Quote from: Spike;1070126Excellent: Lets talk about the social structure of Bronze Age Greece!

We toss about the term 'King' but its probably a lot more accurate to say something like Cheiftan.  Remember that the Greeks at Troy were all 'kings' after a fashion. How many can you name off the top of your head?  I can probably force more than a dozen or so out with a tiny bit of cheating, and I'm sure it was much higher.   Its not much of an exaggeration to suggest that when Odysseus killed all the suitors he wiped out the equivalent of the entire adult male population of Ithaca (though, presumably many of the Suitors were not native to Ithaca).   Its not an unreasonable suggestion that anyone over the age of twenty or so on Ithaca itself has a damn good chance, regardless of social status, of recognizing Odysseus personally, which is why he goes about in disguise.

King, sure. But to clarify: Right now I live in a small town of about 15k people.  By the standards of the day there would probably be three or more 'kings' in this one town alone, if not more.  Don't forget that Odysseus tried to get out of the Trojan war by plowing his fields, implying strongly that even the kings had manual labor they had to perform.

No, the Greeks worthy of mention were often lords or kings, not all of them present. It's a standard demographic pyramid, a small number of wealthy aristocrats, with a much larger number of yeoman in their train.

He was still a lord, even if king was being generous to his actual means; an aristocrat, categorically not any kind of "ordinary man". Because ordinary men did not fight and could not afford their own equipment. They tended fields on the behalf of bigger men, or worked their little garden plots.

And no, he didn't wipe out the "entire adult male population of Ithaca" by killing the suitors. At most he killed the bulk of the aristocratic, unmarried, male population of marriageable age. Which was a significantly smaller subset of that rather large figure. With perhaps a small number of additional from outside his island kingdom.

That he might know many of his subjects doesn't change the fact that as a lord or king, he has a whole suite of advantages and skills no "ordinary man" of the period would have. Including the leisure time to develop combat skills.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1070130Bah! Even gods in 5e D&D know to dump Strength if using a bow. Much like their mortal followers that somehow have no trouble stringing and drawing a longbow with the ubiquitous Strength 8 dump stat.

5E doesn't have composite longbows?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1070130Bah! Even gods in 5e D&D know to dump Strength if using a bow. Much like their mortal followers that somehow have no trouble stringing and drawing a longbow with the ubiquitous Strength 8 dump stat.

Uh, I tend to give my archers a decent strength, in D&D, even if it doesn't really matter mechanically.  Although I have found that in the long run, it's beneficial, cuz sometimes a sword is more effective than ranged attacks in a melee.

Also, why are people so desperate to make Odysseus into a 'normal' dood?  He never was.  Because he'd have never been a King, nor would have been part of the Trojan War.  Also, if I remember correctly, the only reason why he tried to be a farmer to avoid the War was because he had gotten a prophecy claiming that he wouldn't be able to return home after at least a decade.  And Ody, having a beautiful wife, wanted to get back to her as soon as he could.

Quote from: Kiero;1070133No, the Greeks worthy of mention were often lords or kings, not all of them present. It's a standard demographic pyramid, a small number of wealthy aristocrats, with a much larger number of yeoman in their train.

Not actually arguing my point, despite starting with "no".  I agree: All the greeks worthy of mention were kings by some definition. Absolutely. But also by that standard, Greece alone provided literally dozens of 'kings', making them very, very small kings, which is why I suggested chieftain is more accurate in scope and, for that matter, social relevance.

QuoteHe was still a lord, even if king was being generous to his actual means; an aristocrat, categorically not any kind of "ordinary man". Because ordinary men did not fight and could not afford their own equipment. They tended fields on the behalf of bigger men, or worked their little garden plots.

Still not arguing against my point.  Odysseus commanded enough men to crew several ships, so we are agreed that Odysseus was not Private Odysseus, otherwise anonymous grunt digging ditches.   You seem to think he commanded some vast impersonal kingdom from high up in his palace, which is a very modern, and not very bronze age, view of kingship.  

QuoteAnd no, he didn't wipe out the "entire adult male population of Ithaca" by killing the suitors. At most he killed the bulk of the aristocratic, unmarried, male population of marriageable age. Which was a significantly smaller subset of that rather large figure. With perhaps a small number of additional from outside his island kingdom.

In 2011, Ithaca's population is just over 2000 people. Its not unreasonable to suggest that in the bronze age that number was much smaller, and most, if not all, the adult male population had left for war (Troy) twenty years earlier and ONLY Odysseus returned home.   Odysseus kills 108 men, which very probably was close to the number of adult men living on Ithaca at the time, given the two prior facts.  We may allow some confusion over what constituites an adult man, as it is common, but not universal, to discount men older and younger than fighting age, but even still...

QuoteThat he might know many of his subjects doesn't change the fact that as a lord or king, he has a whole suite of advantages and skills no "ordinary man" of the period would have. Including the leisure time to develop combat skills.

Yet its not just believable but canon fact (from Homer's Illiad, which as you clearly know precedes the Odyessy) that Odysseus plows his own farm, and his vast kingdom is an island that supports maybe 500 or so people in his day (roughly 1250 BC).  

Since you seem to be struggling with this: I'm not at all disputing that Odysseus was in the highest social class of his realm. In fact we know he owned several slaves. Of course, we also know he built his own bed rather than hiring a craftsman, in addition to plowing his own fields, so clearly he was not far removed from manual labor despite all that.   Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that Odysseus was a social parasite aristocrat who studied warfare because he had time, not that he was a ruler because he was the guy who had to go out and fight off raiders and pirates, which is far more likely.  Most nobility arose from dedicated warrior classes, which arose from the necessity of having guys who COULD fight, and thus were largely exempted from the labor to produce food so they could train and be good at it.


EDIT::: A fun bit of trivia, and a minor self correction:  Odysseus's HOME is Ithica, while his KINGDOM was about four islands, maybe six depending on which source you use.  He brought a total of 12 ships (compared to Agammenon's 100), each crewed by 120 dudes from six islands (Illiad as source), making him in greek terms a very minor king.  For funsies, we assume an even distribution of ships/islands, he took 240 men from Ithaca, and only he returned, and we can presume that he took MOST of the fighting age men to war with him, leaving only some slave or serf farmers, along with young boys and old but hale men to maintain the joint.  So 108 is low for Ithaca (maybe a third?) at its height, but after losing EVERYONE to the war and the trip home, its actually.... pretty spot on.

So my initial comment about Killing Ithaca's adult male population more or less stands, but my comment about how small a kingdom is slightly off, since Odysseus has more than one Island.  My Bad.

EDIT AGAIN: Since I have shit memory, I forgot to point out that around the same era, Ramses took four divisions of 5000 men, or 20,000 men to battle at Kadesh against the Hittites, compared to Odysseus's 1440 at Troy (using Homer's numbers).  When people think of kings I bet they think more like Ramses or Muwatalli II of Hattusa, than some pissant island 'king' like Odysseus.   In persepective, focusing on what a kingly guy he was is a bit like pointing out that the Duke of Luxemburg is a world leader.  Sure, strictly speaking. But when was the last time the Duke of Luxemburg set international trade rates aflame?

The entire point I am making is that Odysseus is not an "ordinary guy". Which people keep saying.

Being removed from manual labour is not the point, that he is from the top social class is what precludes him being an "ordinary guy". There's nothing ordinary about being from the elite. Doesn't matter whether that is impoverished or close to the manual end of things by dint of the actual setup of the real kingdom he rules over. If he weren't a king, he would have been chased off trying to claim guest-friendship with other kings.

As for Ramses and his ilk, they're more equivalent to Persian kings-of-kings - they had a distinction already built in for people who weren't merely the headman of a few villages, but someone who those headmen paid fealty to.

Quote from: Kiero;1070139The entire point I am making is that Odysseus is not an "ordinary guy". Which people keep saying.

And I never tried to make the claim he was an ordinary guy. My focus was on that 'king' is sort of a stretch based on his actual status and position, while Chieftain (still acknowledging his place at the top of the social order, but far more accurate to his actual position) was a better choice.

QuoteBeing removed from manual labour is not the point, that he is from the top social class is what precludes him being an "ordinary guy". There's nothing ordinary about being from the elite. Doesn't matter whether that is impoverished or close to the manual end of things by dint of the actual setup of the real kingdom he rules over. If he weren't a king, he would have been chased off trying to claim guest-friendship with other kings.

Actually, any member of the upper classes, to include most or all the guys Odysseus took with him, could claim that.  Actually, greek rules of hospitality applied to all social orders. Note that while pretending to be a begger Odysseus claims hospitality rights in his own house, and gets it, at least in accordance to what a Begger deserves from a 'king', which is some food and a dry place to sleep, and an old servant woman to wash his feet, not bad for a begger!

QuoteAs for Ramses and his ilk, they're more equivalent to Persian kings-of-kings - they had a distinction already built in for people who weren't merely the headman of a few villages, but someone who those headmen paid fealty to.

Yet also: Agammemnon brought ten times the ships and men Odysseus did and is still called King, not King-of-kings.  

Sorry, I can be a bit pedantic over use of language.  King is just a huge stretch given Odysseus's actual position in even Greek states, much less the Late Bronze Age.  His value to the Greeks wasn't his vast horde of fightan men, but his great cunning.   In that regards he might as well have been an ordinary man (socially), as they'd have drug his ass to war just on account of how damned tricky he was known to be.   I mean: In one sense we're comparing him to a guy who killed a fucking river. By THAT standard, Odysseys WAS an ordinary guy, king or no king.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1069843No, it's EASIER for people with natural talent, but if someone WANTS to be better than what they are, they can try.  The problem is that D&D, especially early editions, your stats are locked.  Thing is, it doesn't work that way.  You start practicing with a sword, your strength and dexterity (In D&D terms) doesn't stay at 9, it increases, as does your endurance.  Intelligence might be the only stat that tends not to change, although evidence suggests it can decrease.  But in pre-3e D&D, nothing short of magic could increase your stats, no matter how much extra training you claimed to do, you were LOCKED in, permanently.

Quote from: Chris24601;1069866You know, the fact that people do effectively "train up" in real life what are ability scores in the game is actually a REALLY good point. So good in fact it actually makes me want to rewrite the rules towards that end because D&D is basically 180 degrees backwards on it. In D&D you're naturally really strong so you choose to be a fighter. In real life, you start training to be a fighter and become really strong.

Chris1: In early D&D you could improve stats. But only via aging, magic, pools and tomes in AD&D and I believe OD&D. Dont think so in BX and would have to dig through 2e to see what they did.

Chris2: In early D&D actually the assumption was that the PC had been training up to become their chosen class before becoming an adventurer. They were an apprentice, farmer, did training on the sly, etc prior. I believe it even mentions this in the DMG but cant pin it down at a glance.

X: Dragon and I am pretty sure 2e both introduced systems for improving stats. But even there the general assumption was the PCs had been training up or at least doing something, and/or naturally good stats, prior to the start of the adventuring.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1070115He got by on his extraordinary cunning, exceptional strength and fighting prowess (though less than some warriors like Achilles), and superb social skills in persuasion and deception. This is not somebody with an everyman's set of ability scores. There is no low score to be found here, so if this is an argument against using an ability array, Odysseus is perhaps only useful as "that player that rolled really well...at home...he says...but he must be telling the truth."

Odysseus is the protagonist of mythic tales, even more relevant than what stats he rolled is the fact that his attack rolls and saving throws and such are all exactly what are needed to propel the story forward.

Quote from: Cave Bear;10701345E doesn't have composite longbows?

Not as such, no. The game has changed such that you can use Strength as your attack and damage bonus informer (and are required to do so for things like greatswords), or use Dexterity (and are required to do so for things like bows), or either-or (for a select band of equipment with the 'finesse' property, such as rapiers). Much digital ink and think-pieces have been spent on the issue, but what it means is that you don't feel compelled to have fighters with 18 Str, 18 Dex, 18 Con, and can actually decide to put a good stat in Int, Wis, or Cha (but the guy with high Strength and Dexterity can switch-hit as needed, so everyone has some advantage).

Quote from: Omega;1070146Chris1: In early D&D you could improve stats. But only via aging, magic, pools and tomes in AD&D and I believe OD&D. Dont think so in BX and would have to dig through 2e to see what they did.

Chris2: In early D&D actually the assumption was that the PC had been training up to become their chosen class before becoming an adventurer. They were an apprentice, farmer, did training on the sly, etc prior. I believe it even mentions this in the DMG but cant pin it down at a glance.

X: Dragon and I am pretty sure 2e both introduced systems for improving stats. But even there the general assumption was the PCs had been training up or at least doing something, and/or naturally good stats, prior to the start of the adventuring.

Early D&D seemed to have all sorts of changing of stats. The whole rule addition to 1e where increasing your stats with wishes to start requiring 10 wishes/ per stat point when the stat was 16+ must have come about because too many early games had entirely too many wishes flying about. There were also magic pools in modules which raised stats, and of course a bunch of magic items. What modern D&D did that I like wasn't that you could increase your stats naturally as you leveled, so much as give some clarity on how frequent those that-improvements were supposed to be. Although, if I were to design a game, I think I'd leave stats as mostly static, and let level (y'know, the think that is supposed to increase over time to signify your character getting better at what they do) be the primary determiner of power.

Quote from: Omega;1070146Chris2: In early D&D actually the assumption was that the PC had been training up to become their chosen class before becoming an adventurer. They were an apprentice, farmer, did training on the sly, etc prior. I believe it even mentions this in the DMG but cant pin it down at a glance.

But if that were the case, why would completely random scores make sense? Indeed, it seems 180 degrees backward. You roll your scores and then decide what you were training to become based on what works best with the random rolls instead of deciding to train to be a warrior or cleric or wizard and then training up your most important abilities to the limit you're able.

It almost feels like each class should have its own set of rolls (kinda akin to Palladium RCCs) for their ability scores (ex. a fighter rolls STR 2d4+10, DEX/CON 2d6+6, INT/WIS/CHA 3d6) or something like extra dice for certain scores (i.e. all scores are best three dice, but fighters get to roll 5 dice for Str, 4 for Dex/Con and 3 for Int/Wis/Cha).

Even better, reflect the real order that this stuff develops in... like you roll 2d6 (keeping track of the separate die results) in order so you've got a sense of your natural aptitudes as a child about to start an apprenticeship, then you pick your class and the class gives you 1-3 extra dice (3 extra for one score, 2 extra for two others and 1 extra for the other three) for each score and you use the best three results (including your initial two dice) for each score.

Quote from: Omega;1070146Chris1: In early D&D you could improve stats. But only via aging, magic, pools and tomes in AD&D and I believe OD&D. Dont think so in BX and would have to dig through 2e to see what they did.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1070148Early D&D seemed to have all sorts of changing of stats. The whole rule addition to 1e where increasing your stats with wishes to start requiring 10 wishes/ per stat point when the stat was 16+ must have come about because too many early games had entirely too many wishes flying about.

The random magic tables give a surprisingly good chance of items with wishes, even in the original books where wish was not a spell -- 1 in 20 magic swords came with 2d4 wishes if you used the random item table. Arguably there were more valuable uses for wishes (especially in OD&D where ability scores didn't affect as much), but increasing stats at the higher range became more valuable with the Greyhawk supplement, which also introduced wish as a 9th level spell, and the manuals and tomes that increased statistics. (AD&D also weakened the permanent spell; a permanent strength spell was a shortcut to very high strength for a fighter, and I can recall players doing that.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1070136Uh, I tend to give my archers a decent strength, in D&D, even if it doesn't really matter mechanically.  Although I have found that in the long run, it's beneficial, cuz sometimes a sword is more effective than ranged attacks in a melee.

In 5e that shortsword that archers tend to keep as a side weapon can be used with Dexterity on the attack & damage rolls. With Strength 8, the archer can carry 80 lbs. of gear without any negative effects of encumbrance, so Strength gets dumped hard.

Apparently, I need to re-evaluate my opinion of Odysseus.  Live and learn.  

House rule in my groups was to allow a strength bonus for custom made bows.  It made for a nice way to separate a PC from some of its GP, given that such bows were very expensive to make.  With the HP bloat in 5e, it won't affect game balance on whit.  Players feel good about it though.

Ability scores, except charisma, in OD&D really did not matter much, a bonus to XPTs, or a small bonus/minus for missile fire or hit points if the dex was 13+, or con 15+.    Charisma mattered because of the number of hirelings a PC could get, and their loyalty.  There was little point in any mechanics for increasing them.  However, Greyhawk changed all of this, but did not provide any way for a PC to 'train up' ability scores.  Not a feature, a flaw, IMO.

I had the impression wishes were mainly used to undo PC death's, rather than bump ability scores.

Quote from: Chris24601;1070151But if that were the case, why would completely random scores make sense? Indeed, it seems 180 degrees backward. You roll your scores and then decide what you were training to become based on what works best with the random rolls instead of deciding to train to be a warrior or cleric or wizard and then training up your most important abilities to the limit you're able.

I think you are looking at this backward...randomly roll the stats and THEN decide the class.  Then assume he trained for that class growing up.  If the stats really match his class well, that was him doing what he was naturally gifted to do.  If the stats don't match as well to the class you want to play, then that was him really wanting to be a fighter instead of a mage even if he has a 13 STR and a 15 INT.  Obviously, He spent a lot of time training his physical stats to even get his strength to that level.  Remember, at one time, the character actually had to have certain stats to qualify for a given class.

Quote from: Chris24601;1070151It almost feels like each class should have its own set of rolls (kinda akin to Palladium RCCs) for their ability scores (ex. a fighter rolls STR 2d4+10, DEX/CON 2d6+6, INT/WIS/CHA 3d6) or something like extra dice for certain scores (i.e. all scores are best three dice, but fighters get to roll 5 dice for Str, 4 for Dex/Con and 3 for Int/Wis/Cha).

That would have been the optional rule from the back of 1E Unearthed Arcana.

Quote from: moonsweeper;1070259I think you are looking at this backward...randomly roll the stats and THEN decide the class.  Then assume he trained for that class growing up.  If the stats really match his class well, that was him doing what he was naturally gifted to do.  If the stats don't match as well to the class you want to play, then that was him really wanting to be a fighter instead of a mage even if he has a 13 STR and a 15 INT.  Obviously, He spent a lot of time training his physical stats to even get his strength to that level.  Remember, at one time, the character actually had to have certain stats to qualify for a given class.

We viewed the rolled stats as an inkblot; you played whatever you saw in them. (But I viewed adventurers as fundamentally lazy - willing to take absurd risks for huge amounts of treasure - so did not retcon to explain the stats through training; they went in for whatever their natural talents suggested.)

The minimum stats for a class started in AD&D 1e; it still exists in D&D 5e in order to multiclass, but not for single classed characters.

Quote from: rawma;1070261We viewed the rolled stats as an inkblot; you played whatever you saw in them. (But I viewed adventurers as fundamentally lazy - willing to take absurd risks for huge amounts of treasure - so did not retcon to explain the stats through training; they went in for whatever their natural talents suggested.)

The minimum stats for a class started in AD&D 1e; it still exists in D&D 5e in order to multiclass, but not for single classed characters.

I was mostly just trying to give Chris an idea of how to view the 'training' aspect backstory in relation to the numbers on a character sheet. Mostly a 'role-playing' justification for having an odd array of random stats I guess.

I do like the inkblot analogy.

1. Roll dice for stats in order
2. This looks like a thief (or magic-user or whatever) to me

That is pretty much how I remember it.