Doom314 wrote:
First off, armor class in 2nd edition D&D didn't get all that low, at least for the monsters. The lowest AC was the will-o-wisp -8, and that's really super low; Asmodeus, the king of hell, is at -7. Most monsters, even fairly high end monsters, had positive AC. Storm giants, for example, are AC 1, Otyughs are AC 3, Ogre Magi are AC 4. Even the dreaded Beholder is AC 0 (or 2 or 7, if you attack the eyes...screwy system, I admit).
Ok this is just wrong. The "Old" dragons have AC-12, yes that is correct, TSR simply put them at a level they said was not possible for everybody else to reach because the system is closed at -10.
There are a number of other monsters with uber -ac in the -5 to -15 range but your are essentialy correct. However, by the time you are facing those monsters you are wearing a girdle of frost giant strength and have a 25 strength.
The real issue is for low levels because if you did play a fighter without 18/xx strength by 7th level you have 18/00 through your gauntlets. (note that if you do however have exceptional strength you can pass those to the cleric or rogue actually making your party better)
However, a 1st to 3rd level fighter with a +1 magic sword and specilization has a 18 THAC0 (remember at 1 everybody has a 20 even fighters) +1 for specialization and +1 for magic. That means that he hits a zero on a 16. A 3/4/5 level cleric in platemail +1, a shield and with ANY dex bonus is AC 0. The fighters exceptional strength is now the ONLY thing that allows him to hit things that are not push overs.
With high strength THAC0 is basically irrelevant for fighters and it becomes all about how much damage they can do. In the later game this is all that matters anyway because even with a -5 armor class the THAC0 5/6/7 monsters still hit you basically half the time.
A 17 strength isn't out of the question, nor is having a +1 sword by 7th level; together he'll have a better than even chance of hitting most non-unique monsters in the book, including things well above his level.
Here is the thing, if you play a fighter/paladin/ranger with a 17 strength you give up one of your class features. That blows. Especially because besides the paladin these classes don't have a lot of class features anyway.
18/xx strength is only availablae to characters of the warrior subtype. If you DON'T have it then its like playing a rogue who gives up ability to pick locks and gets nothing back for it.
Additionally, basically all the non combat actions 2e assumes warrior types will make are tied to their strength
Breaking things, lifting things, and the ability to crush/bend things are all tied directly to your strength.
Its not just about hitting things, although at low levels it is about that, and its not just about damage, although that is vital as well, and its not just about being able to use everything offered to your class, or about being able to perform your role. Its about how strength becomes a one stop shop for doing these things.
Sure you can play a fighter or a paladin or a ranger with a 17 strength. Or even a 16. You suck and if there is a guy with 18/xx strength the difference in power will appear immedatly as he one shots every 1 hd monster because his minimum damage is 8. If you are say a fighter/mage or a fighter/cleric I would say that putting the 18 into the other main stat is more important anyway.
Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Theif all need 18 in their main stat to get access to all their class abilities.
As far as being a wizard with less than an 18 in intelligence? Well, non-human wizards couldn't make 18th level anyway, so such an issue doesn't concern them. In any event, the experience point rules were written in such a way that, realistically, a player couldn't possibly accrue enough experience to make 18th level without DM fiat.
As somebody else has already pointed out, your chance to learn spells is tied to your intellegence. Also it doesn't really matter how you get there, without the 18 int you are not going to be able have those higher spell levels.
A cleric gets bonus spells per day based on a High Wisdom. Its the only stat that actually provides those in 2e. Without those bonus spells a cleric does not really have enough spell slots avaiable at low levels to actually heal people and get to do anything fun. Without an 18 the fun part of being a cleric runs out sooner.
Not saying 2e was perfect by any means, but getting by with less than an 18 was quite possible (and less than 16 only decent for multiclassed characters); to assert that you can't play more than 1 session with a sub-18 intelligence wizard is extreme.
As you pointed out, it takes a fairly long time to level at the high end in 2e. If you don't have high stats then actually gaining those levels becomes not worth your time you might as well reroll.
However, I do think I need to clarify.
2e lets you be a Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Thief with a 9 Str/9Int/9Wis/9Dex respectively.
Until you get to a 13 in each of those stats, You are basically more of a finderance as that class than an asset. Clerics have spell failure. Fighters have no real ability to lift crush or throw anything. Rogues will fail more often than not at their abilities and so forth.
So EVEN THOUGH you could play a basic class with a main stat in the 9-13 ACTUALLY doing so is not possible.
The 13-15 range has the problem that these spots are all basically dead. 15 dex gives a -1 ac but really the 13 to 15 stat range is quite useless. These stats don't give a penalty but their chance of actually using the stat for anything is also basically nothing.
16-17 actually lets you play a class with that ability as a requirement. Thieves start getting bonuses to their skills, wizard spell learning and max spell level are high enough that multiclassing or dual classing would be a good idea. Clerics have some bonus spells, Fighters get a decent bonus to hit.
However, even with these stats you still lose out on class features. Fighters don't get exceptional strength, clerics/wizards lose maximum spell level, chance to learn spells, and for clerics bonus spells, High wisdom.
So having said all that: The idea that the game ACTUALLY supports low ability scores I say is FALSE. It may let you play but below a 16 (hardly a "low" score in any edition) is just untrue and the fact that they staked so much a fair amount of a characters long term power on having an 18 in your main stat means that for long term play an 18 in a principle stat was expected.
Thats why the npc's look the way they do. All that crap talk about playing people with low scores and the game never expeceted you to play Abergale the fighter whose stats are 15/13/14/9/12/10. That guy just doesn't work in 2e.
