Look at those stats, talk about a munchkin! 
Jon Peterson posts Mordenkainen in 1974
Look at those stats, talk about a munchkin!
This is the way we did things back then. Gauntlets of Ogre Power were for secondary melee characters since fighters, paladins, rangers generally had fairly high strength already so giving the gauntlets to the cleric or thief or monk helped them do more damage. Girdles of Giant Strength were what the main fighters types hoped to find.
3e gauntlets were a joke, we called them Gauntlets of a Few Push Ups since giving them to secondary melee characters was little improvement.
In the 1e PHB it says to reroll your stats if you dont have AT Least two 15s so multiple 15s was common in the characters that survived to high levels.
3e gauntlets were a joke, we called them Gauntlets of a Few Push Ups since giving them to secondary melee characters was little improvement.
In the 1e PHB it says to reroll your stats if you dont have AT Least two 15s so multiple 15s was common in the characters that survived to high levels.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hussar
Legend
It's always funny how experience differs. We started playing in the late 70's and, among the people I played with anyway, Cha was the dump stat. The only character that had a decent Cha was the paladin or the ranger (because they HAD to). Everyone else? That's where you're 9 or lower roll went if you could. Then again, we never really bothered too much with henchmen and hirelings.
I started playing around 1978/1979, AD&D was just coming out. We rolled 3d6 and allowed the player rearrange the stats (so you could place them in the attribute you wanted). One thing we did do, totally munchkin, was just rolled TONS of sets of stats and stopped rolling when we got a set we liked. Our rational..."I just made a character...his stats suck...he kills himself. Next character!"
Sacrosanct
Legend
I imagine we wouldn’t have nearly the overpopulation problems we have now if people with low stats in real life just killed themselves....
Yikes lol. All I can think of is all those PCs shouting out “We’re people too! I don’t wanna die!”
Yikes lol. All I can think of is all those PCs shouting out “We’re people too! I don’t wanna die!”
mach1.9pants
Hero
Except, No matter how hard I try to shield the good rolls pc, they always seem to end up dead /insane /disabled!
Lidgar
Gongfarmer
Spoken for the truth!
Who knows what loyalty rules were being used by Rob Kuntz back when this PC sheet was typed up!
But in the AD&D loyalty rules, it's not that hard to have a fanatically loyal henchman even with only average CHA.
Where CHA comes more into its own, even if henchmen aren't that important to a particular table's style of play, is in affecting reaction rolls. But that assumes that reaction rolls are being used.
I think the bigger influence on the utility of CHA is the divergence of approaches to encounter reactions. In a system in which the reactions of creatures met is determined randomly, having a modifier to those rolls is useful - 13 CHA gives +5, and 16 gives +25, on the AD&D tables.
But if the GM had predetermined encounter reactions - which is increasingly the case with changes in expectations around adventure design and adjudication - then those reaction bonuses become much less important. Hence so does CHA.
The Hierophant
Explorer
1st edition AD&D DMG:
We rolled tons of dice before getting a set of stats we were happy with.
We rolled tons of dice before getting a set of stats we were happy with.
Last edited by a moderator:
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