Making Clerics Work
William Earl Pargen
"inherited" role of being a walking Med-pack. Has
anyone realized that this is what the Cleric is Best
at?
1) His spell selection is horrible and dull
compared to the below average Mage. At 1st level, a
Mage has (potentially) Magic Missile, Burning Hands,
Chill Touch, Shocking Grasp, Sleep, Enlarge,
Identify, Shield, Armor, or Unseen Servant . A
Cleric has Bless, Cure Light Wounds, Faerie Fire,
and Protection from Evil. At 3rd level, a Mage has
(potentially) Invisibility, Acid Arrow, Blur,
Stinking Cloud, or Web. A Cleric has Aid, Dust
Devil, Flame Blade, Hold Person, and Silence 15'
radius.
2) The Cleric has a decent selection of Armor and
Weapons, but lacks the Strength and Thac0 that a
Warrior several levels lower then him has. A
Warrior gets a constantly improving Thac0, more
Attacks, Exceptional Strength, Specialization, and
a large number of enhancing Proficiencies (2 Weapon,
etc.). Plus, Warriors have the best magical weapons
(the only exception: Mace of Disruption).
The only thing a Cleric has going for him is
Healing, Divination, Turn Undead and other Granted
Powers. And, if I was a Professional Adventurer and
had enough Potions of Extra Healing, I would leave
the Cleric in town and hire/invite another Mage.
And I think that everyone would agree on that point.
That's why I've added more spells to the Cleric
list. A 1st level Holy Dart (1d3 base +1 per level,
undead save or take double), 2nd level Holy Bolt
(1d4 base +2 per level), and 3rd level Flare (1d4
per level, AoE 10' radius), and a few others
(especially spells to create magical items). Just
powerful enough to be useful, but not in the same
class as the Mage. I've also created new weapons
(Holy Maces, Warhammer of Crushing Blows, my version
of the Ring of the Fighter) that give a Cleric a
fighting chance at higher levels. Plus, another Non
Weapon called Bind (int+0, 1 slot, general, stops
further damage from non magical sources, Heals 1 HP
if check is made, useable only once per character
after each combat).
If you don't like the rules, change them! =)
Colin Neilson
<par...@kih.net> wrote:
>1) His spell selection is horrible and dull
>compared to the below average Mage. At 1st level, a
>Mage has (potentially) Magic Missile, Burning Hands,
>Chill Touch, Shocking Grasp, Sleep, Enlarge,
>Identify, Shield, Armor, or Unseen Servant . A
>Cleric has Bless, Cure Light Wounds, Faerie Fire,
>and Protection from Evil. At 3rd level, a Mage has
>(potentially) Invisibility, Acid Arrow, Blur,
>Stinking Cloud, or Web. A Cleric has Aid, Dust
>Devil, Flame Blade, Hold Person, and Silence 15'
>radius.
The key word is potentially. Not only must the mage find the spells
he wants, he must have enough space in a spell book to put them in,
keep the spell book safe, have enough light to study the spells, carry
the book around, have ink to write the spells in, and make a % chance
to know spell to put it in the book. Priests on the other hand, have
to gain a level and then have acces to all spells allowed to them.
They have more limited selection both for balance and because of the
different rationale behind their spells.
>2) The Cleric has a decent selection of Armor and
>Weapons, but lacks the Strength and Thac0 that a
>Warrior several levels lower then him has. A
>Warrior gets a constantly improving Thac0, more
>Attacks, Exceptional Strength, Specialization, and
>a large number of enhancing Proficiencies (2 Weapon,
>etc.). Plus, Warriors have the best magical weapons
>(the only exception: Mace of Disruption).
This is because Clerics are supposed to serve as backup for warriors
in combat. They are not warriors. They can still be effective in
combat, but if they were as good as warriors, there would be no need
for the warrior. You want a priest that is as effective in combat as
a warrior, run a paladin.
>The only thing a Cleric has going for him is
>Healing, Divination, Turn Undead and other Granted
>Powers. And, if I was a Professional Adventurer and
>had enough Potions of Extra Healing, I would leave
>the Cleric in town and hire/invite another Mage.
>And I think that everyone would agree on that point.
No, I would no agree on that point. First, you never know how many
potions are enough. Second, the first dispel magic to come along can
wipe out a potion carrier's supply totally. Third, that turn undead
and other granted powers can often be the difference between life and
death for a professional adventurer. Fourth, professional
adventureres often get into a lot of trouble. In a world where
tangible evidence of godly powers exists, it never hurts to have one
who is well disposed to you, and it also never hurts to have a
religious organization who may be willing to waive the costs of Raise
Dead or ressurection (Something only seventh to ninth level mage power
can come close to mimicing.) Finally, CLerics have more than is
mentioned above going for them. Healing and divination are
advantages, but clerics also can create temporary magical weapons from
first level (Magical Stone, Shillelagh, and to a limited extent,
bless), they have access to protective magic that would make most
abjurers green with envy (Protection and Guardian spheres), they can
make effective warriors even more effective (Bless, chant, prayer,
etc), they can negate threats (remove paralysis, remove fear, cure
disease/blindness/deafness), they can allow combat to not take place
(Invisibility to undead, fear spells, command, to a limited extent, or
just plain using charisma and a good sermon to turn away a not totally
hostile force). And they don't have to worry about max spells per
level, because they are priests not mages.
>That's why I've added more spells to the Cleric
>list. A 1st level Holy Dart (1d3 base +1 per level,
>undead save or take double), 2nd level Holy Bolt
>(1d4 base +2 per level), and 3rd level Flare (1d4
>per level, AoE 10' radius), and a few others
>(especially spells to create magical items). Just
>powerful enough to be useful, but not in the same
>class as the Mage. I've also created new weapons
>(Holy Maces, Warhammer of Crushing Blows, my version
>of the Ring of the Fighter) that give a Cleric a
>fighting chance at higher levels. Plus, another Non
>Weapon called Bind (int+0, 1 slot, general, stops
>further damage from non magical sources, Heals 1 HP
>if check is made, useable only once per character
>after each combat).
Some of the spells are interesting, but not necessarily necessary.
New items are always a good idea. The proficiency is interesting, but
I let anyone bind wounds at the end of a battle, so it is rather
redundant IMC.
>If you don't like the rules, change them! =)
On this point we agree totally. :)
Mr. Tines
On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 12:13:34 -0500, in <36978E3E...@kih.net>
William Earl Pargen <par...@kih.net> wrote.....
> A whole lot of complaining about the Clerics
> "inherited" role of being a walking Med-pack. Has
> anyone realized that this is what the Cleric is Best
> at?
>
> 1) His spell selection is horrible and dull
> compared to the below average Mage.
But he does get to cast those spells while
armoured up, unlike the Mage.
> 2) The Cleric has a decent selection of Armor and
> Weapons, but lacks the Strength and Thac0 that a
> Warrior several levels lower then him has.
1)Not all warriors have STR 18+ or CON 17 that
would give him bonuses that the cleric can't get.
2)And that that warrior several levels below him
will be much closer when compared on experience
points. XP for XP, the cleric isn't that far
behind the fighter.
While this latter difference has thankfully been
slowly increased over the last 25 years, the gulf
really isn't so much between fighters and clerics
as it is between fighters with exceptional STR
(or an item granting same) and the less well endowed
fighters.
3) The more appropriate comparison would be with
a fighter/mage, who needs about three times as many
xp for a given level as the cleric. Regarded in
this light, the cleric is woefully under-priced.
> That's why I've added more spells to the Cleric
> list.
That's why I've abolished the generic cleric
in favour of the reduced power classes from the
CPHB. You can still take a "priest of Everything"
to get a watered down cleric, if you really want.
-- PGPfingerprint: BC01 5527 B493 7C9B 3C54 D1B7 248C 08BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a08470}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {69c10bcfbca894a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0}
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk PGP key on page
### end pegwit v8 signed text
7a833d5ed53908ffffa8ddc207ce0253a79081f2d392c75328bb7a7fb251
2adfbe4e3b136f38f3d8f4eda0ee62429884453a78abebf90459aea67b6e
Michael Scott Brown
>1) His spell selection is horrible and dull
>compared to the below average Mage.
Bah. Beyond having great flexibility in his
spell choices (recall, a Cleric can memorize
*all* spells of the appropriate level's list;
while the wizard can only memorize those that
happen to be in his rather sparsely populated
spellbook), the spells he has are excellent,
and *numerous*, due to the odd Wisdom bonus rules.
The only arena where the priest is 'weak' is in
infliction of raw physical destruction with his magic.
However, that isn't needed to get the job done.
>2) The Cleric has a decent selection of Armor and
>Weapons, but lacks the Strength and Thac0 that a
>Warrior several levels lower then him has.
What? The cleric has the same armor selection
as the warrior, potentially the same STR
(except for exceptional silliness), and has
the second best Thaco and hit points of all the
classes. Without any magic at all, the cleric
can engage in melee more effecively than all
classes but the warriors. Once you add in the
ability to heal himself with Cure spells, he
effectively has up to 4x the hit points of any
other first level character. They're just shy
of indestructible unless they're spreading themselves
thin by helping others. The priest is the single
most likely 1st level character to survive a solo
adventure.
>The only thing a Cleric has going for him is
>Healing, Divination, Turn Undead and other Granted
>Powers.
You really need to re-examine their spell list
a little better.
> And, if I was a Professional Adventurer and
>had enough Potions of Extra Healing, I would leave
>the Cleric in town and hire/invite another Mage.
>And I think that everyone would agree on that point.
No way.
-Michael
Assman
William Earl Pargen <par...@kih.net> wrote in article
<36978E3E...@kih.net>...
> The only thing a Cleric has going for him is
> Healing, Divination, Turn Undead and other Granted
> Powers. And, if I was a Professional Adventurer and
> had enough Potions of Extra Healing, I would leave
> the Cleric in town and hire/invite another Mage.
> And I think that everyone would agree on that point.
>
I certainly don't agree with this point. The Cleric has always been my
favourite class to play. I think it's a pretty well rounded class.
Besides there are some pretty powerful Specialty Priests in the Faiths &
Avatars and Powers & Pantheons if the DM allows players to use these. If
you want to play a Priest with exceptional Strength and Constitution
bonuses try the Hand of Tyr from Warriors and Priests of the Realms.
> Plus, another Non
> Weapon called Bind (int+0, 1 slot, general, stops
> further damage from non magical sources, Heals 1 HP
> if check is made, useable only once per character
> after each combat).
>
The Healing profinciency pretty much does this. It's true that anyone can
bind a wound, but it's the priest that should have the knowledge to heal
some of the damage immediately.
> If you don't like the rules, change them! =)
That we all do at some point or another. It's just good to hear other
opinions while we decide the changes.
AM
bjbrown
priests. They chuck spells as gleefully as any mage I've seen. Not
coincidentally, they are also (I think) the most experienced gamers in
the group and the best min/maxers when they want to be.
One of them immediately uses the Chant/Prayer combination in combat.
The +2 to friends/-2 to enemies have a huge effect. After combat, he
has curing spells to use. The other priest has available Command,
Heat Metal, Hold Person, and Dispel Magic, and usually at least one of
those is used to make a big difference in combat. Out of combat, he
has a lot of great divination spells.
There are no player character mages in the party. They don't even
have a mage as a henchman (though they have a bard henchman).
Some players can find ways to make the best of any class.
On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 12:13:34 -0500, William Earl Pargen
<par...@kih.net> wrote:
>A whole lot of complaining about the Clerics
>"inherited" role of being a walking Med-pack. Has
>anyone realized that this is what the Cleric is Best
>at?
>
>1) His spell selection is horrible and dull
>compared to the below average Mage. At 1st level, a
>Mage has (potentially) Magic Missile, Burning Hands,
>Chill Touch, Shocking Grasp, Sleep, Enlarge,
>Identify, Shield, Armor, or Unseen Servant . A
>Cleric has Bless, Cure Light Wounds, Faerie Fire,
>and Protection from Evil. At 3rd level, a Mage has
>(potentially) Invisibility, Acid Arrow, Blur,
>Stinking Cloud, or Web. A Cleric has Aid, Dust
>Devil, Flame Blade, Hold Person, and Silence 15'
>radius.
>
>2) The Cleric has a decent selection of Armor and
>Weapons, but lacks the Strength and Thac0 that a
>Warrior several levels lower then him has. A
>Warrior gets a constantly improving Thac0, more
>Attacks, Exceptional Strength, Specialization, and
>a large number of enhancing Proficiencies (2 Weapon,
>etc.). Plus, Warriors have the best magical weapons
>(the only exception: Mace of Disruption).
>
>The only thing a Cleric has going for him is
>Healing, Divination, Turn Undead and other Granted
>Powers. And, if I was a Professional Adventurer and
>had enough Potions of Extra Healing, I would leave
>the Cleric in town and hire/invite another Mage.
>And I think that everyone would agree on that point.
>
>That's why I've added more spells to the Cleric
>list. A 1st level Holy Dart (1d3 base +1 per level,
>undead save or take double), 2nd level Holy Bolt
>(1d4 base +2 per level), and 3rd level Flare (1d4
>per level, AoE 10' radius), and a few others
>(especially spells to create magical items). Just
>powerful enough to be useful, but not in the same
>class as the Mage. I've also created new weapons
>(Holy Maces, Warhammer of Crushing Blows, my version
>of the Ring of the Fighter) that give a Cleric a
>fighting chance at higher levels. Plus, another Non
>Weapon called Bind (int+0, 1 slot, general, stops
>further damage from non magical sources, Heals 1 HP
>if check is made, useable only once per character
>after each combat).
>
Assman
Colin Neilson <cnei...@telusplanet.net> wrote in article
<36979fc8...@nntp.telusplanet.net>...
>
> The key word is potentially. Not only must the mage find the spells
> he wants, he must have enough space in a spell book to put them in,
> keep the spell book safe, have enough light to study the spells, carry
> the book around, have ink to write the spells in, and make a % chance
> to know spell to put it in the book. Priests on the other hand, have
> to gain a level and then have acces to all spells allowed to them.
> They have more limited selection both for balance and because of the
> different rationale behind their spells.
Of course, in my campaign, Priests don't automatically get all the spells
of a certain level when they achieve the level to be able to cast them.
They carry around a prayer book, and when they achieve the appropriate
level they must go to a temple of their deity to learn new prayers which
get entered into their book by a higher priest. This process in itself
takes little time, but there's always the need to travel to the nearest
temple. Of course, there is always that very rare moment when a new prayer
is learned by divine intervention.
AM
Yehoota
>William Earl Pargen <par...@kih.net> wrote in article
>> The only thing a Cleric has going for him is
>> Healing, Divination, Turn Undead and other Granted
>> Powers. And, if I was a Professional Adventurer and
>> had enough Potions of Extra Healing, I would leave
>> the Cleric in town and hire/invite another Mage.
>> And I think that everyone would agree on that point.
>>
>> Weapon called Bind (int+0, 1 slot, general, stops
>> further damage from non magical sources, Heals 1 HP
>> if check is made, useable only once per character
>> after each combat).
>>
>> If you don't like the rules, change them! =)
>
My opinions:
I believe this poster has munchkin disease. Priests aren't *just* about
healing. But it IS a very important part of their function. It's about
"ROLEPLAYING" Why does your character have to have the most powerful
options available? Why do you have to have the best THAC0, the best armor
and weapon selection, the best everything. Why do you see no value in the
healing properties and other spell choices. The beauty of the priest is
that it is a good survivable class at the lower levels, and makes quite a
difference when facing the undead.
If none of those spells has any benefit to you, then your DM isn't mixing it
up well enough.
Back to the Roleplaying aspect...: Priests, when played correctly, add
MOUNTAINS of cultural flavor and realism to the game. If your players
aren't acting on behalf of their gods and holding an ethical line...
sometimes creating some waves within the party by adhering to his or her
beliefs, well, your players aren't roleplaying clerics. They're roleplaying
fighters who can heal and do the "paltry" things you complain about....
If I was your DM and found you leaving the cleric behind and toting a
healthy stock of extrahealing potions, well, I guarantee that you'd have a
lot more adventure left at the end of your potions... It's amazing what a
simple spooked horse or minor cave collapse can accomplish when your
character lands flat on his back......pack.
Imagine your surprise when you get up and dust off your now soaked pack (I
might allow you to wring out a partial dose if you do it right away...) and
found yourself face to face with a ravening pack of ghouls or wights. If
only you could TURN them!
If you even made it back to town, I'm pretty sure the ticked-off priest
would demand a larger share to rejoin your thankless group... >:-)
My 2 cps :-)
Anthony Toohey
Theryn of Nowhere
Pinochet
Yehoota wrote in message <7797nu$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>I believe this poster has munchkin disease. Priests aren't *just* about
>healing. But it IS a very important part of their function.
Some Priests, yes, but not by any means all of them..
Yehoota
Pinochet <4spam#gray#me4home@5not^sprint^scum5mail.com> wrote in message
<77asbn$s1q$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Brian
There is so much you can do with them. First, they have a moral
code that they must follow per their God. Second, if you choose
to play speciality priests per the book Faith & Avatars, there is
even more you can do with them. Finally, they can wear armor
and cast spells. This last concept is just cool.
Brian
Colin Neilson
>Of course, in my campaign, Priests don't automatically get all the spells
>of a certain level when they achieve the level to be able to cast them.
>They carry around a prayer book, and when they achieve the appropriate
>level they must go to a temple of their deity to learn new prayers which
>get entered into their book by a higher priest. This process in itself
>takes little time, but there's always the need to travel to the nearest
>temple. Of course, there is always that very rare moment when a new prayer
>is learned by divine intervention.
I was arguing in the generic sense, in that core rules priests do not
need to learn their spells through study. In your campaign the
argument does not apply. Of course, it would seem from the post that
the cleris still does not need the chance to know spell roll, and does
not have max. spells per level. If he does, post your rules for them,
I'd like to take a look.
Brian
> I was arguing in the generic sense, in that core rules priests do not
> need to learn their spells through study. In your campaign the
> argument does not apply. Of course, it would seem from the post that
> the cleris still does not need the chance to know spell roll, and does
> not have max. spells per level. If he does, post your rules for them,
> I'd like to take a look.
Priests in my game are worked pretty simply. First, the Priest is given
the spell by his or her Deity. Second, the casting time is the time required
to pray for the spell in question. If the Priest has the schools required, the
Priest most likely will be given the spell. The exception is if the Priest has
lost his or her favor from it's respective Deity. In that case, the Priest
still
spends the time praying, but the Priest isn't rewarded with any spell.
Finally, Priests don't learn spells; Priests are given spells for upholding
their
Deity's moral and ethical requirements.
Brian
George A. S. Park
contribute to this debate. If someone else has covered this ground, great. If
not...
One of the things that people keep mentioning is that clerics are supposed to
be able to fight and act as "weaker" fighters in a pinch. I submit that they
are VERY poor at this.
Consider: Only at first level are they comparable to fighters--they have
similar HP (d8 vs. d10 for fighters), and have no armor restrictions. At this
level, they can hand out comparable damage (unless the fighter is weapon
specialized, anyway...). Once you get beyond this, a cleric is a VERY poor
warrior. They have generally inferior weapons, have a poorer THAC0, and most
importantly of all, they have FAR fewer attacks per round. Even the lowly
rogue can hand out more damage. The rogue often uses two attacks/round (sword/
dagger) and will almost CERTAINLY strike first due to their higher DEX. As any
good player realizes, the best way to survive is to kill their opponent first.
It's unlikely that a priest will have a high dex, so their supposed AC bonus is
eaten up quickly compared to a rogue (a priest with no DEX in plate mail is
AC3; a rogue in studded leather with an 18 DEX (their prime requisite, lest we
forget) will be AC3 as well (base 7 and -4 Defense adjustment). The thief
will hand out more damage (especially if he uses a ranged weapon and gets his
DEX bonus).
Let's take a specific example: a priest armed with a mace (d6+1) compared to
an 18 DEX rogue armed with short sword/dagger (d6/d4). Let us say they are
fighting an opponent with AC 4. Let us assume neither has a strength bonus and
that the priest has a 16 con; the thief has a 15 con. With this in mind, let's
look at the average amount of damage each can hand out and sustain at levels 1
to 12. Average cleric damage is 3.5 + 1 = 4.5 if he hits; average thief damage
is 3.5 + 2.5 = 6.0 if he hits two times. Attacking with two weapons, the
Thief's THAC0 is at -2 for the primary weapon; -4 for the secondary weapon.
With an 18 dex, this becomes 0/-2.
Example calculation: at 1st level, THAC0 for both is 20. Thus, to hit an AC4
opponent, they have a 4 in 20 (1 in 5) chance. Thus, for the cleric, his
average damage per round is (1/5)x4.5 = 0.9 points per round. For the rogue,
on his primary attack, he does (1/5)x3.5 = 0.7 points; on his secondary attack,
he does (2/20)x2.5 = 0.25 points, for a total of 0.95 points of damage per
round--already MORE than the "supposed warrior" priest... Finally, let's
consider a weapon-specialized fighter's damage with a longsword (d8) and let's
say he's got an 18/50 strength (strenth IS his prime requisite, after all...)
He will be doing 1d8 + 2 (weapon specialization) + 3 (strength) = 9.5 damage
per attack, and will do 3/2 attacks/round at first level. He will be + 2 to
hit (+1 for STR; +1 for specialization). Thus, at first level, he's doing:
(3/2)x(6/20)x(4.5 + 5) = 4.275 damage per round--WAY more than either the thief
or the cleric
Here's the chart:
Level Priest HP Priest damage Rogue HP Rogue damage Fighter damage
----- --------- ------------- -------- ------------ --------------
1 6.5 0.9 4.5 0.95 4.275
2 13 0.9 9 0.95 4.9875
3 19.5 0.9 13.5 1.25 5.70
4 26 1.35 18 1.25 6.4125
5 32.5 1.35 22.5 1.55 7.125
6 39 1.35 27 1.55 7.8375
7 45.5 1.80 31.5 1.85 11.40
8 52 1.80 36 1.85 12.35
9 58.5 1.80 40.5 2.15 13.30
10 60.5 2.25 45 2.15 14.25
11 62.5 2.25 47 2.45 15.20
12 64.5 2.25 49 2.45 16.15
Thus, we can see that at ALL levels (except 4th and 10th), the rogue actually
hands out MORE damage on average than the priest. Also, the Rogue is far more
likely to get a magic weapon than the poor cleric. The only advantage the
cleric has is that he will outlast a thief--but don't forget that the thief is
almost CERTAINLY going to strike before the cleric, and late in a fight, this
can make the difference... Of course, NEITHER can compare to a fighter's
average damage/round--but this IS the big thing that fighters do, after all...
Of course, this doesn't consider the fact that a SMART thief is going to start
the fight with a backstab... Thus, thieves are more effective "fighters" than
clerics. Also, consider that the thief goes up levels MUCH faster than a
priest, and you have the recipie for the "priest as medikit" problem.
One further consideration to this is the fact that yes, priests CAN cast spells
which can affect combat (prayer, bless, chant), but the bottom line is that
they need time to prepare and cast those spells.
Various supplements have considered the problem for the so-called "War god"
priests, yet these usually come in two forms--the priest gets some special
abilities, or they are allowed a better selection of weapons. While this can
help even out the damage/round on the chart above, it STILL doesn't make them
better warriors. What to do...? If clerics got weapon specialization like
fighters, they'd be more effective "warriors", but still wouldn't be as good
as fighters (who get strength bonus and MUCH better THAC0 than priests). If
the priest worships a war god, then give them the special abilities (and the
restrictions which come with such kits), and they might even BEGIN to approach
a fighter...
My two copper's worth...
Assman
> I was arguing in the generic sense, in that core rules priests do not
> need to learn their spells through study. In your campaign the
> argument does not apply. Of course, it would seem from the post that
> the cleris still does not need the chance to know spell roll, and does
> not have max. spells per level. If he does, post your rules for them,
> I'd like to take a look.
>
>
You are correct in your assumption that the clerics in my campaign do not
need the Chance to Learn Spell roll, nor do they have a Max. # of
Spells/Level. Those are still only for wizards, so I have no additional
rules for that. I did want to add that in my system, when the priest goes
to learn his new prayers and has them entered into his prayerbook, he won't
necessarily get EVERY spell in his eligible spheres. He may at times need
to do some service for his church/faith before receiving certain spells,
particularly ones that link more directly to the deity (i.e., Commune).
Some powerful spells that would normally be within the usable spheres of
the priest might even be in Tomes lost, their prayers forgotten, resulting
in a quest to find long lost Holy Books. These would likely be spells from
sources other than the PH and TOM, as they would be considered rare spells.
The more common spells are learned easily and quickly after the cleric has
tithed an amount of money appropriate to the church, or done some service
in lieu of a tithe if financial resources are unavailable.
AM
Staffan Johansson
> rogue can hand out more damage. The rogue often uses two attacks/round (sword/
> dagger) and will almost CERTAINLY strike first due to their higher DEX. As any
> good player realizes, the best way to survive is to kill their opponent first.
Dexterity does NOT, repeat NOT, affect initiative. The Reaction
Adjustments affects surprise, but not initiative. Still, the thief
generally uses faster weapons (Long sword SF 5 vs. Mace SF 7).
> It's unlikely that a priest will have a high dex, so their supposed AC bonus is
> eaten up quickly compared to a rogue (a priest with no DEX in plate mail is
> AC3; a rogue in studded leather with an 18 DEX (their prime requisite, lest we
AC 3 is about OK, but for reasons other than you mention- you forget a
shield, which improves AC by 1, but a 1st level priest can probably not
afford plate mail. Splint Mail is much cheaper, and gives a base AC 4,
for a total of 3.
> Let's take a specific example: a priest armed with a mace (d6+1) compared to
> an 18 DEX rogue armed with short sword/dagger (d6/d4). Let us say they are
Not all priests have 18 Wis, and not all rogues have Dex 18. Give him
Dex 16, and I'm with you. This places him at AC 5, assuming he's willing
to cripple his thieving skills by wearing studded leather. Another thing
you forget by giving the thief the sword/dagger combo is that he has now
used up all his weapon proficiencies for level 1, and I know that if I
was a thief, I'd want some way of hitting people without allowing them
to hit back, which is what a bow does.
> is 3.5 + 2.5 = 6.0 if he hits two times. Attacking with two weapons, the
> Thief's THAC0 is at -2 for the primary weapon; -4 for the secondary weapon.
> With an 18 dex, this becomes 0/-2.
Or -1/-3 with Dex 16.
> Example calculation: at 1st level, THAC0 for both is 20. Thus, to hit an AC4
> opponent, they have a 4 in 20 (1 in 5) chance. Thus, for the cleric, his
Actually, it's 5 in 20 (or 1 in 4). THAC0 20 hits AC 4 on 16 or more,
which is 5 numbers (don't forget that both 16 and 20 hit). If we reduce
the thief to the more appropriate Dex 16, he has THAC0 17/19, or 1 in 5
and 1 in 10.
> average damage per round is (1/5)x4.5 = 0.9 points per round. For the rogue,
> on his primary attack, he does (1/5)x3.5 = 0.7 points; on his secondary attack,
> he does (2/20)x2.5 = 0.25 points, for a total of 0.95 points of damage per
Priest attack: 0.25*4.5 = 1.125
Thief sword attack: 0.2*4.5 = 0.9
Thief dagger attack: 0.1*2.5 = 0.25
Total thief damage: 1.15
The first level thief looks like he has a small advantage in combat, but
let's pit the two against one another. Remember that the cleric has 1
more hp/level on average, since he's using d8 instead of d6.
We now get priest, AC 3, THAC0 20, damage d6+1 vs. Thief, AC 5, THAC0
21/23, damage d8/d4. The priest hits on a 15 (6/20), and the thief hits
on 18 (3/20) and 20 (1/20).
Priest attack: 0.3*4.5 = 1.35
Thief sword: 0.15*4.5 = 0.675
Thief dagger: 0.05*2.5 = 0.125
Thief total: 0.8
If we make the thief use only his sword, he instead gets 0.20*4.5 = 0.9
hp/round. The cleric still has a decided advantage, and we haven't even
begun to go into the fact that the cleric has more hp.
Speaking of hp, the cleric can kill the thief in (3.5/1.35 = ) 2.6
rounds, while the thief takes (4.5/0.9 = )5 rounds to kill the cleric.
If we use the very common house rule that you get max hp at level 1,
this changes to (6/1.35 = ) 4.4 and (8/0.9 = ) 8.9 rounds.
Other class abilities can, of course, screw this up - especially
Backstab, but some priest spells can also tip the scales of combat
(notably Command (giving the priest an extra round in which to bash the
thief's head in without any retalliation), Light (blinding the thief and
giving him -4 on all attacks as well as a 4-step penalty to AC), and
Shillelagh (THAC0 19, damage 2d4) if the priest has access to Plant).
> round--already MORE than the "supposed warrior" priest... Finally, let's
> consider a weapon-specialized fighter's damage with a longsword (d8) and let's
IMO, Weapon specialization is too powerful. It more than doubles a 1st
level fighter's offensive capability, but that's a discussion for
another time.
> Various supplements have considered the problem for the so-called "War god"
> priests, yet these usually come in two forms--the priest gets some special
> abilities, or they are allowed a better selection of weapons. While this can
> help even out the damage/round on the chart above, it STILL doesn't make them
> better warriors. What to do...? If clerics got weapon specialization like
Most warriorish priests in Faiths and Avatars (Tyr, Torm...) get
multiple attacks as Warriors (3/2 at level 7, 2 at level 13), and
there's also the Crusader from S&M and F&A, which uses Fighter THAC0 and
can use any weapon.
--
Staffan Johansson (d9...@efd.lth.se)
Drive defensively. Buy a tank.
Stiubhart
>> dagger) and will almost CERTAINLY strike first due to their higher DEX. As
>any
>> good player realizes, the best way to survive is to kill their opponent
>first.
>
>Dexterity does NOT, repeat NOT, affect initiative. The Reaction
>Adjustments affects surprise, but not initiative. Still, the thief
>generally uses faster weapons (Long sword SF 5 vs. Mace SF 7).
while i also use the reaction adjustment to modify initiative, none of this
explains why the rogue gets to use two weapons. and certainly not with reduced
THACO modifiers.
>Attacking with two weapons, the
>> Thief's THAC0 is at -2 for the primary weapon; -4 for the secondary weapon.
>> With an 18 dex, this becomes 0/-2.
>
>Or -1/-3 with Dex 16.
where does it say that DEX based missle attack adjustments affect melee
weapons?
>Other class abilities can, of course, screw this up
don't forget the bless spell, which allows the cleric a better attack roll, or
cure light wounds, allowing the cleric more hit points.
Pinochet
A whip and some manacles works fine with me. Oh, and a hot box
to make examples of people..
Colin Neilson
>You are correct in your assumption that the clerics in my campaign do not
>need the Chance to Learn Spell roll, nor do they have a Max. # of
>Spells/Level. Those are still only for wizards, so I have no additional
>rules for that. I did want to add that in my system, when the priest goes
>to learn his new prayers and has them entered into his prayerbook, he won't
>necessarily get EVERY spell in his eligible spheres. He may at times need
>to do some service for his church/faith before receiving certain spells,
>particularly ones that link more directly to the deity (i.e., Commune).
>Some powerful spells that would normally be within the usable spheres of
>the priest might even be in Tomes lost, their prayers forgotten, resulting
>in a quest to find long lost Holy Books. These would likely be spells from
>sources other than the PH and TOM, as they would be considered rare spells.
> The more common spells are learned easily and quickly after the cleric has
>tithed an amount of money appropriate to the church, or done some service
>in lieu of a tithe if financial resources are unavailable.
One major advantage I see for your method of running priest spells is
that it gives more legitimacy for researching new spells. The priest
in question must research the prayers to perform the spell.
Neutronium Dragon
says...
>One major advantage I see for your method of running priest spells is
>that it gives more legitimacy for researching new spells. The priest
>in question must research the prayers to perform the spell.
Whether it's done that way or another, priests still perform 'prayer research'
to develop new spells. (Although since I only have the tail end of this thread,
perhaps there's something more I'm missing...)
I find it interesting that priest spell research is often overlooked by many
players. Wizard characters almost inevitably start researching spells, often
early on, but priest characters don't often follow suit.
Which is too bad, because spell research by priests is a very useful thing, not
to mention an excellent RP tool. Wizards can research whatever they want
because they want to, but priests must perform spell research in tune with
their ethos, and what better way to prove their devotion to that ethos than to
research a few new spells that serve to advance that cause? They don't even
need to be powerful spells - minor effects in keeping with their beliefs are
just as good that way as extravagant or showy ones of greater power.
--
| Neutronium Dragon | Dragon Code: DC.D f+ s++ h++++ CSW a++++ $- |
| aha...@direct.ca | m- d+++ WL++* Fr+++ L+++ BP e++++! g- i- U+++ |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "Is that all you monks ever think about!? Sects, sects, sects!" |
Jon Inge Teigland
>
> >The rogue often uses two attacks/round (sword/
> >> dagger) and will almost CERTAINLY strike first due to their higher DEX. As
> >any
> >> good player realizes, the best way to survive is to kill their opponent
> >first.
> >
> >Dexterity does NOT, repeat NOT, affect initiative. The Reaction
> >Adjustments affects surprise, but not initiative. Still, the thief
> >generally uses faster weapons (Long sword SF 5 vs. Mace SF 7).
>
> while i also use the reaction adjustment to modify initiative, none of this
> explains why the rogue gets to use two weapons. and certainly not with reduced
> THACO modifiers.
>
"A tricky fighting style available only to warriors and rogues is that
of fighting with two weapons simultaneousy."
"Attacks made with the main weapon suffer a -2 penaly, and attacks with
the secons weapon suffer a -4 penalt. The character's Reaction
Adjustment modifies this penalty."
Jon Inge Teigland
Staffan Johansson
> while i also use the reaction adjustment to modify initiative, none of this
> explains why the rogue gets to use two weapons. and certainly not with reduced
> THACO modifiers.
PHB2, p96. "A tricky fighting style available only to warriors and
rogues is fighting with two weapons simultaneously." and further down:
"Attacks made with the main weapon suffer a -2 penalty, and attacks made
with the secondary weapon suffer a -4 penalty. The character's Reaction
Adjustment (based on his Dextrity, see Table 2) modifies this penalty."
> don't forget the bless spell, which allows the cleric a better attack roll, or
> cure light wounds, allowing the cleric more hit points.
Cure Light Wounds is a BAD spell to use when you're in melee. A CT of 5
means that the thief has a good chance of hitting you before you get the
spell off, wasting the spell and hurting you even more. CLW is best used
out of melee, such as after the thief has gone down and you recover to
face down the next thief.
The spells I mentioned could either be cast before combat (light and
shillelagh) or have very short casting times (Command), reducing the
risk of interruption.
Graey
>
> >>The rogue often uses two attacks/round (sword/
> >> dagger) and will almost CERTAINLY strike first due to their higher DEX. > >> As any good player realizes, the best way to survive is to kill their
> >>opponent first.
> >
> >Dexterity does NOT, repeat NOT, affect initiative. The Reaction
> >Adjustments affects surprise, but not initiative. Still, the thief
> >generally uses faster weapons (Long sword SF 5 vs. Mace SF 7).
>
> explains why the rogue gets to use two weapons. and certainly not with
> reduced THACO modifiers.
Dexterity reduces the penalty for using two weapons. It also reduces
the weapon speed modifyer. In those senses it reduces initiative, but
it does not _directly_ affect the initiative roll. Thieves usually have
high dexterity compared to all other classes. Based on that assumption
and the fact that they _usually_ use lighter, smaller weapons, they
_usually_ have lower initiative rolls. Notice all the generalizations
in there. A thief using a bastard sword probably will suck, but a thief
using two daggers will probably kick ass.
>
> >Attacking with two weapons, the
> >> Thief's THAC0 is at -2 for the primary weapon; -4 for the secondary
> >> weapon. With an 18 dex, this becomes 0/-2.
> >
> >Or -1/-3 with Dex 16.
>
> where does it say that DEX based missle attack adjustments affect melee
> weapons?
Page 96, PHB2. Technically it's not the missle bonus, its the reaction
bonus, but it's always the same number.
- Graey
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
luvewe.eglobe.com/~slayer sla...@luvewe.eglobe.com
www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules www.anybrowser.org
www.newbiesguide.com www.darklock.com/webguard
abr...@geocities.com
components, other than magic symbol and like..
Holy Water being one.
To much components, and it become symbiotic magic.
Mike
In article <01be3c33$3f4a86c0$927d57ce@default>,
"Assman" <ass...@yellowhead16.net> wrote:
>
>
> Colin Neilson <cnei...@telusplanet.net> wrote in article
> <36979fc8...@nntp.telusplanet.net>...
> >
> > The key word is potentially. Not only must the mage find the spells
> > he wants, he must have enough space in a spell book to put them in,
> > keep the spell book safe, have enough light to study the spells, carry
> > the book around, have ink to write the spells in, and make a % chance
> > to know spell to put it in the book. Priests on the other hand, have
> > to gain a level and then have acces to all spells allowed to them.
> > They have more limited selection both for balance and because of the
> > different rationale behind their spells.
>
> Of course, in my campaign, Priests don't automatically get all the spells
> of a certain level when they achieve the level to be able to cast them.
> They carry around a prayer book, and when they achieve the appropriate
> level they must go to a temple of their deity to learn new prayers which
> get entered into their book by a higher priest. This process in itself
> takes little time, but there's always the need to travel to the nearest
> temple. Of course, there is always that very rare moment when a new prayer
> is learned by divine intervention.
>
> AM
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
abr...@geocities.com
"inspire" them for a new spell.
Maybe one way to have things is to have the Cleric have to meditate on the
spells needed for the day, and have the DM tell him what the diety
wants/needs/forsees.
The Bible is a sorce of inspiration, and in a magic world be a source of spell
inspirtation as well as a "spell" book if you like, but not magic..
Remember the Diety gives its worshippers what they need, it is up to the
worshipper to figure out what that need is.
Mike
In article <L4vm2.596$9P6.2...@newsgate.direct.ca>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
abr...@geocities.com
Mike/Abrigon
Michael Scott Brown
>Stiubhart wrote:
>Dexterity reduces the penalty for using two weapons.
Yes.
>It also reduces the weapon speed modifyer.
No.
-Michael
Christian Williams
(snip)
: The only thing a Cleric has going for him is
: Healing, Divination, Turn Undead and other Granted
: Powers. And, if I was a Professional Adventurer and
: had enough Potions of Extra Healing, I would leave
: the Cleric in town and hire/invite another Mage.
: And I think that everyone would agree on that point.
Mmm... nope.
A few two word phrases for you:
Remove Poison
Slow Poison
Cure Blindness
Cure Disease
Cure Deafness
Remove Curse
Imbue with Spell Ability
Spell Immunity
Raise Dead
Resurrect
Lower Water
Create Food&Water
Purify Food&Water
Oh And let's not forget Command, and Dictate.
And that's just the Defensive Stuff. The cleric s offensive spells take
more savvy to use effectively. Produce Flame may not be Magic Missile, but
you get a rather large amount of little fire grenades for the trouble.
Glyph of Warding protects rooms in a way alarm just can't. :)
ChrisW
--
Just my $.02, refunds available upon request
Christian Williams
: Stiubhart wrote:
: > while i also use the reaction adjustment to modify initiative, none of this
: > explains why the rogue gets to use two weapons. and certainly not
: > with reduced
: > THACO modifiers.
: PHB2, p96. "A tricky fighting style available only to warriors and
: rogues is fighting with two weapons simultaneously." and further down:
: "Attacks made with the main weapon suffer a -2 penalty, and attacks made
: with the secondary weapon suffer a -4 penalty. The character's Reaction
: Adjustment (based on his Dextrity, see Table 2) modifies this penalty."
*nod* But that's not a .reduced. THACO, which I believe the original
poster mentioned.
: Cure Light Wounds is a BAD spell to use when you're in melee. A CT of 5
: means that the thief has a good chance of hitting you before you get the
: spell off, wasting the spell and hurting you even more. CLW is best used
: out of melee, such as after the thief has gone down and you recover to
: face down the next thief.
Depends on what other spells you've used. A 'Die' Command at Impulse 10 of
round 1, gives you plenty of time to cast CLW before the thief stands up
at Impulse 10 of round 2.
a_jedi...@my-dejanews.com
mik...@deceuler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
> In article <36978E3E...@kih.net>,
> William Earl Pargen <par...@kih.net> wrote:
> [clerics]
> >The only thing a Cleric has going for him is
> >Healing, Divination, Turn Undead and other Granted
> >Powers.
>
> a little better.
I agree. anybody that cannot see the flexibility and potential of even the
basic spells needs to look again. heat metal on a sword is a very effective
disarm. silence is soo effective for ruining a mage's day, as well as making a
thief nigh on indetectable. command is so flexible we would need to write a
novel on its uses! sleep! fall! jump!(over a cliff) throw! (your sword) strip!
(hopelessly tangled in armour for a while)
>
> > And, if I was a Professional Adventurer and
> >had enough Potions of Extra Healing, I would leave
> >the Cleric in town and hire/invite another Mage.
> >And I think that everyone would agree on that point.
>
> No way.
>
> -Michael
>
I submit that we are both atheist, I simply beleive in one fewer god
than you. When you can understand why you dismiss all other gods, then
you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-Stephen F. Frost
a_jedi...@my-dejanews.com
mik...@deceuler.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Scott Brown) wrote:
> In article <36978E3E...@kih.net>,
> William Earl Pargen <par...@kih.net> wrote:
> [clerics]
> >The only thing a Cleric has going for him is
> >Healing, Divination, Turn Undead and other Granted
> >Powers.
>
> You really need to re-examine their spell list
> a little better.
I agree. anybody that cannot see the flexibility and potential of even the
basic spells needs to look again. heat metal on a sword is a very effective
disarm. silence is soo effective for ruining a mage's day, as well as making a
thief nigh on indetectable. command is so flexible we would need to write a
novel on its uses! sleep! fall! jump!(over a cliff) throw! (your sword) strip!
(hopelessly tangled in armour for a while)
>
> > And, if I was a Professional Adventurer and
> >had enough Potions of Extra Healing, I would leave
> >the Cleric in town and hire/invite another Mage.
> >And I think that everyone would agree on that point.
>
> No way.
>
> -Michael
>
I have played clerics almost exclusively (paladins on the odd occasion that I
get the stats for it) for about 10 years now. Love 'em, and all the peple I
play with love to see me play one, because not only can I heal them, they
want me at the forefront of battle with the warriors, where i can do the most
damage.
---
George A. S. Park
>>The rogue often uses two attacks/round (sword/
>>> dagger) and will almost CERTAINLY strike first due to their higher DEX. As
>>any
>>> good player realizes, the best way to survive is to kill their opponent
>>first.
>>
>>Dexterity does NOT, repeat NOT, affect initiative. The Reaction
>>Adjustments affects surprise, but not initiative. Still, the thief
>>generally uses faster weapons (Long sword SF 5 vs. Mace SF 7).
I stand (sit?) corrected; it's a house rule I've seen used in MANY campaigns.
>while i also use the reaction adjustment to modify initiative, none of this
>explains why the rogue gets to use two weapons. and certainly not with reduced
>THACO modifiers.
Refer to P. 96 of your 2nd Edition players handbook, under "Attacking with two
weapons". It's only available to fighters and rogues, and it states, "... When
attacking, all characters but rangers suffer penalties to their attack rolls.
Attacks made with the main weapon suffer a -2 penalty, and attacks made with
the second weapon suffer a -4 penalty. The character's reaction adjustment
(based on his Dexterity, see table 2) modifies this penatly..."
>>Attacking with two weapons, the
>>> Thief's THAC0 is at -2 for the primary weapon; -4 for the secondary weapon.
>>> With an 18 dex, this becomes 0/-2.
>>
>>Or -1/-3 with Dex 16.
>where does it say that DEX based missle attack adjustments affect melee
>weapons?
See above.
>>Other class abilities can, of course, screw this up
>don't forget the bless spell, which allows the cleric a better attack roll, or
>cure light wounds, allowing the cleric more hit points.
I mentioned this, but if you've ever played a priest (as I have), odds are not
good you'll get these spells off in a combat unless you're not in melee and
are not being shot at by missle weapons--check out the casting time on these
spells: Bless: 1 round; Cure light wounds: 5 segments (MAYBE... if you're
lucky), Prayer: 6 segments.
I DID mention these spells in my post, but bear in mind as I said, I DIDN'T
even address the thief's backstab (the SMART way to start a fight if you're
a thief!)--it makes the priest an even POORER fighter by comparison.
I stand by my assertion that priests are worse warriors than rogues.
Colin Neilson
Dragon) wrote:
>In article <369a7062...@nntp.telusplanet.net>, cnei...@telusplanet.net
>says...
>>One major advantage I see for your method of running priest spells is
>>that it gives more legitimacy for researching new spells. The priest
>>in question must research the prayers to perform the spell.
>
>Whether it's done that way or another, priests still perform 'prayer research'
>to develop new spells. (Although since I only have the tail end of this thread,
>perhaps there's something more I'm missing...)
>
>I find it interesting that priest spell research is often overlooked by many
>players. Wizard characters almost inevitably start researching spells, often
>early on, but priest characters don't often follow suit.
(interesting opinions about priest spell research snipped)
I think the problem a lot of people have with priest research is: If
the gods grant priest spells, how can a priest research new spells?
Did the god just forget about that spell, and now the priest has
reminded him? Personally, I see nothing wrong with priest spell
research and allow it using similar rules for wizard spell research in
my campaign. The idea of prayerbooks eliminates the above complaint
about priest research, however.
The Wraith
>
>Dexterity reduces the penalty for using two weapons. It also reduces
>the weapon speed modifyer.
Actually, dexterity bonuses do not reduce weapon speed, according to
the rulebook. (In fact, I think the rulebook specifies that this is
the case.) Such is a common house rule (and one I am fond of myself),
but is a deviation from the book rules.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
Colin Neilson
ga...@populusque.romanus.ocunixNOSPAM.on.ca (George A. S. Park) wrote:
>I mentioned this, but if you've ever played a priest (as I have), odds are not
>good you'll get these spells off in a combat unless you're not in melee and
>are not being shot at by missle weapons--check out the casting time on these
>spells: Bless: 1 round; Cure light wounds: 5 segments (MAYBE... if you're
>lucky), Prayer: 6 segments.
>
>I DID mention these spells in my post, but bear in mind as I said, I DIDN'T
>even address the thief's backstab (the SMART way to start a fight if you're
>a thief!)--it makes the priest an even POORER fighter by comparison.
>
>I stand by my assertion that priests are worse warriors than rogues.
In a one on one combat between a priest and a rogue, a well prepared
rogue will probably win. It does not follow from this that rogues are
better warriors than priests. If a high level rogue got a backstab
off against a fighter, odds are good that the rogue will be able to
nearly incapacitate the fighter in one round. This does not mean that
rogues are better warriors than fighters. The ability to defeat a
specific opponent in a one on one combat when you are fully prepared
to fight that particuar combat is not what makes a warrior a warrior.
How does the thief compare to the priest in mass combat? A mid (6-7th
level thief) and a mid (equal number of experience to the thief above)
priest against, let's say three ogres. Who will last longer? 6th
level thief=6D6 for hit points, + any Con bonus. For arguments sake
let's arm the ogres with Battle axes, D8+4 damage. The best AC the
thief can probably hope for is 2, if he has an 18 DEX and +2 Leather.
If the thief has that high a DEX, he probably doesn't have a massive
CON as well, but let's assume a high stat game and give him a 15 CON
anyways. This means the average HP for the thief is 6 X3.5 = 21 +6
=27. On an average hit, an Ogre will dish out 8 points damage. Ogres
have a listed Thac0 of 17, but they also have +2 to hit due to STR so
THAC0 is 15. With an AC of 2, the ogres need a 13 to hit, therefore
have a 40% hit rate. With three shots per round and average damage of
8 per hit average damage per round will be 8*3=24*.4= 9.6 per round.
Rounded up or down, the thief has about 3 rounds to live if nothing
else happens. Of course the thief will fight back. For the sake of
argument I will arm the thief with a long sword, about the best melee
weapon he can use under the circumstances. This gives damage of D12
or an average of 6 points per round. Ogres have 4+1 HD or an average
of 19 hp per ogre. They also have an AC of 5. The thief has a THAC0
of 18, and so needs a 13 to hit an Ogre. With an average damage of 6
per hit and a 40% hit ratio, the thief will do 6*.4=2.4 points per
round, or about 7 points before he is killed.
Now let's look at the priest. First of all, stats will probably be
different. Assuming the same hig stat game, let's give the priest a
15 DEX and a 15 CON, since any 18 Would probably go to WIS. (Please
note, I am not advocating a high stat game, or even stating my stat
level preferences, this is simply done to advance the argument). The
priest, let's assume generic cleric to keep the argument generic, will
probably have better armour. Let's say Banded mail +2 instead of
Leather +2. Of course, the Cleric can also carry a shield, so let's
assume a medium shield +1. I will ignore shield proficiency, that
would give the Cleric a big edge, but it is not universally used.
This gives an AC of -1 after DEX and Shield mods. The Ogres with
their 15 THAC0s and Battle Axes doing an average of 8 points per hit
will hit on a 16 or better or 25% of the time. Damage per round is
now 6. The Cleric has an average of 4.5 hp per round, and looking at
the xp tables a 6th level thief is only a level ahead of the CLeric at
the low end of 6th level, so a 6th level cleric is a reasonable
assumption. (Honestly when I started this I thought the same xp thing
would make a difference.) So, the Cleric has 6*4.5=27+6=33 hp on
average. With average 6 damage per round from the Ogres, the Cleric
has 6 rounds to live if he does nothing. As he is not a Cleric of the
god of Ogres, he will fight back. Since we armed the thief with the
best melee weapon available to him, damage wise, it seems only fair to
do the same for the cleric. That would be the footman's flail, doing
2D4 or an average of 5 pts per hit against an Ogre. With a Thaco of
18 and an Ogre AC of 5 the CLeric will also hit 40% of the time, and
so will do 2pts per round. And as such will do 12 pts to one ogre
before dying after six rounds. Not a good outcome for either, but the
Cleric lasted longer and did more damage. Now let's change the
assumptions to one character one Ogre in stand up melee.
None of the statistics change, but now against the thief, the Ogre
does 8*.4=3.2 damage per round. The thief still does 2.4 damage per
round. It will take the thief 8 rounds to kill the Ogre. It will
take the Ogre 9 rounds to kill the thief. Therefore the thief will
survive, with 27-(3.2*7 since the thief will probably get first shot
in the kill round,=22)5 hp left. A victory but a costly one.
The Cleric still does 2 pts per round as does the Ogre. The Cleric
will kill the Ogre in 10 rounds while the Ogre would take 17 rounds to
kill the CLeric. SInce the Cleric's weapon is slow, I will assume the
Cleric will act last in the Kill round. The CLeric will win with
33-(10*2=20)=13 hp left. The Cleric comes out far better in this
situation.
So, it looks like the moral of the story is Ogres are a lot tougher
than I originally thought. Sorry, actually it looks like in a warrior
type fight, against similar opponents, the Cleric is the superior
combatant to the thief. Of course, the thief has numerous options not
available to the Cleric. The thief is by far the better missle
comabtant (Clerics can use slings, thieves can use bows). The thief
is a superior Geurrilla fighter (The thief can hide, sneak and
backstab) and the thief is more likely, under the core rules, to get a
good magical weapon, if he is proficeint with Longsword. Each class
has its advantages and disadvantages and each his its own niche.
Snuggles the Psycho shepherd
> Ogres
> have a listed Thac0 of 17, but they also have +2 to hit due to STR so
> THAC0 is 15.
Hi. I always took the listing in the MM to include any other bonuses in
a monster listing as being mentioned. (therefore I would think that a
+2 to hit would be mentioned. Is it?) Same situation with giants. Do
you look up their strength in the phb and use that to modify their to
hit? If you do you are increasing the already psychotic THAC0. I think
ogres have a THAC0 of 17 (including) their strenght bonus. <sigh> You
tell me. (please use quotes and page references if you can find evidence
supporting your +2 to thac0 17) thanks.
--
-Louis
to reply remove: .endspam
_ Baaah!
________/ \ /
/ __|
/\_ __ _/
|| ||
Snuggles the Psycho shepherd
> Depends on what other spells you've used. A 'Die' Command at Impulse 10 of
> round 1, gives you plenty of time to cast CLW before the thief stands up
> at Impulse 10 of round 2.
What the hell? I thought we were playing D&D. Not star trek the next
RPG.
Neil Watson
> >Dexterity reduces the penalty for using two weapons. It also reduces
> >the weapon speed modifyer.
> Actually, dexterity bonuses do not reduce weapon speed, according to
> the rulebook. (In fact, I think the rulebook specifies that this is
> the case.) Such is a common house rule (and one I am fond of myself),
> but is a deviation from the book rules.
Dexterity affecting weapon speed in combat? Yeah, I thought of this
before. However, how do you apply this to weapon wielding monsters?
What is the dexterity of those 4 axe swinging orcs who are about to chop
you up? What is the dexterity of the spear wielding ogre, or the sword
swinging fire giant?
Neil
Mr. Tines
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:13:17 GMT, in <369ce4f...@nntp.telusplanet.net>
cnei...@telusplanet.net (Colin Neilson) wrote.....
[something that might have been well reasoned and tightly
argued, but could also have done with being broken up into
smaller paragraphs.]
-- PGPfingerprint: BC01 5527 B493 7C9B 3C54 D1B7 248C 08BC --
_______ {pegwit v8 public key =581cbf05be9899262ab4bb6a08470}
/_ __(_)__ ___ ___ {69c10bcfbca894a5bf8d208d001b829d4d0}
/ / / / _ \/ -_|_-< www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/1394
/_/ /_/_//_/\__/___/@windsong.demon.co.uk PGP key on page
### end pegwit v8 signed text
297fafaa76e0b79f5c9a516318667b75ab9a0f2e43eb4894a39d79f8ffb1
00d58e493da2f3b3758063ac058eb8f85622eb60c3016ac7071ed423539e
Werebat
>
> Colin Neilson wrote:
>
> > Ogres
> > have a listed Thac0 of 17, but they also have +2 to hit due to STR so
> > THAC0 is 15.
>
> a monster listing as being mentioned. (therefore I would think that a
> +2 to hit would be mentioned. Is it?) Same situation with giants. Do
> you look up their strength in the phb and use that to modify their to
> hit? If you do you are increasing the already psychotic THAC0. I think
> ogres have a THAC0 of 17 (including) their strenght bonus. <sigh> You
> tell me. (please use quotes and page references if you can find evidence
> supporting your +2 to thac0 17) thanks.
Personally, I've always thought that ogres should have average strengths
of 18/00 (as in "Gauntlets of Ogre Power"). This would give them a +3 to
hit and a +6 to damage. IMC, this is the bonus that ogres get. Yes, it
makes them tougher. Don't whine.
Now, as for the THACO of an ogre...
In the 2nd Edition DMG, page 53, there is a listing of creature THACOs.
Any monster with 4+1 hit dice would have a THACO of 17, regardless of
strength. Therefore, 17 is the THACO of an ogre with no strength
bonuses.
With an 18/00 strength, ogres IMC have a THACO of 14. They tend to use
clubs and do 1d6+6 damage with them, although a rare few use captured
metal weapons like swords or spears. Spears should really be more common
amongst ogres, anyway, IMO... Without them, what the heck would they
eat? You can't catch food with a club and a movement rate of... What is
it, 9? Spears would at least allow the big lunks to hurl something at a
deer or mountain goat once in a while.
In any event, if you give the ogre a THACO of 17, you are assuming no
strength bonuses "to hit", which is a bit silly IMO. I personally give
the strength bonus to all humanoid creatures, with a few exceptions (such
as centaurs, who have odd strength scores (horse body and human arms) and
are, in any event, not fully humanoid.
Werebat
--
邢 唷��
Jason Dyer
Colin Neilson wrote in message <369c3369...@nntp.telusplanet.net>...
I think of it as the player working with the diety to create a spell. The
character is coming up with ideas, and the god is assembling them into a
cohesive spell. Sort of a custom ordered spell. The time it takes is
because it takes time for the diety to do it, and its hard to pray for that
long that closly to a god.
Snuggles the Psycho shepherd
If you [add bonuses to their thaco] you are increasing the already
psychotic THAC0. I think
> > ogres have a THAC0 of 17 (including) their strenght bonus. <sigh> You
> > tell me. (please use quotes and page references if you can find evidence
> > supporting your +2 to thac0 17) thanks.
Werebat wrote:
>
> Personally, I've always thought that ogres should have average strengths
> of 18/00 (as in "Gauntlets of Ogre Power"). This would give them a +3 to
> hit and a +6 to damage. IMC, this is the bonus that ogres get. Yes, it
> makes them tougher. Don't whine.
Uh, uh, uh... uhWAAAAAAAHHHH, WAHHHHHHH, uhwaaaaahhhh.
> Now, as for the THACO of an ogre...
>
> In the 2nd Edition DMG, page 53, there is a listing of creature THACOs.
> Any monster with 4+1 hit dice would have a THACO of 17, regardless of
> strength. Therefore, 17 is the THACO of an ogre with no strength
> bonuses.
>
> With an 18/00 strength, ogres IMC have a THACO of 14. They tend to use
> clubs and do 1d6+6 damage with them, although a rare few use captured
> metal weapons like swords or spears. Spears should really be more common
> amongst ogres, anyway, IMO... Without them, what the heck would they
> eat? You can't catch food with a club and a movement rate of... What is
> it, 9? Spears would at least allow the big lunks to hurl something at a
> deer or mountain goat once in a while.
You can throw clubs. Range 1/2/3 and RoF 1 (i think)
> In any event, if you give the ogre a THACO of 17, you are assuming no
> strength bonuses "to hit", which is a bit silly IMO. I personally give
> the strength bonus to all humanoid creatures, with a few exceptions (such
> as centaurs, who have odd strength scores (horse body and human arms) and
> are, in any event, not fully humanoid.
Ah shut up about me whining. Thank your for becoming clear headed later
on. Your points become useful and I appreciate your answering my
question.
Abraxas
Snuggles the Psycho shepherd wrote:
>
>> Ogres
>> have a listed Thac0 of 17, but they also have +2 to hit due to STR so
>> THAC0 is 15.
>
>a monster listing as being mentioned. (therefore I would think that a
>+2 to hit would be mentioned. Is it?) Same situation with giants. Do
>you look up their strength in the phb and use that to modify their to
>ogres have a THAC0 of 17 (including) their strenght bonus. <sigh> You
>tell me. (please use quotes and page references if you can find evidence
>supporting your +2 to thac0 17) thanks.
snip
Table 39, Page 76, 2ed. DMG lists creature THAC0 by hit dice. An ogre
has 4+1 HD and according to the table has a THAC0 of 17. This corresponds
to the THAC0 listed on page 272 of the Monstrous Manual. In the description
of Ogres also on page 272 of the Monstrous Manual under the combat heading
it says "Ogres wielding weapons get a strength bonus of +2 to hit; leaders
have +3, chieftans have +4." So the standard ogres final adjusted THAC0
when using a weapon is 15. As for giants (all types) under the combat
heading it does not say they get a bonus to their attack rolls. It does,
however, say they get a bonus to their damage rolls according to their
strength. IIRC the Complete Book of Giantcraft says something to the effect
that giants don't get an attack bonus due to their strength (I may be wrong,
I couldn't find my copy of th CBoGC when I was writing this).
Abraxas
*OGUR BOY*
>
> Snuggles the Psycho shepherd wrote:
> >Colin Neilson wrote:
> >
> >> have a listed Thac0 of 17, but they also have +2 to hit due to STR so
> >> THAC0 is 15.
MUGGA WUGGA MURBLE MURP!!!
DUM UMAN TALK TRY MAYK BIG WERDZ OVERCUMM FATCT OF *OGUR* BE MORR
*POWERFULL* THAN UMAN!!! FACT IS *OGUR* KIKK BUTT!!!
XPLANE THAT!!! YOO SPEEK FANCEE UMAN WERDZ ANDND *OGUR BOY* SMASSH YU IN
HED WITH KLUBB!!!
> >Hi. I always took the listing in the MM to include any other bonuses in
> >a monster listing as being mentioned. (therefore I would think that a
> >+2 to hit would be mentioned. Is it?)
NOT MENSHUNED BCUZ UMANS BE TU *SKARED* OF *OGURS*!!! TOOO AFRAYD TO SEE
THE TRUTH!!! HARG HARG HARG!!! SO DUM UMANS TRIE MAK PAYPER SCRIBL
RITING OF A *OGUR* ON DUM UMAN *PAYPUR* ANDND SAY IT WEEKER. OH REELY
DUM UMAN!!! HOW A BOUT THAT!!! WEEKLING *OGUR* BCUZ MAYDE ON WEEKLING
*PAYPUR* BUT REEL *OGUR MAYD OF FLESH ANDDND BLUDD!!! BUT OWNLEE BLUDD
YU SEE IS YOR OWN UMAN!!! HARG HARG HARG!!!
> >Same situation with giants. Do
> >you look up their strength in the phb and use that to modify their to
> >hit? If you do you are increasing the already psychotic THAC0.
GIYANTS ARR DUMMER THAN UMANS EVEN!!! HARG HARG HARG!!! THEY NOT
STRONGG ONLEE TALLER THEN *OGURS*!!! SO THIS UMAN SPEEKS TRUTH HEER.
> >I think
> >ogres have a THAC0 of 17 (including) their strenght bonus.
WATEVVER YU MEEN BY THAT IT PROBLEE FAYKE BCUZ ALL UMANS A FRAYD OF
MITEEY *OGURS*!!! MAYK DUM ROOLS A BOWT *OGURS* BE WEEK THEN UMANS HOW
*STOOPID* CAN YU GET???
> > <sigh> You
> >tell me. (please use quotes and page references if you can find evidence
> >supporting your +2 to thac0 17) thanks.
*OGUR BOY* NO NEED DUM UMAN BOOKS!!! WIN ARGYOOMINT THE *OGUR* WAY!!!
WITH *KLUBB*!!!
**SMASSHSHH!!!***
HIT YU IN *HEDD* THEN YU ARGYOO NO MORR!!!
HARG HARG HARG!!!
*OGUR BOY*
Robert Baldwin
Williams) wrote:
>William Earl Pargen (par...@kih.net) wrote:
>(snip)
>
>: The only thing a Cleric has going for him is
>: Healing, Divination, Turn Undead and other Granted
>: Powers. And, if I was a Professional Adventurer and
>: had enough Potions of Extra Healing, I would leave
>: the Cleric in town and hire/invite another Mage.
>: And I think that everyone would agree on that point.
>
>Mmm... nope.
>A few two word phrases for you:
>Remove Poison
>Slow Poison
>Cure Blindness
>Cure Disease
>Cure Deafness
>Remove Curse
>Imbue with Spell Ability
>Spell Immunity
>Raise Dead
>Resurrect
>Lower Water
>Create Food&Water
>Purify Food&Water
>Oh And let's not forget Command, and Dictate.
Don't forget:
Detect Poision
Find Traps
P. from Evil
the various defense vs. Heat/Cold spells
Just for a quick few
--
Saint Baldwin, definer of the unholy darkspawn.
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" MSB.
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Jon Inge Teigland
>
> Of course the thief will fight back. For the sake of
> argument I will arm the thief with a long sword, about the best melee
> weapon he can use under the circumstances. This gives damage of D12
> or an average of 6 points per round.
In that case, it will be more favourable for the thief that his
opponents are large, than it would be for the cleric. Since long sword
give a lot more damage to large opponents.
> Of course, the Cleric can also carry a shield, so let's
> assume a medium shield +1.
> Since we armed the thief with the
> best melee weapon available to him, damage wise, it seems only fair to
> do the same for the cleric. That would be the footman's flail,
The footman's flail is actually a two-handed weapon. So the cleric can't
both have a shield, and the footman's flail.
However, the morning star does an average of 4.5 points of damage
against a largor opponent, while the footman's flail does 5. So your
argument isn't far off.
> Therefore the thief will
> survive, with 27-(3.2*7 since the thief will probably get first shot
> in the kill round,=22)5 hp left. A victory but a costly one.
> The CLeric will win with
> 33-(10*2=20)=13 hp left. The Cleric comes out far better in this
> situation.
>
Whereupon the cleric casts 3 Cure Light Wounds upon himself, restoring
13.5 hps. He has now 26 hps. Then the second Ogre shows up, slightly
pissed off because the character killed his buddy.
The Ogre will kill the thief in 2 rounds, while taking 5 hp in damage.
The Cleric will kill the Ogre in 10 rounds, with 6 hp left.
But on the other hand, if the thief could have started both combats with
a Backstab, the story might have been quite different.
Btw, as someone else as commented, I also believe the Ogres do not gain
+2 to hit due to high strength. The bonus to damage is included in the
Monster Compendium which I have. Since it does not also say they have
bonus to hit in addition to the Thac0 of 17, I would assume it has
already been included too. Also, why did you give them only +2 to hit.
To my knowledge, "Ogre Strength" means 18/00, which gives +3 to hit.
Since the MC gives them +6 to damage, that further suggests they should
have +3 rather that +2 (if they should have anything).
Jon Inge Teigland
Joshua Kaufman
<lo...@ehmail.com.endspam> wrote:
>
>> In any event, if you give the ogre a THACO of 17, you are assuming no
>> strength bonuses "to hit", which is a bit silly IMO. I personally give
>> the strength bonus to all humanoid creatures, with a few exceptions (such
>> as centaurs, who have odd strength scores (horse body and human arms) and
>> are, in any event, not fully humanoid.
Ya know, I think the MM underpowers a lot of monsters, by conveniently
forgetting to take into account Strength, Dexterity, Constitution,
etc. So I almost disregard a lot of the Hit Dice, Thaco, Damage in
the MM and come up with my own numbers that make some sense. After
all, an Ogre should have a 14 Thaco, not 17.
Anyway, just wanted to comment as to how poorly thought out a lot of
the monsters in the MM are.
Jamie Nossal
>
> On 12 Jan 1999 14:53:01 -0500,
> ga...@populusque.romanus.ocunixNOSPAM.on.ca (George A. S. Park) wrote:
> >I mentioned this, but if you've ever played a priest (as I have), odds are not
> >good you'll get these spells off in a combat unless you're not in melee and
> >are not being shot at by missle weapons--check out the casting time on these
> >spells: Bless: 1 round; Cure light wounds: 5 segments (MAYBE... if you're
> >lucky), Prayer: 6 segments.
Depends largely on the initiative system used. Also, if we are going to
give the thief a courtesy backstab in our analyses, it seems only fair
to let the priest get at least one spell off or possibly have a
pre-existing one cast.
> >
> >I DID mention these spells in my post, but bear in mind as I said, I DIDN'T
> >even address the thief's backstab (the SMART way to start a fight if you're
> >a thief!)--it makes the priest an even POORER fighter by comparison.
> >
> >I stand by my assertion that priests are worse warriors than rogues.
I disagree, even if you give the thief a backstab. Backstabs aren't all
that they are cracked up to be. They are not easy to pull off (the
target must be surprised), you still gotta hit (albeit with a +4 bonus
and no shiedld or DEX for the target) and there is a equal chance of
laying an egg (roll a '1' for longsword damage) as there is for a
devastating shot (max damage). A 13th level thief can possibly do 40hp
of damage with a single backstab. He has an equal chance of doing 5
points. Compare that to a 9th level fighter with weapon specilazation. 2
attacks per round, every round to the thief's one.
>
> In a one on one combat between a priest and a rogue, a well prepared
> rogue will probably win. It does not follow from this that rogues are
> better warriors than priests. If a high level rogue got a backstab
> off against a fighter, odds are good that the rogue will be able to
> nearly incapacitate the fighter in one round.
Only at low levels in both cases (warrior/priest). I've already seen the
combat analysis, but the facts there are somewhat skewed in favor of the
thief. Thieves generally have much worse ACs than either priests or
warriors, less strength than fighters and fewer HPs than either. The one
advantage a thief does have is on the XP table, but even then he doesn't
beat the priest by much.
A fighter will almost always trash a thief, even if you give the rogue a
free backstab (and this is not always an easy thing to setup in real
play). If you give the thief the first shot, his max damage is less than
20 points assuming he uses longsword. That will probably knock off a 1st
or 2nd level figther, but no more and we are assuming max damage.
Average damage is only 9 in the absence of magic or STR bonuses which
are added after the backstab multiplier. Once real combat starts, a
fighter with 16 STR, 16 CON and melee weapon specialization is going to
destroy even a thief that is several levels higher.
A fighter with the same thaco, STR and HPs as a thief and armed with the
same weapon will kill that thief rather quickly just on the basis of
extra attacks due to specialization and (probably) a better AC. In the
absence of magic, the best AC your thief can have is 4 (DEX 18+leather).
A figther only needs chain and shield to get that AC. Better armor or a
15 DEX and he is ahead of the thief in AC.
Take a high level thief, say 9th level. He can do x4 backstab damage.
This is 18 points on average with a longsword. A 9th level thief has
about as many XP as a 7th level fighter as I recall. Do you think a F7
can take 18 points of damage? Sure he can. With just a 15 CON, the
fighter has an average of 46hp. The thief has 41hp with the same CON. So
they start the fight with the warrior at 28hp and the thief with 41. But
the fighter's greater STR, better AC and thaco and 3/2 attacks will
still wipe out the thief and I am not even including any possible
specialization bonuses.
The gap between thieves and priests is less, but the same points can be
made. Unless a thief is lucky enough to get in a backstab and he rolls
heavy damage there, he will lose this battle, even if the priest never
bothers to cast a spell.
One point that should be mentioned is that 2nd ed thieves have a much
better thaco than the 1st ed version did. They do in fact have a thaco
that is about as good or better than priests except at high levels while
in the 1st ed, they fought only a little better than magic users and
quite a bit worse than clerics. This is probably a change for the
better, thieves are pretty weak in most situations as it is. In my
experience, a thief is most powerful in an urban setting, particularly
one where the open use of armor and heavy weapons is prohibited. Such an
environment levels the field for the thief and that class becomes that
much more powerful.
Colin Neilson
<joni...@online.no> wrote:
>Colin Neilson wrote:
>>
>> Of course the thief will fight back. For the sake of
>> argument I will arm the thief with a long sword, about the best melee
>> weapon he can use under the circumstances. This gives damage of D12
>> or an average of 6 points per round.
>
>In that case, it will be more favourable for the thief that his
>opponents are large, than it would be for the cleric. Since long sword
>give a lot more damage to large opponents.
This is true, however, the argument I was refuting is that thieves are
better warriors than clerics as a whole. Having a weapon that is
comarativly better against large creatures does not a better warrior
make.
>> Of course, the Cleric can also carry a shield, so let's
>> assume a medium shield +1.
>> Since we armed the thief with the
>> best melee weapon available to him, damage wise, it seems only fair to
>> do the same for the cleric. That would be the footman's flail,
>
>The footman's flail is actually a two-handed weapon. So the cleric can't
>both have a shield, and the footman's flail.
>However, the morning star does an average of 4.5 points of damage
>against a largor opponent, while the footman's flail does 5. So your
>argument isn't far off.
I was using the PHB for weapon information, and in there the footman's
flail is listed as a size M weapon, making it one handed for size M
creatures. I believe that later books did mention that the footman's
flail is a two handed weapon, but the Morning star comes very close in
damage capacity. Thanks.
>> Therefore the thief will
>> survive, with 27-(3.2*7 since the thief will probably get first shot
>> in the kill round,=22)5 hp left. A victory but a costly one.
>> The CLeric will win with
>> 33-(10*2=20)=13 hp left. The Cleric comes out far better in this
>> situation.
>>
>Whereupon the cleric casts 3 Cure Light Wounds upon himself, restoring
>13.5 hps. He has now 26 hps. Then the second Ogre shows up, slightly
>pissed off because the character killed his buddy.
A very good addiotion to the argument. This would further indicate
that the cleric is the superior warrior. The thief would be dead in a
round or two, the Cleric has a much better survival time, and may even
win the second combat. Of course, without spells, the Cleric would
probably still be killed, but he would have much better odds in an
immediate second combat, again indicating that the cleric is the
superior warrior.
>The Ogre will kill the thief in 2 rounds, while taking 5 hp in damage.
>The Cleric will kill the Ogre in 10 rounds, with 6 hp left.
>But on the other hand, if the thief could have started both combats with
>a Backstab, the story might have been quite different.
Which supports my argument that the thief is by far the best guerilla
fighter. This was not the argument I was refuting, however. Being a
warrior implies good skill in a stand up fight, not in stealth and
backstabbing.
>Btw, as someone else as commented, I also believe the Ogres do not gain
>+2 to hit due to high strength. The bonus to damage is included in the
>Monster Compendium which I have. Since it does not also say they have
>bonus to hit in addition to the Thac0 of 17, I would assume it has
>already been included too. Also, why did you give them only +2 to hit.
>To my knowledge, "Ogre Strength" means 18/00, which gives +3 to hit.
>Since the MC gives them +6 to damage, that further suggests they should
>have +3 rather that +2 (if they should have anything).
I just looked at my Momsterous Manual again, and it is a bit odd.
"Ogres weilding weapons get a Strength bonus of +2;" but in the
damage section it gives them 1-10 or weapon +6. I used the lower STR
value which would give +2 to hit and +4 damage for the sake of
argument.
Thanks for the feedback.
Snuggles the Psycho shepherd
>
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:47:23 -0800, Snuggles the Psycho shepherd
> <lo...@ehmail.com.endspam> wrote:
Hey Josh. I didn't write the following.
> >Werebat wrote:
> >
> >> In any event, if you give the ogre a THACO of 17, you are assuming no
> >> strength bonuses "to hit", which is a bit silly IMO. I personally give
> >> the strength bonus to all humanoid creatures, with a few exceptions (such
> >> as centaurs, who have odd strength scores (horse body and human arms) and
> >> are, in any event, not fully humanoid.
The rest of it. eh whatever. your game