Is the +3 bonus too much?

[aspiringlich]

A 1st level fighter with an 18 str has a melee THAC0 of 16, which means he's the equivalent of a 5th level fighter, combat wise (in fact, even better because a 5th level fighter doesn't necessarily do +3 damage). I wonder sometimes if the bonus progression should have been consistently like this:

3 = -2
4-8 = -1
9-12 = 0
13-17 = +1
18 = +2

which would mimic the dex initiative and charisma reaction bonuses. Either that, or 3d6-in-order for rolling abilities is an absolute necessity.

[Blood axe]

Maybe strength should only give a damage bonus. No "to hit" bonus. Raw strength is not accuracy.

[aspiringlich]

That's one way to go too, which I've also considered. It would also balance with DEX, which gives only a 'to hit' bonus.

[merias]

I find it fun to de-emphasize ability scores and use 3d6 to roll them. The OEC rules are a good fit for this, as they have small (+1) DEX and CON bonuses, but no STR bonuses at all, similar to OD&D. I would use that system, and house-rule STR as follows:

STR bonuses or penalties to damage only on melee or hand-hurled weapons, also adjustment to open doors roll
3-6: -1
7-14: 0
15-18: +1

You could go one step further and give the STR damage bonus only to fighters (or the fighter race-classes), to emphasize their melee potential over other classes.

[aspiringlich]

I'm running an OEC campaign right now and that's exactly how I do it: fighters (and only fighters) get +1 damage for 15+ strength.

[kingius]

Last night I ran a game where a Dwarf character had strength 18. He died to a giant ferret which killed him with one bite.

[aspiringlich]

True, I'm not saying that 18 str makes them invincible. I just find the idea that having a high strength gives you the fighting capability of a fighter who has earned 16,000 more XP than you have a difficult one to swallow.

[Urieal]

3 = -2
4-8 = -1
9-12 = 0
13-17 = +1
18 = +2

My absolute favorite and I then use the 3d6 method. That way, unless you get REALLY lucky, you won't have that +2...but if you do...guard that PC

[aspiringlich]

Yeah, that's a nice middle ground between the OEC, which gives practically nothing (I had to house rule in a +1 for fighters with 15+ strength) and LL/AEC, which gives a little too much. Granted, rolling 3d6 in order means that 18 strength would be really rare (less than half a percent chance) and even allowing for arranging the rolls to taste only bumps it up to 2.5% of the time (if I did the math right), so maybe it's not worth worrying about.

[JVWest]

I like the classic scheme:

3 = -3
4-6 = -2
7-8 = -1
9-12 = 0
13-15 = +1
16-17 = +2
18 = +3

It has a simple elegance and makes the high and low ends of the spectrum actually mean something.

In my game the fighter-type characters can choose between Str or Dex to apply to their hit rolls (once chosen, always the same). This gives the player the ability to customize the PC's style a bit. Some like a brawny type fighter and others like a fighter with finesse.

I would not be opposed to making the to hit vs. damage thing be an either/or condition. So if you have a +3 you can apply it to hit OR to damage, but not both. I don't actually use that rule but I think it could be a good one.

Scores of 17-18 in my games are rare, though. In the current game nobody has an 18. One PC has a 17. There are several 15-16 scores.