I’m the sole player in one game that my husband runs. One of my characters is in fact an ogre fighter. Pure brawns, no brains. (He has to sleep and walk downwind of the rest of the party :)). The party started at 4th or 5th level (a TPK in the middle of a big adventure meant the new party started at higher level to continue the adventure). Also have a bugbear and an orc (trust me, the monsters fit the area they’re in.) I also had a ghoul monk (the backstory was that he was a party member that died from ghoul fever and rose as a ghoul), but that whole “dead at zero hit points” thing eventually did him in.
One more thing to point in 3+ ed is that CHA is now a very important stat. A lot of very good skills depend on it, such as Intimidate, Bluff and Diplomacy. It’s important for undead turners to have, and it’s the key ability for Sorcerors. In addition, monsters use the CHA ability to guage the effectiveness of some of their special attacks, like the saves on a dragon’s breath weapon, for example. It’s a measure of one’s inherent power, rather than learned power.
Huh? TPK?
Temporal Paralysis Kayak?
Thermonuclear Pomegranate Kool-Aid?
Total Package Killed?
Twelve Pretty Koalas?
Total Party Killed (off).
So with the lack of ability score restricions and level/class restrictions for demihumans, what reason is there for anyone to want to play a human?
Hmm…do ability scores affect racial abilities like they do class ones?
All the races have ups and downs. The human’s special ability is an extra Feat at first level, and an extra skill point at each level.
Skills, skills, skills (+1 skill point per level, +4 at first), and an extra feat at first level.
Plus, easy multiclassing – if you multiclass with an elf, you better make sure to keep your levels close together, unless one of your classes in the elf’s favoured class, wizard.
Humans can pick their own favoured class.
The explanation is that human beings are flexible, and learn fast.
Not quite. A human’s (or half-elf’s) favored class is whatever is the highest level.
To explain further: When you multiclass, you can have any set of classes, at any level. However, if your highest-level class is significantly different level than your lowest-level class, you get a penalty to the experience you earn. To offset this, every race except humans and half-elves has a favored class, which does not count in the comparison. So, for instance, a dwarf has Fighter as favored class, so a dwarven 10th level fighter/1st level cleric would not suffer any experience penalty, and neither would a dwarf at 1st level fighter/10th level cleric. Nor, for that matter, would a dwarf with 10 fighter levels, a cleric level, and a rogue level. You could even have a dwarf who’s a 5th level wizard/6th level sorcerer, even though those aren’t fighter, because they’re close to the same level. But a dwarf who’s 1st fighter, 1st rogue, and 10th cleric would have a penalty, because his rogue level is far from his cleric level, and neither of those is his favored class.
A human or half-elf’s favored class is whatever class happens to be highest level, and can even change. For instance, a human might take four levels in ranger, then one in rogue, then one in fighter. At this point, he has no penalty, because ranger is his favored class. Then, he might take another in fighter, and eight more in rogue. Now rogue is his favored class, so he again doesn’t have a penalty (his fighter and ranger levels are now close enough). On the other hand, a human with 1 level of wizard, 6 levels of cleric, and 5 levels of barbarian can’t choose to consider wizard his favored class (that would be cleric, since it’s highest), so he still has a penalty.
Note, by the way, that all of those class combinations are allowed, even though they might not be very prudent choices.
One thing I think they missed out on when they designed 3rd Edition:
Your Ability Modifier determines everything you can do with that ability. Your Strength Modifier, for example, is added to your attack bonus in melee, to your damage with melee and thrown weapons, to all Strength-based skill rolls, etc… Nothing in the game is based on your actual Strength score. Likewise, everything you can do with your Dexterity is based on your Dexterity Modifier, not your Dexterity score.
So … why didn’t they throw out the old 3-18 system of Ability scores entirely, and have your Ability modifier BE your Ability score? E.g. instead of saying “My paladin has Strength 18”, you’d just say “My paladin has Strength +4”, and eliminate the “18” from your recordkeeping entirely. (Spells and poisons that did Ability damage would of course have to do half as many “points” of ability damage as they do under the current rules, and ability score increases would have to come around half as often.)
Seriously, is there any reason to keep that intermediary “Ability score” value around, other than nostalgia?
How would you roll your ability scores, then?
What is this ‘table’ you refer to? Was it that hard for you people to figure out your ‘to-hit’ number? It was so easy!
First, take your THAC0 (it stands for To Hit Armor Class 0, remember.)
Then, subtract your opponants AC (Armor Class) from that.
Since you subtract, a positive AC makes the number lower, a negative AC makes the number higher.
The number you are left with is your ‘to-hit’ number. You need to roll that number or ABOVE on a d20.
Once I had a new THAC0 from leveling, I usually had all the numbers I needed to get for every normally encountered AC (-5 through 20, pretty much) memorized, it’s just simple math.
With 8d4, of course!
3d4 minus 4 comes to mind. Or you could have a table if you wanted exact percentages.
But it’s not like anybody rolls a straight 3d6 in the regular rules anyway. Different gaming groups frequently use roll-up rules like “roll 4d6 and discard the lowest die”, “roll 3d6 six times and take the best roll”, or “roll 12d6 and discard the lowest 2 dice” (a favorite among munchkins 
).
No, wait – I calculated that way wrong. I wanted a dice roll that gives a result range from -3 to +4. It would have to be 3d6, divided by 2, minus 5.
3d4 minus 4 would give a range from -1 to +8, which would be way to munchkin. :o
Because otherwise it’d be too much like Ars Magica and hence like a good game.
OK, OK, I haven’t played 3.0 but once and it was silly.
That would work, I guess, but it seems almost as baroque as having ability scores that you never actually use. Besides, having a Str of 18 just feels more manly than a Str of +4.
Oh, and I did think of one instance where you do use your raw ability score: when determining iniative, in the event of a tie, whoever has the highest Dex goes first. So there’s at least one instance where you actually use the rolled number, and not the bonus.
An even easier way to do it would be to set the minimum modifier as +0, and recalibrate everything in the game upwards off of that. Unmodified, 1st level attributes would go from 0 to +8 or so. The roll would just be 3d6 divided by two, rounded down. Or, even simpler and less exploitable, a point allocation system.
For multiple weapons? What about in the middle of a fight when you want to pll out that vial of oil and toss it at an enemy?
What about when you wanted to wear a ring of protection plus a cloak of resistance, and you were trying to figure out how it affected your armor class? Or a ring of protection plus magical armor, or a magical shield?
What about if something drained a point of strength from you, or two points of strength? What about when the cleric cast strength on you? How was that changed by having a high exceptional strength (say, 18/63)?
THAC0 seemed fine before I saw the mechanic for 3.0, but 3.0’s AC and to-hit mechanic is so elegant and simple that I’d never go back.
The ability scores are pretty much a relic from way back when, as are hit points; they left them in because of nostalgic value, and the game designers have admitted as much, in old interviews. tracer, that second formula you gave is actually one I use pretty often, especially for strength: if I need to know quick-and-dirty what the strength bonus is for an Str 29, I just divide it in half and subtract 5, and there it is. This is great for shapechanging characters: instead of having to look bonuses up on a chart somewhere, you’ve got one formula with two steps to get any bonus.
But yeah, I wouldn’t mind if they’d just replaced ability scores with modifiers, or if they’d come up with some mechanic making ability scores useful.
Daniel
How are hit points a relic? What mechanic should have been used instead?
Yeah, it seems like hit points are pretty much standard these days–in fact, I can’t think of any alternatives.
I stopped by the local Barnes & Noble and read through the first three chapters of the 3.5 PHB. It definitely seems a lot simpler and more flexible than 2e.
2 others - carrying capacity, and spellcasting (the former’s based on pure strength, the latter score-10 determines the level of spells you can cast).
There’s also feats with ability requirements.