Goodman Games

While reading the book, I've come across several cases where there may be an opposed strength check where the creature has a score over 18. For example, the Minotaur gets treated as having a str of 24. I don't recall coming across a chart that tells me the modifier for that.

There isn't one... at least not outside of Goodman Games HQ...

My best estimates, based on some various information found through different parts of the book are that

19 = +3
20 = +4
21 = +5
22 = +6
I will have to re-look up the information again... I may already be off of my original guesswork.

Reasoning: somewhere in the book something is mentioned as having a 20 strength and he corresponding +4 modifier, I am assuming they would have said 19 +4 if that score matched the modifier (assumption being that they would list the lowest score with a +4 mod).

Somewhere else a 22 strength is mentioned with a +6 modifier, and if a 20 is +4 and a 22 is +6, then a +5 falls in exactly one place.

TheNobleDrake wrote:Somewhere else a 22 strength is mentioned with a +6 modifier, and if a 20 is +4 and a 22 is +6, then a +5 falls in exactly one place.

In the Ogre entry of the bestiary section.

Colin

Str 22 = +6 matches up with 3rd Edition, which I think was the ability score progression Joseph was originally going with. During playtests he changed it to something closer to the rules circa 1980. So that's probably a holdover / typo that didn't get updated.

My guess is that it now works like this:

18-19: +3
20-21: +4
22-23: +5
24-27: +6

As I said, though, strictly a guess.

Rick wrote:

18-19: +3
20-21: +4
22-23: +5
24-27: +6

As I said, though, strictly a guess.

What I was hoping, but the book seemed to shoot down with its random mentions of Strength scores, was that the table was exactly what it appears to be - the very table used in BECM D&D.

I may, actually, just go with that for my own games because of the familiar feel... it'd be easy for me to re-memorize it.

This is one of those "probably never have to use it" topics, at least in my world. The ability score charts are quite similar to those in B/X D&D. What I did "back in the day" was something like this:

3 (one number) -3
4-5 (two numbers) -2
6-8 (three numbers) -1
9-12 (four numbers) +0
13-15 (three numbers) +1
16-17 (two numbers) +2
18 (one number) +3
19-20 (two numbers) +4
21-23 (three numbers) +5
24-27 (four numbers) +6
28-32 (five numbers) +7
33-38 (six numbers) +8
etc.

What it does is make bonuses above +3 progressively harder and harder to obtain. I hardly ever had any characters with stats over 19 or 20. I'm kind of stingy there, but I did make a chart just in case.

Frankly, the easy rule would be that 19 and higher would be +4. No tricky charts to deal with. You just become "studly" no matter how high your number goes....

TheNobleDrake wrote:What I was hoping, but the book seemed to shoot down with its random mentions of Strength scores, was that the table was exactly what it appears to be - the very table used in BECM D&D.

I may, actually, just go with that for my own games because of the familiar feel... it'd be easy for me to re-memorize it.

If I'm not doing a playtest, I just "fake it" the way you suggest. Pick a rule you like and just go with it.

My players sometimes comment that they can't tell if we're playing OD&D or C&C since I keep doing things pretty much the same way no matter what "rules set" we are playing.

Of course, with DCC we get those lovely crit tables and fumble charts. Oh, and they die a lot. They can always tell when we play DCC.

finarvyn wrote:If I'm not doing a playtest, I just "fake it" the way you suggest. Pick a rule you like and just go with it.

Good to see I'm not alone.

finarvyn wrote:My players sometimes comment that they can't tell if we're playing OD&D or C&C since I keep doing things pretty much the same way no matter what "rules set" we are playing.

My players can easily tell the difference between the different systems we use, even in the same genre (such as Pathfinder, AD&D, and DCC, or even using BESM to run a psuedomedieval fantasy game) as I am very keen on keeping distinct flavor for each rules set... mostly because my house rule tolerance for a game (the level to which I can stand to modify it to fit my desires) is inversely related to the rules complexity and granularity of the system before modification.

I have almost zero house-rules to Pathfinder, run AD&D either as a house-rules more than book-rules game (straight PHB) or with extreme adherence to the written rules chosen (Player's Option series), and so on...

DCC... well... thus far I haven't actually over-ruled anything in the book, but I have an entire 3" binder full of additions and alterations floating around in my head being slowly refined before trying them out - ability modifier tables ranging from 1 to some undetermined "this is as good as it gets" value, rules for extended play beyond 10th level that might or might not adhere to the idea of bounded accuracy beyond some point (like 2e THACO, AC, and Save hard-caps), more spells, magical doo-dads, patron/god profiles, and a whole slew of me writing down monsters that worked so that I can keep improving my monstercraft every single session.

finarvyn wrote:Of course, with DCC we get those lovely crit tables and fumble charts. Oh, and they die a lot. They can always tell when we play DCC.

My players can tell we are playing DCC too... they do not utter the phrase "...that was a bad idea, but at least we managed to accomplish our goal anyway," like they do in other similar genre games... they say "...that was a bad idea, but some of us managed to survive... let's see if we can trick some new recruits into joining us before our next outing."