Prime Requisite Always = Intelligence

[Dethklok]

For one of my games I ruled that smarter characters took XP bonuses because they learned faster. I was looking through Adventurer Conqueror King and thinking about doing this again. Did anybody else play this way?

It didn't make any sense to me that strong fighters or dextrous thieves learned faster; they had more natural ability, and that simply made them better at the outset. Making this change prevented intelligence from being a dumpstat.

[Pilo]

I understand your point of view but I don't agree with you.

A crude exemple is no matter how intelligent is Stephen hawkings, it won't help him to jump better.

A high stat means great talent in a field while experience is related to working, training, learning to improves this talent.
Talent implies that the training will go smooth as the character will make less mistakes at start and have a shorter path to succeed than a character with no talent whose will have to work harder for the same result.

You may understand how a magic tricks works, that does not implies you can do it if you are clumsy.

[The Rose Dragon]

In one word: No.

In more words: Intelligence (however it is defined) has always been consistently one of the more important stats in any game I've played that has it (World of Darkness, Mutants & Masterminds, Exalted and True20 being some of those games). But it was never a dump stat. In World of Darkness and Exalted, it could be paired with any ability to signify your theoretical knowledge of the topic (such as Firearms, where you are very good at knowing how they work, but might not be a very good shot). In Mutants & Masterminds, it affected several feats and skills, such as Inventor or Master Plan, that were often immensely useful. In True20, it affected many an adept's powers and an expert's skills. It did not need boosting.

In case it did? Giving bonus XP would not be the way to do it. It would make Intelligence the one stat that no one could ignore, because anyone with lower Intelligence would be quickly left behind even in endeavors they primarily focused on instead of buying intelligence. In Exalted and World of Darkness, for example, giving even one bonus XP every session to someone with Intelligence 5 (a very extreme case) would mean everyone would get Intelligence 5, pretty much immediately (just like everyone in Exalted currently gets Willpower 10, pretty much immediately).

Finally, on a less balance-focused and more conceptual level, XP is rarely actual, in-character "learning from experience". It is a metagame construct designed to allow for player character advancement and keeping them balanced. It has nothing to do with how fast you learn in-character (in the World of Darkness and Exalted, that has more to do with training times, which is not affected by Intelligence unless you are a Lunar, and even then only in stats directly tied to Intelligence).

((You will note that I made no mention of True20 or Mutants & Masterminds in the XP discussion, despite them having an Intelligence stat. That's because True20 is a class- and level-based system that has story-based advancement, with everyone getting a level at the same time when the Narrator deems it suitable, and Mutants & Masterminds has a point-based advancement system heavy in descriptors where the points can give you things like superpowers, extra intelligence or more luck, so it clearly can't have anything to do with any single thing in-character.))

[Zerter]

I disagree with doing this strongly. You might have some kind of real life logic behind what intelligence does, but intelligence in the gaming world is something else entirely. Real life is just one of many factors of why intelligence is what is in a game. I could spend the entire day typing examples of why to keep the two seperate, but lets just do one and keep it related to intelligence. If you are healthier your brain functions better, therefore any increase in constitution also results in an increase in intelligence and a decrease in constitution decreases your intelligence.

[Eurus]

Indeed. It doesn't fit particularly well fluff-wise, and it causes big problems mechanically.

Honestly, the whole prime requisite, higher stat=faster XP thing in general is a really unfortunate idea and the only reason I can see for it still existing is getting grandfathered in for retro reasons.

[Kiero]

In ACKS higher Int already gives you bonus General Proficiencies and extra languages. Giving extra XP seems to ridiculously over-reward getting lucky on the dice.

[Kaun]

Yeah, no....

In my mind this doesn't even have much basis in rl...

I mean if intelligence was the key factor contributing to how quickly you became successful in your chosen profession why aren't all the MIT grads playing NFL and NBA? I mean the pay is a hell of a lot better and you can always go back the theoretical physics once your to old to play top tier sports.

[LibraryOgre]

In Planescape: Torment, they used Wisdom, on the rationale that it let you have better grasp of things... you may not be able to intellectualize them, but you internalized them.

However, I agree with Pilo & others... high intelligence doesn't mean you'll do better in all endeavours.

[Alejandro]

In my experience, someone with high Charisma can earn more 'XP' in the workplace than someone with high Intelligence.

Someone already made the pro sports reference, as well.

[Lapak]

Indeed. It doesn't fit particularly well fluff-wise, and it causes big problems mechanically.

Honestly, the whole prime requisite, higher stat=faster XP thing in general is a really unfortunate idea and the only reason I can see for it still existing is getting grandfathered in for retro reasons.You're more or less right, though it's worth noting that in really retro terms high XP was the benefit you got from a high stat. The difference between a 16 STR fighter and a 10 STR fighter was pretty much just that the stronger guy found it easier to progress and that's it - having everything fighter-y come a little easier was the abstraction of his natural talent. Since high stats give direct benefits these days, that particular abstraction isn't really relevant; the high-STR fighter is 10% better that the meh-STR fighter because he gets +2 to hit, not because he has 10% more experience points.

[Jay R]

Is the football team composed of the average strength guys on the honor roll, or the big strong guys, even those who are barely passing?

My experience in the SCA is that the big, strong guys became better fighters much more quickly that the relatively weaker guys with advance degrees.

I suspect that a strong guy with a high IQ has a small advantage over a strong guy with an average IQ, but I am positive that a strong guy with an average IQ has a large advantage over somebody with everage strength and high intelligence.


You're more or less right, though it's worth noting that in really retro terms high XP was the benefit you got from a high stat. The difference between a 16 STR fighter and a 10 STR fighter was pretty much just that the stronger guy found it easier to progress and that's it - having everything fighter-y come a little easier was the abstraction of his natural talent.

Sure, but that lasted for only one year. When Greyhawk came out in 1975, STR bonuses came with it.

[Kiero]

You're more or less right, though it's worth noting that in really retro terms high XP was the benefit you got from a high stat. The difference between a 16 STR fighter and a 10 STR fighter was pretty much just that the stronger guy found it easier to progress and that's it - having everything fighter-y come a little easier was the abstraction of his natural talent. Since high stats give direct benefits these days, that particular abstraction isn't really relevant; the high-STR fighter is 10% better that the meh-STR fighter because he gets +2 to hit, not because he has 10% more experience points.

Yes, but it adds insult to injury. Not only is that higher Str fighter better every single time he's called upon to do his job, but he advances faster, too.

Worth noting that in OD&D, Str 16 gave +2 to hit and damage, so still very useful. All that's really different from modern iterations was bonuses coming slightly later (9-12 is "average" ie +0, 13-15 is +1, 16-17 is +2 and 18 +3).

[Lapak]

Sure, but that lasted for only one year. When Greyhawk came out in 1975, STR bonuses came with it.


Yes, but it adds insult to injury. Not only is that higher Str fighter better every single time he's called upon to do his job, but he advances faster, too.

Worth noting that in OD&D, Str 16 gave +2 to hit and damage, so still very useful. All that's really different from modern iterations was bonuses coming slightly later (9-12 is "average" ie +0, 13-15 is +1, 16-17 is +2 and 18 +3).That's why I said that "that particular abstraction isn't really relevant?" I was just making a comment on where it came from.

(And while you'd be on target for AD&D, Kiero, I'm reasonably sure that 16 STR was only a +1 before that, and a 15 gave nothing at all. Could be wrong, but that's what I recall.)

EDIT as that originally came out more antagonistic than intended.

[Kiero]

(And while you'd be on target for AD&D, Kiero, I'm reasonably sure that 16 STR was only a +1 before that, and a 15 gave nothing at all. Could be wrong, but that's what I recall.)

Nope, those are the modifiers in all the incarnations of OD&D. It's in Red Box (it's on p36 in the middle of the booklet) and it's also in ACKS, which is derived from the Expert Set. You get penalties starting with an 8 and bonuses starting with a 13.

The idea that ability scores didn't matter in older editions of D&D is one of those oft-perpetuated myths. They mattered during play (bonuses mean you're better at what you're doing) and they mattered over the course of play (because of XP bonuses).

[Lapak]

Nope, those are the modifiers in all the incarnations of OD&D. It's in Red Box (it's on p36 in the middle of the booklet) and it's also in ACKS, which is derived from the Expert Set. You get penalties starting with an 8 and bonuses starting with a 13.

The idea that ability scores didn't matter in older editions of D&D is one of those oft-perpetuated myths. They mattered during play (bonuses mean you're better at what you're doing) and they mattered over the course of play (because of XP bonuses).Since you mention the Red Box, we might be running into a Holmes vs. Mentzer/Moldvay difference here since I really honestly don't remember a STR bonus coming into play - or it could even be that *I* was the one conflating AD&D with OD&D in my head, because on checking my 2e book last night it's definitely 16 STR to get any benefit and then it's only a +1 to damage - but since I'm not disagreeing with the basic premise of "there's no particular reason to double-up on the benefit at this point" I'm fine with ceding the point. :smalltongue:

[Kiero]

Since you mention the Red Box, we might be running into a Holmes vs. Mentzer/Moldvay difference here since I really honestly don't remember a STR bonus coming into play - or it could even be that *I* was the one conflating AD&D with OD&D in my head, because on checking my 2e book last night it's definitely 16 STR to get any benefit and then it's only a +1 to damage - but since I'm not disagreeing with the basic premise of "there's no particular reason to double-up on the benefit at this point" I'm fine with ceding the point. :smalltongue:

Now you are tickling my recollection of AD&D2e; was that a specific exception in the case of Strength (because of 18/nn)? I can't actually remember if other attributes used the same scale, or a different one.

[Jay R]

Nope, those are the modifiers in all the incarnations of OD&D. It's in Red Box (it's on p36 in the middle of the booklet) and it's also in ACKS, which is derived from the Expert Set. You get penalties starting with an 8 and bonuses starting with a 13.

The idea that ability scores didn't matter in older editions of D&D is one of those oft-perpetuated myths. They mattered during play (bonuses mean you're better at what you're doing) and they mattered over the course of play (because of XP bonuses).

The Red Box is not original D&D. D&D came out in 1974 in a white box. It required Chainmail to be able to play. In that version, the only Prime Characteristics were Strength, Wisdom, and Intelligence. The only effect they had were +5% xps f r 14-14, and +10% for 16+.

There were a few brief rules for the effects of Con, Dex and Cha, however.

When the first supplement (Greyhawk) came out in 1975, it added more effects from ability scores. (It also added thieves, and Dex became a potential Prime Characteristic.)

The Red Box was part of the revision of original D&D, which started in 1977.

But in the first year, before Greyhawk came out, Prime Characteristic scores didn't matter except for the xp bonus.

[Lapak]

Now you are tickling my recollection of AD&D2e; was that a specific exception in the case of Strength (because of 18/nn)? I can't actually remember if other attributes used the same scale, or a different one.I think all of them had different charts, though I am once again away from the books. I am reasonably sure that Dex also had a staggered bonus chart; IIRC you got an AC adjustment at 15 but not a missile-weapon-bonus adjustment until 16 (or that other way around). AD&D 2e INT had a complete progression where every point mattered to a wizard in terms of chance to learn spells, how many spells you could learn, and etc.

So I think every attribute was unique in that regard. But on double checking Holmes definitely only had ability score modifiers for some abilities and not others, and of course Jay R is right about early-early OD&D.

[Belril Duskwalk]

I think all of them had different charts, though I am once again away from the books. I am reasonably sure that Dex also had a staggered bonus chart; IIRC you got an AC adjustment at 15 but not a missile-weapon-bonus adjustment until 16 (or that other way around). AD&D 2e INT had a complete progression where every point mattered to a wizard in terms of chance to learn spells, how many spells you could learn, and etc.

As luck has it, I play 2nd edition frequently. I didn't even need to get out of my chair to reach the PHB.
In combat terms:
Strength starts mattering at 16, where it gets you a +1 damage adjustment. Before that the difference between scores only matters for Weight Allowances, forcing open stuck doors, bending bars/lifting gates, etc.

Dexterity is literally the same from 7-14. At 15 you get a Defense boost and at 16 you start getting Missile Weapon pluses.

Constitution is only useful for differences in System Shock checks and Resurrection Survival checks between 7 and 14. Below 7 you get less HP on level up. At 15 you start getting more HP on level up.

Intelligence, every point matters... if you're a wizard. INT determines maximum spell level and chances to learn spells and every point from 9 up makes things better. For non-wizards INT is useful for the number of languages you know or bonus non-weapon proficiencies, whichever your DM preferred.

Wisdom bonuses scale from 9 if you're a cleric. You need at least a 13 before you stop having a chance of your spells failing, and starting from 13 you get extra spells to cast the higher your wisdom goes. For non-clerics Wisdom finally starts mattering at 15 where it gives you bonuses to Savings throws vs. mind affecting abilities.

Charisma is actually one of the stats with less open space. Your maximum allowable henchman scales pretty well throughout and your reaction adjustments start going positive at 13.

Using Prime Reqs at this point is mostly a retro type of thing. As you can see in the physical stats you start getting the XP bonus just after you started getting the more notable benefits out of them. For mental stats, the bonuses scale well throughout, the XP bonus simply serves to point out where the powerhouses are.

Also: AD&D 2nd Edition. Charts. Charts EVERYWHERE!!!