Look at those stats, talk about a munchkin! 
Jon Peterson posts Mordenkainen in 1974
Look at those stats, talk about a munchkin!
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
i want a staff of power with 192 charges!
Break that sucker and the entire world goes with you.
This is 1974, not AD&D. From what I understand many ability scores (not including charisma and I think strength) had zero benefit at all from having high scores. There were just no rules written for that yet. A 18 intelligence would give you bragging rights but would have no effect on the game. I don't think there were even experience point bonuses for high scores yet.
Sacrosanct
Legend
...a little circular there.
I mean, I'm glad you've never seen those problems. I'm not sure I've ever played AD&D with a party that I believe was legitimately rolled, and its always...always...the guy who says he loves AD&D above all other editions who ends up with 18/% "naturally" rolled. And the lunacy of rolling methods...yeesh.
AD&D doesn't have that explicitly, but its clear to me that the designers expected that either (A) You'd be cheating to get high stats anyway or (B) You'd be "weeding out" characters with low stats at high levels.
There are, to my knowledge, exactly zero editions of this game that don't factor your stats into the game design. Even if it adjusts your XP and nothing else...that's a factor into the game design itself. (I mean, otherwise, why bother having stats?)
erm...okay....gonna have to disagree with you there.
And the difference between a 9 STR and a 18/00 STR is +4/+6. So, yeah like 4 levels or more worth of offensive power for the Fighter. Seems to me like that influences your ability to hit your enemy quite a bit. Its just all bunched up into the end of the scale. That gives fighter players a super-clear incentive to lie, cheat, and steal to get that 18 and roll the %.
What % of an AD&D's STR 18/00 Ftr10's offensive capacity vs a STR 9 FTR10's offensive capacity is based on Stats? Its at least 40%, just due to the "to hit" bonus. I'm not sure how to factor in the +6 damage/hit, but I'm confident that it would end up being 50% or more. That is, assuming the Ftr10 hasn't girdled up or something by then.
I would say that its true that most of the other stat-class interactions are not so strong in AD&D (with the possible exception of thieves and Dex), at least once play has started.
I'll give you the saving throws, but see you adventures written with absolute requirements like "a total Strength of 25 between two characters is necessary to open the door." Skills, may depend on where you draw the lines, the way proficiency checks worked in 2e actually incentivized players even more. I mean, each point was a straight-up 5% increase in success chances.
Also, wanna play a paladin, or ranger? or an elf? or anything other than a human thief or cleric?....good luck doing that without the appropriate stats. Oh, shoot, even a human thief or cleric is only qualified for by characters meeting certain requirements. I don't even think its mathematically possible to quantify the stat-dependence between a 10th level character with high stats and one who didn't even qualify to play that class.
Oh, wait,...does that qualify as stats factoring into the game design?
Again, the AD&D stat bonuses are just compressed at the end of the scales, not spread out. All that does is incentivize players to cheat them up. If your playgroups never caught on to that...well, cheers, I guess. I've played in multiple AD&D playgroups intermittently since the 80's and they all seem to exhibit the behaviors I've mentioned wrt to fighters, STR, and AD&D. I see much more diversity in primary stat values in later editions (some of which may be due to less class restrictions).
If you like AD&D, that's great, play it away. I just don't buy the "later editions are more stat-dependent" argument though, and you'd need at least a 19 Charisma to convince me otherwise.
All that being said, I'd be happy, and have even suggested that D&D drop stats (or random stats, anyway) entirely and wrap all of that into your other character choices and perhaps a quirks system.
I’m on my phone, so I apologize for not editing out this wall of text into maneagable blocks where I respond to each. So I’ll just say a couple things.
You didn’t say AD&D didn’t factor in stats. You said it was not LESS stat dependent then later editions. Thats wrong, as I explained. Not only from a design standpoint (how often were stats considered in other aspects of the mechanics), but also from a pure math standpoint. Again, something like a saving throw or to hit bonus was much more impacted by level than the stat, where in later editions the stat bonus accounts for a much larger % of that overall bonus.
Secondly, a 18/00 stat is an aberration that is limited to one gender and limited class, and has a minute chance of even getting just by the odds. The game is not built around assuming everyone will have an 18/00 strength unlike, say, 5e, where it IS assumed PCs will max out their stats (ALL PCs, all genders). There is even a mechanic for it: ASI. Also, even if you do consider an 18/00, later editions allowed you to go above that, into the 20s and beyond. Which of course means even more bonuses that a 1e PC would never have.
So to say that AD&D is not less stat dependent than later editions simply isn’t true. The mechanics are obvious of which editions placed more emphasis on stat scores. This isn’t opinion, the math and rules show this clearly.
oreofox
Explorer
Speaking of the horrific "rolling for stats" and cheating just to get that 18/00: This is an anecdote of my personal sessions in the very limited time I played 2e AD&D before 3e came out. First, my sister's human fighter (an abomination in itself, as she typically goes for elven spellcasters). We rolled 3d6, and I think in order but can't be certain (which would explain the fighter), and she rolled an 18. We didn't have many dice, so it was 1d6 three times. On the % for exceptional Strength, she rolled a 76. No other character in that party had a score higher than 16.
2nd story: I was rolling up a character in my now-brother-in-law's campaign (my friend married my sister from that first story). All rolls were with physical dice, right in front of the DM's eyes. Again, we used 3d6 though we could put them wherever. My exact rolls were 18, 18, 18, 17, 16, 12. I could have had the biggest badass I have ever played. However, I said screw that and gave those stats to the DM for an NPC (the BBEG that we would have faced if not for abandoning AD&D for 3e). I rerolled and got a much worse character (I think my highest was a 14?).
What does all that have to do with anything? Like I said, just anecdotes about people only getting high stats by cheating, which just isn't true. Did other people cheat? Probably. Looking back at those rolls with the 3 18s, that character would have been mediocre to good in Pathfinder. 5e did great by limiting the numbers to 20 for PCs. And no where during at least 2e AD&D did I hear anyone say that having a 14 in your character's main stat meant you were gimping yourself like I have since 3.5 came out. Hell, a 7, 8, or 9 weren't completely garbage until 3rd edition came out. Emphasis on stats is a big thing in WotC era D&D. I don't ever recall seeing a monster's stats in a Monster Manual (other than Intelligence) before 3rd edition came out. Yes, getting 18/00 was everyone's dream, but you weren't considered a garbage fighter if you had a 15 in Strength. Now, if you have a 15 in Strength as a martial class (fighter, paladin, barbarian mostly), you are considered garbage and dragging the whole party down because you "wanted to play a special snowflake because charop is bad!!!".
2nd story: I was rolling up a character in my now-brother-in-law's campaign (my friend married my sister from that first story). All rolls were with physical dice, right in front of the DM's eyes. Again, we used 3d6 though we could put them wherever. My exact rolls were 18, 18, 18, 17, 16, 12. I could have had the biggest badass I have ever played. However, I said screw that and gave those stats to the DM for an NPC (the BBEG that we would have faced if not for abandoning AD&D for 3e). I rerolled and got a much worse character (I think my highest was a 14?).
What does all that have to do with anything? Like I said, just anecdotes about people only getting high stats by cheating, which just isn't true. Did other people cheat? Probably. Looking back at those rolls with the 3 18s, that character would have been mediocre to good in Pathfinder. 5e did great by limiting the numbers to 20 for PCs. And no where during at least 2e AD&D did I hear anyone say that having a 14 in your character's main stat meant you were gimping yourself like I have since 3.5 came out. Hell, a 7, 8, or 9 weren't completely garbage until 3rd edition came out. Emphasis on stats is a big thing in WotC era D&D. I don't ever recall seeing a monster's stats in a Monster Manual (other than Intelligence) before 3rd edition came out. Yes, getting 18/00 was everyone's dream, but you weren't considered a garbage fighter if you had a 15 in Strength. Now, if you have a 15 in Strength as a martial class (fighter, paladin, barbarian mostly), you are considered garbage and dragging the whole party down because you "wanted to play a special snowflake because charop is bad!!!".
Ratskinner
Adventurer
No problem.
I disagree with your reasoning and interpretations for the reasons I cited. You can say that you think the linear stats of WotC D&D makes the game more stat-dependent than something like forbidding someone from even taking a class they want, but that is purely a matter of opinion at that point. Repeating the assertion doesn't help your case. Your "pure math" points are nonsense, as I illustrated. You just cherry picked which parts of the stat curve and rules you want to emphasize. It is true that impact of stats in the old editions is less linear (or orderly) and less openly-acknowledged (or explicit) than it is in the WotC editions, but that doesn't make it lesser.
Its an aberration that I've seen so many times that it beggars comprehension in human nature. I'm not even sure I've seen an AD&D pure fighter without %ile Strength. Seeing these early characters, and listening to how people react to conversations like these, I am forced to believe that stat-cheating was so commonplace in the early days that it was expected. I don't believe the math supports your final assertion in this paragraph. Girdles of Giant Strength were in the game pretty early on. The last AD&D Dwarf Fighter I saw had a Strength 23 (IIRC) from a belt of some kind. Are you counting AD&D as a "later edition?" Depending on where you draw your early/later edition line, 2e AD&D had (IIRC) Dex 19+ characters automatically become ambidextrous and two-weapon capable.
It is and they do not. You're picking a few simple modes of comparison, and ignoring the fact that there are other modes that are profound in their impact on play and characters. These modes are not all mathematically comparable because they are qualitatively different (i.e. apples and oranges). I mean, how do you even begin to compare "You just can't be a paladin." and "You do X% more DPR?" You might say/think/feel that more rolls in play are stat dependent, but you can't really compare the rolls and decisions that a player won't even be making in play because the dice forbade them from taking class X or race Y? That renders that impression a matter of opinion.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
I reject the assertion that there is a singular 1e perspective. I've seen way too many variations on rules and play to believe in it anymore.
Weird then, since you were playing 5e, that the DM didn't somehow forbid you from acting on this assumption.
How on earth is that stat-dependent? An AD&D monk player might just as well have said "Monks can't use swords." Having a 13 Str or 9 Str is irrelevant to the statement.
If you never experienced players acting foolishly before 5e, you should count yourself lucky. (Or not. Honestly, some of the funniest things I can recall about D&D are from people being foolish.)
I don't know what to tell you. If you don't see a difference between someone thinking, reacting to, and talking about the in narrative facts of the game, and worrying about what is going on in the plot, and someone who is looking and thinking about how he can keep and manage a +2 proficiency bonus, then you just don't see it and that's fine. I am talking about the facts in the encounter, and my buddy was talking about the facts on his sheet. I half wanted to say in character "what is a proficiency bonus?" Keep on managing your stats and playing based on your stats if that makes you happy. I will play in the moment, and if the stats serve my play so be it, and if they don't I will cope. But I certainly would never think about not taking a logical course of action because I might lose a +2 proficiency. I wouldn't even be thinking about such a thing. I don't know why you would think a DM should ban me from making an in game realization. Why would a DM ban good playing, which is what paying attention is. I wouldn't play with a DM who banned me from using my head.
On further research it seems that a high Int in 1974 would indeed give an experience point bonus to wizards (thought that came in a later version) as well as extra languages (didn't see a rule showing how many though) and allow freedom to take certain "courses of action" (I guess if your character was too dumb, Gary would veto your strategic choices?)
One thing I also noticed was according to the rules at that time the referee was to roll the character's attributes. So don't blame Blume for munchkinry. Blame the EGG
Not sure if everyone actually followed that rule, but that's RAW in Men and Magic
I have heard elsewhere that common practice was to roll all the ability scores for all your hirelings and henchmen and if something exceptional was rolled you could snag that character as a potential PC.
One thing I also noticed was according to the rules at that time the referee was to roll the character's attributes. So don't blame Blume for munchkinry. Blame the EGG
Not sure if everyone actually followed that rule, but that's RAW in Men and Magic
I have heard elsewhere that common practice was to roll all the ability scores for all your hirelings and henchmen and if something exceptional was rolled you could snag that character as a potential PC.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hussar
Legend
I reject your reality and substitute my own. There is no difference here. The 1e PHB is pretty clear - Monks cannot use swords. Full stop. If the player said the same thing, in either edition, he wouldn't be wrong. Again, it's not merely a suggestion, the 1e PHB states, "There are a number of strictures which monk characters must abide by. (1e PHB P 32)" That doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation.
In the 1e case, it's not about losing a proficiency bonus, it's that, by the rules, he flat out CAN'T use that, regardless of the story.
Now, you can ignore the rules all you like, but, I'm finding it hard to think that if you ignored the rules in 1e, you'd have any real problem ignoring them in 5e. And vice versa. I know, flat out, that any DM I played with back in the day would have forbidden my monk character from using that sword. Pass it to someone else? Fair enough, but, again, that has nothing to do with the rules.
Maybe we are talking about two different games. The game I was in was 5e, where I believe Monks are allowed to use swords. The question is not whether he could use it, but whether or not a +2 profiency bonus would come with it. I am not entirely sure what rule you are referring to here.
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Monk#content
"Starting Proficiencies
You are proficient with the following items, in addition to any proficiencies provided by your race or background.
Armor: none
Weapons: simple Weapons, shortswords"
He can use a sword, legally allowed to it seems. He just doesn;t get a bonus on all swords. I don't think I have ignored any rule. If the character legally cannot do something, then they cannot do something. But even as a 1e Magic User if I saw a Holy Avenger, damn straight I am taking it and figuring out how to get it to my Paladin buddy. I never said anyone should break a rule or campaigned for it.
I would have no problem ignoring the rules in 5e, and if I were to ever DM one, damage dealing cantrips would be the first thing to go.
Similar Threads
Related Articles
-
D&D General Playing at the World 2nd Edition, Volume 1, The Invention of Dungeons and Dragons- Started by darjr
- Replies: 12
-
D&D General Fifty Years of Dungeons & Dragons, collection of essays published by MIT Press- Started by MNblockhead
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
D&D General D&D Survivor: Dragons, Chromatic- Started by RealAlHazred
- Replies: 281