impossible. I don't even know how Kivan got scores that bad. He hit the bottom in three abilities!
But seriously though, I'm not saying "Ranger is op, nerf him" or anything (well, I do think we should nerf ranger, if only to nerf ranger/cleric). Just, most of those numbers just do not make sense. Where did it come from? Was it really stated in the books that one should need a 14 wisdom in order to become a ranger, and all that? I wouldn't put it past AD&D, but...I kind of hope, you know. That second edition wasn't that dumb.
And anyway, regardless of whether or not it is played by the book, do you think it should be normalised, and if it should, should it be by lowering requisites of the higher-than-norm class, boosting the ones of base classes, or both?
And as I was doing a cleric/ranger, I realised that characters really weren't equals when it comes down to required ability scores.
Here are some examples :
Human Fighter : 9/3/3/3/3/3
Human Mage : 3/3/3/9/3/3
Human Cleric : 3/3/3/3/9/3
Human Thief : 3/9/3/3/3/3
Those are the most basics builds, and I guess it makes sense that if a character could get any possible roll, it would be one of those. But then :
Human Ranger : 13/13/14/3/14/3
Human Paladin : 12/3/9/3/13/17
Human Bard : 3/12/3/13/3/15
Why would paladins and rangers need more strength than a fighter and also more wisdom than a cleric? Why would both rangers and bards necessitate more dexterity than a rogue? Because on the other side, some classes, like monks, get a more equal treatment :
Human Monk : 3/9/9/3/9/3
Human Sorcerer: 3/3/3/9/3/9
A monk needs as much wisdom as a priest, and as much dexterity as a rogue, because he is both a pious man trained in the ways of some religion or w/e and also a badass martial artist. Yay, why not. He also needs a bit of constitution. Maybe it's bullshit? I don't know, because we don't get a base class for scale for constitution. That's the same for charisma. But, the thing is, he doesn't need more wisdom than a cleric, or more dexterity than a rogue.
Also it only gets worse when you get to the alt races :
Half elf minimals : 3/6/6/4/3/3
Elf minimals : 3/7/6/8/3/8
Gnome minimals : 6/3/8/7/2/3
Halfling minimals : 6/8/10/6/2/3
Dwarf minimals : 8/2/12/3/3/1
Half-Orc minimals : 4/3/4/1/3/3
With the exception of the half-orcs, every races get bonuses to their base stats, bonuses that, might I add, sometimes hardly make sense. Hell, Elves even get a bonus to their base constitution, even though it's supposed to be their weak ability.
And if you want to combine class and races you only keep the higher required stats, of course. An elven ranger has at the very least 13/13/14/8/14/8. Just try to roll a bad elven ranger, it's impossible. I don't even know how Kivan got scores that bad. He hit the bottom in three abilities!
But seriously though, I'm not saying "Ranger is op, nerf him" or anything (well, I do think we should nerf ranger, if only to nerf ranger/cleric). Just, most of those numbers just do not make sense. Where did it come from? Was it really stated in the books that one should need a 14 wisdom in order to become a ranger, and all that? I wouldn't put it past AD&D, but...I kind of hope, you know. That second edition wasn't that dumb.
And anyway, regardless of whether or not it is played by the book, do you think it should be normalised, and if it should, should it be by lowering requisites of the higher-than-norm class, boosting the ones of base classes, or both?