This came to mind while posting in the other thread about minimum ability scores. What's up with Wisdom scores for the different classes? Here's a breakdown of the minimum WIS scores needed for each class in both 1E and 2E:
Fighter = Any
Magic User = Any
Illusionist = Any
Thief = Any
Assassin = Any
Cleric = 9
Druid = 12
Paladin = 13
Ranger = 14
Monk = 15
How is it that clerics, who are supposed to be the epitome of Wisdom, and whose only prime requisite is Wisdom, need only a 9 while druids need a 12, paladins a 13, rangers a 14 and monks 15? I get it that certain classes are supposed to be more rare and therefore harder to qualify for. But why would a ranger of all things need a higher WIS score than a paladin or, cleric, or druid? I'm not getting that. I guess I can see a monk needing a higher WIS. But to me the WIS scores needed never made sense.
Fighter, magic-user, cleric and thief are all special cases. They're the base classes of their type. The others were originally more advanced classes that were harder to get into because you were unlikely to have the die rolls to pull it off. You may as well ask why a ranger or paladin needs to be stronger than a fighter. Or why a 1e monk needs to be stronger than all of them (2e monks from Spells & Magic are a type of priest character and look like it). I think they felt like it was okay if these characters got more tricks and abilities than their generic counterparts.
There is no reason for the stat requirements aside from artificial rarity. Once you stop doing Method I or Method III where you roll 3d6 a total of 6 times without extra dice or extra rolls to choose between, you start eroding that. Honestly it's not a balanced way to make a game but unless you use a point buy system for stats and a static hp reward for going up levels you can run into similar imbalances. A single die roll in either area affects a character for the rest of the game.
lanir wrote:Fighter, magic-user, cleric and thief are all special cases. They're the base classes of their type. The others were originally more advanced classes that were harder to get into because you were unlikely to have the die rolls to pull it off. You may as well ask why a ranger or paladin needs to be stronger than a fighter. Or why a 1e monk needs to be stronger than all of them (2e monks from Spells & Magic are a type of priest character and look like it). I think they felt like it was okay if these characters got more tricks and abilities than their generic counterparts.
There is no reason for the stat requirements aside from artificial rarity. Once you stop doing Method I or Method III where you roll 3d6 a total of 6 times without extra dice or extra rolls to choose between, you start eroding that. Honestly it's not a balanced way to make a game but unless you use a point buy system for stats and a static hp reward for going up levels you can run into similar imbalances. A single die roll in either area affects a character for the rest of the game.
Yup. They were done as a means to make the sub-classes supposdly rarer to get..
Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:I get that. But as far as in-game logic goes, it seems odd that a ranger needs a higher WIS of all things, than any other class except a monk.
Just like why does an illusionist need a greater intelligence than a mage. Or a ranger need a higher str than a fighter.. IMO overthinking it can lead to brain freeze!
I can see the illusionist needing a higher INT than a magic user because of the intricacies of illusions. But a ranger with more wisdom than a cleric? Why would a ranger need that high a WIS score?
It's the gamist thing. It's numbers that are thrown in there to be there not for what they represent. Inside the game world that sort of thing is probably meaningless or outright wrong. The only way I can make sense of the mess is to say there are lots of fighters who have nature-oriented knowledge and skills. A ranger would then be someone who can walk the warrior path but have the extra presence of mind to also really specialize in tracking, dabble in some very advanced animal handling practices and dabble into nature magics all at the same time. He needs a higher wisdom than the cleric because he's multitasking and needs more raw talent to stay focused on multiple areas effectively.
But that's really just hacking an excuse into a bunch of random looking numbers. The reality is they don't mean too much and never did.
I would disagree with that a lot. Ability scores definitely have meaning in the game. Now, the question is - do the players play the character indicated by the ability scores? But ability scores help define the character and enable him to do different things. A wizard with really high INT for example, can speak ore languages, cast higher level spells, and learn more spells per level, than a wizard with lesser INT. To me that makes total sense, just as a fighter with a very high STR score can do more damage with a blow than a fighter with a lower STR score. Who would do more damage hitting me with a mace - Arnold Schwarzenneger in his prime, or Sister Lenore (the old crone of a nun I had in 5th grade) who once broke a wooden ruler across my ass, only to have me laugh at her as she virtually sprained her semi-mummified hand in the process? A thief with a higher DEX score will clearly be able better able to dodge blows and therefore enjoy a lower AC than his less nimble counterpart. It makes sense to me.
