Creating a Character VS Discovering a Character

[Water Bob]

In AD&D, it meant that most likely you would fail. You needed a few stats in the 15+ range.

That's where you are wrong. Failing means dying, and much of that control is in the hands of the GM. A good GM doesn't put 1st level characters up against beasties appropriate for a 10th level adventure, does he? They'd get slaughtered, right?

A good GM makes a challenge for his group's characters.

If the the characters are under-powered because of stats (or maybe number), then the GM adjusts the challenge. Instead of 10 goblins, then maybe there are only 4. If the GM is running a published adventure designed for 6 1st level characters, and your group consists of 4 1st level characters, then the GM adjusts the challenge of the adventure to suit.

And, a good roleplayer plays a role, as defined by the character (which is defined by his attributes), no matter what the scores are.

 

[Maxperson]

That's where you are wrong. Failing means dying, and much of that control is in the hands of the GM. A good GM doesn't put 1st level characters up against beasties appropriate for a 10th level adventure, does he? They'd get slaughtered, right?

A good GM makes a challenge for his group's characters.

If the the characters are under-powered because of stats (or maybe number), then the GM adjusts the challenge. Instead of 10 goblins, then maybe there are only 4. If the GM is running a published adventure designed for 6 1st level characters, and your group consists of 4 1st level characters, then the GM adjusts the challenge of the adventure to suit.

And, a good roleplayer plays a role, as defined by the character (which is defined by his attributes), no matter what the scores are.

It seems like you never played AD&D. They were the most difficult to survive of all of the editions. The 1E and 2E deaths of mine to this day comprise about 95% of all the deaths of my characters, and I've played those two for the same amount of years as the later editions. Without a 15 anywhere, your fighter would average 5 hit points(I had many that started in the 1-3 range), your wizard with his 55% of being able to learn a given spell and a 9 spell maximum per level, had 2 hit points without a con bonus. He also had only 1 spell that day. You didn't need to put the 1st level party up against a 10th level adventure. The first group of orcs often did the trick.

Poison was very, very common and was almost always save or die. You started seeing that at, oh, FIRST LEVEL. Giant centipedes for the lose. Saves were also harder to make in those editions. Energy drain also started coming at you very early, there was no save against it, and if you happened to be in the middle of a town at the time(blood unlikely) and could afford that restoration, you still lost all exp you had gained towards your next level. Far more often the level was just gone along with your extra exp towards the next level.

Without high stats to give you a bit of extra defense, those badly needed extra hit points, the needed extra to hit and damage, a boost on saves, etc., your PCs were far more likely to die, and die before hitting level 3.

 

[Water Bob]

It seems like you never played AD&D.

Admittedly not in a long time, but it was the first rpg I learned. And, I've been playing since 1982. Almost 36 years of gaming. A couple of decades of that with AD&D 1E and 2E.

I'd say that I've played it.

They were the most difficult to survive of all of the editions.

I'd agree to that. But what I said above still stands. Much of the challenge is in the hands of the DM, who should adjust the challenge appropriately for his group. The challenge should be different for three 1st level Thieves vs. a well rounded party of 8. If a group is all 1st level, or if a group averages 6th level, then the GM should balance the challenge to fit that group.

Same goes for low stats.



I ran an AD&D 2E game a few years ago where a player rolled up a female elf Warrior and rolled only 1 HP, with no CON bonus. The player played the hell out of that character, and she made second level. At that level, you know what she rolled? No kidding, 1 more HP, for a total of 2 HP. One hit would kill her.

The player continued to played the heck out of the character, finding other ways to shine instead of combat. She always avoided combat. She favored the bow. She started to become interested in magic, and we talked of going multi-class with her.

Then, she hit 3rd level. The player wanted to get her some hit points, so he decided to keep her as a Warrior for that level. The player rolled again. I'm not making this up. He roll 1 on the d10 a third time....

Incredible!

A 3rd level Warrior Elf, with exactly 3 HP!

We finished the adventure, then.

And, the player had a blast playing this character. She became a tactician. A thinker. And, always delivered damage from a distance.

The player, and the group, really got into this character. She only had 3 freakin' hit points, and it got to where the entire group of players was pulling for her.

It was a lot of fun.

 

[Maxperson]

I'd agree to that. But what I said above still stands. Much of the challenge is in the hands of the DM, who should adjust the challenge appropriately for his group. The challenge should be different for three 1st level Thieves vs. a well rounded party of 8. If a group is all 1st level, or if a group averages 6th level, then the GM should balance the challenge to fit that group.

Same goes for low stats.

I did, and the DMs I played with did. You could put 3 orcs up against 5 first level NPCs, and if the orcs win initiative, 3 of the 5 could be down and dying with a few good rolls in round 1 and it ends up a TPK. Proper level challenges killed all the time in 1e and 2e.

I ran an AD&D 2E game a few years ago where a player rolled up a female elf Warrior and rolled only 1 HP, with no CON bonus. The player played the hell out of that character, and she made second level. At that level, you know what she rolled? No kidding, 1 more HP, for a total of 2 HP. One hit would kill her.

The player continued to played the heck out of the character, finding other ways to shine instead of combat. She always avoided combat. She favored the bow. She started to become interested in magic, and we talked of going multi-class with her.

Then, she hit 3rd level. The player wanted to get her some hit points, so he decided to keep her as a Warrior for that level. The player rolled again. I'm not making this up. He roll 1 on the d10 a third time....

Incredible!

A 3rd level Warrior Elf, with exactly 3 HP!

We finished the adventure, then.

And, the player had a blast playing this character. She became a tactician. A thinker. And, always delivered damage from a distance.

The player, and the group, really got into this character. She only had 3 freakin' hit points, and it got to where the entire group of players was pulling for her.

It was a lot of fun.

I played ranged PCs, and not once did every properly leveled enemy conveniently stay far away so I could shoot them to death, or else they had ranged attacks also. If she made it through level 1, let alone 3 levels without going unconscious and dying multiple times, it sounds like you were pulling your punches big time. Encounters built for her level should have destroyed her frequently, and a decent hit or two could put her -10 before anyone else could even react.

Looking at the level 2 encounter table for 1e, it shows 4-10 gnolls, 5-15 stirges, and 3-13 giant centipedes. For a party of 4-5 adventurers. Giant centipedes have a weak poison, but is still save or die. Gnolls have a decent AC and did pretty good damage. And stirges flew, attacked as 4HD creatures, and had a nasty blood drain. Those are challenging fights and even a ranged PC with 1 hit point is likely to fall or die in each one of them.

Edit: So after a bit more thinking, it seems that you tuned your game to accommodate the weaker PC, which falls right in line with the "usually essential" comment in the PHB. That's perfectly fine and as you say, can be a lot of fun. However, if you run encounters as AD&D directed, such a PC would quickly die, and it's with the game's encounter balance in mind that the PHB statement was made.

 

[aramis erak]

In AD&D, it meant that most likely you would fail. You needed a few stats in the 15+ range.

The mods aren't severe enough to have that effect.

 

[Maxperson]

The mods aren't severe enough to have that effect.

The mods aren't that there is. Stats affect other things, including exp gain, so you want high stats in a few areas to increase survival rates and effectiveness in your class.

 

[pemerton]

Do you think it's good DMing to set the players up for failure?

So, you're saying that a character with low stats is doomed to failure?

A character in AD&D with low stats is not per se doomed to failure. For an example, look at the sample starting adventure in the AD&D DMG. The difference between 14 and 15 STR, or 14 and 15 CHA, is not going to be very significant in the context of that adventure.

And the poison saves that Maxperson refers to are not affected by a stat until CON reaches 19. (Unless the character is a dwarf or halfling.) And stats don't give an XP bonus unless they're 16+.

I played ranged PCs, and not once did every properly leveled enemy conveniently stay far away so I could shoot them to death, or else they had ranged attacks also.

It is possible to have a theory of why tailoring encounters is "pulling punches", but letting players re-roll their stats is not. But you haven't stated any such theory, or even pointed in the direction of one.

As far as humanoids are concerned, if Water Bob was using modules then these will have the equipment for those opponents included. Melee-only capabilities were not too uncommon in those adventures.

 

[Maxperson]

A character in AD&D with low stats is not per se doomed to failure. For an example, look at the sample starting adventure in the AD&D DMG. The difference between 14 and 15 STR, or 14 and 15 CHA, is not going to be very significant in the context of that adventure.

And hit points in their entirety are not significant in the context of an adventure with no hit point damage in it. Cherry picked examples are cherry picked. In the wider world of adventuring, those stats are important. I also like how you stop at 15 in your examples when the statement in the PHB is 15+.

And the poison saves that Maxperson refers to are not affected by a stat until CON reaches 19. (Unless the character is a dwarf or halfling.)

I mentioned poison to illustrate the danger of AD&D as a whole. That said, strength, dex, int, and wis due help with poison saves. They all modify class ability to make them more powerful, or aid in hitting, damage and AC, which all work to keep you from having to make a save in the first place. The longer a poisonous creature is alive, the more likely someone is going to die.

And stats don't give an XP bonus unless they're 16+.

And the PHB says 15+, which includes 16, 17, 18 and 19, all of which get the bonus.

It is possible to have a theory of why tailoring encounters is "pulling punches", but letting players re-roll their stats is not. But you haven't stated any such theory, or even pointed in the direction of one.

I don't need a theory as to why re-rolling stats in not pulling punches. Because it factually is not. The game assumes a baseline of stats and allowing a PC to be re-rolled until they meet the baseline cannot be considered "pulling punches". Pulling punches means making something easier than it should be, not making something into what it's supposed to be.

Making encounters easier than they should be in order to keep a 1 hit point PC alive is pulling punches. That's fine, but it falls outside the norm and is one of the odd games of D&D where high stats are not "usually essential".

As far as humanoids are concerned, if Water Bob was using modules then these will have the equipment for those opponents included. Melee-only capabilities were not too uncommon in those adventures.

Which doesn't matter. Even melee opponents are not going to hang out and just let themselves be shot to death. They are going to close distance and hack down the archer.

 

[pemerton]

Even melee opponents are not going to hang out and just let themselves be shot to death. They are going to close distance and hack down the archer.

Not if they can't close. Not if their morale fails and they flee instead. Etc.

You weren't in [MENTION=92305]Water Bob[/MENTION]'s game; you don't know what happened. Your conjecture about how the game unfolded is without foundation.

 

[Maxperson]

Not if they can't close. Not if their morale fails and they flee instead. Etc.

You weren't in @Water Bob's game; you don't know what happened. Your conjecture about how the game unfolded is without foundation.

Sure, I suppose odds longer than winning the lottery could have happened and every single enemy couldn't close for three levels. I played those editions, though. I'm still going with @Water Bob pulled punches to help keep that character going. Again, that's fine, but it falls outside of the "usually essential" language. 1e or 2e run as designed would annihilate the PC.