What 5e got wrong

[ChrisCarlson]

The point was that you could get away with lower stats in 1E/2E much easier because the bonuses were almost all smaller (except 18__ damage bonuses) and saves were on the chart, not stat-based. Only a few subclasses were MAD rather than all. The game math, while clunky, wasn't as dependent on high attributes. In other words, unless you were a stickler for encumberance, there was basically no difference between a 9-strength fighter and a 16-strength fighter.

I love that 5e, with its bounded accuracy, has managed to curve a great deal back towards that side of the pendulum swing.

 

[Herschel]

I'm great with the idea also, math bloat has always been an annoyance, but again, the execution is lacking, which is my issue.

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

You completely missed the point. Stats (3d6 vs 4d6) are going to average slightly higher with 4d6, and 4d6 was common back in 1E/2E also.

The point was that you could get away with lower stats in 1E/2E much easier because the bonuses were almost all smaller (except 18__ damage bonuses) and saves were on the chart, not stat-based. Only a few subclasses were MAD rather than all. The game math, while clunky, wasn't as dependent on high attributes. In other words, unless you were a stickler for encumberance, there was basically no difference between a 9-strength fighter and a 16-strength fighter.

As for Level Limits, which has no bearing on this point anyway, who actually used those? They were probably the single most ignored rule in the game.

It seems that you've at least one of my points, too: when comparing systems, RAW, the rules do matter, even when houseruling was common.

RAW, it was much more difficult to create the character you wanted in 1E/2E than it is in 5E.

Stat generation was defaulted to 3d6 in order in both 1E and 2E. Regardless of whether it was common to use one of the optional generation methods, or house-rule other options, that was the system rule, as seen in tournament play and otherwise. And I acknowledged in my prior response that yes, the 4d6 generation did offer a higher yield of scores, by approximately 1.75 points. The issue is completely with the default generation of 3d6, and the lack of genuine impact of higher or lower scores within the spread (excepting extreme ends of the spectrum), except in terms of limiting character options. With the exception of multiclassing, 5e doesn't have score requirements for characters - and sure, you may be less effective, depending on score placement, but standard assignable array is the default, followed by assignable 4d6 generation -- players have a high level of control over how effective the characters are, and a few low scores aren't going to prevent a character option outright.

Sure there was little difference between a 9 Strength and a 16 Strength at face value, when looking at hit and damage, but Ability Scores also arbitrarily meant different things in different situations (encumbrance aside). They were the metric against which non-combat tasks were attempted - direct d20 against the score - someone with a 16 Strength had a 35% higher likelihood of achieving the same task a 9 Strength PC attempted - in this instance it was way more swingy and the higher score held much more meaning. Sure, the 16 didn't have much more impact on to hit and damage, but it did impact other things in combat, especially where level limits are concerned. A PC elf fighter stuck at level 5, with either a 9 or 16 Strength, while the rest of the party had hit level 9 or higher, had, on average, 22 less hit points than than any other fighter in the party. One could argue that the elf player wasn't playing a character suitable for the group, to consider appropriate levels for a given challenge, but then, that player wouldn't be playing the character he or she preferred, either.

And in regards to subclasses and ability scores - with the exception of the core four classes, all the other classes, considered subclasses in 1E, required multiple scores in excess of 12, with some requiring 15 or higher.

Don't get me wrong - I loved playing the earlier editions, and would still play them, given the opportunity. I just feel that more choices are available and the rules don't outright bar most choices, and bounded accuracy ensures that all characters are effective, though some more than others.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Stat generation was defaulted to 3d6 in order in both 1E and 2E.

/snip

This is not true. 3d6 in order wasn't even an option in 1e D&D:

Method I: Roll 4d6 and drop lowest die six times, arrange freely.
Method II: Roll 3d6 twelve times and take best six results, arrange freely.
Method III: Roll 3d6 six times for each stat and take best, arrange in order. (So, roll STR six times, take best number, and so on.)
Method IV: Roll 3d6 in order for 12 characters, and pick the one you like most.

Note Method V was presented in the Unearthed Arcana and was even more generous.

3d6 in order was the default in Basic/Expert D&D.

Did 2e change things from 1e?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[NotActuallyTim]

You left out where you think 5e is the best thing ever.

I'm a little put out, actually. I was genuinely expecting a lot of self-declared PF fans to come out of the woodwork praising 5e, but instead I get two former/disilusioned PF fans (thanks for your honesty, BTW) praising 5e, and one PF fan not actually getting to the praise. Unless that's what you meant by "Well I just have," in which case, thanks!

It took me a while to respond to this, since it honestly seems like you refuse to take anything I say seriously.

5E is not the best thing ever. It's pretty darn cool, but it's no Feng Shui, and it never will be. Furthermore, I am not 'disillusioned.' I am a PF fan. I just no longer obsessively demand that all TRPGs be Pathfinder, and nothing else, which was my previous stance from both PF and 3.X.

You see, before I was a PF fan, I was not a PF fan. I was an anal retentive PF obsessing jerk who firmly believed that any game which claimed to be an RPG, yet wasn't Pathfinder or 3.x, was not a real game, but some kind trick on honest Pathfinder players, trying to steal their precious time from building PF characters and carefully detailing adventurers in proper, Pathfinder approved manner. For a time, I didn't even play games that weren't tabletop. I only played Pathfinder.

Now I'm just a fan. Not 'disillusioned,' just not as much of an as I used to be.

 

[delericho]

Did 2e change things from 1e?

Yes. 2nd Ed's options:

Method I was 3d6 in order.

Method II was 3d6 twice (keep best) in order.

Method III was 3d6 six times, arrange to suit.

Method IV was 3d6 twelve times, keep best six, arrange to suit.

Method V was 4d6-drop-lowest six times, arrange to suit. (There was a dire warning in the DMG that this was overpowered. Silly me, I believed it at the time.)

Method VI had each stat start at 8 and had the player roll 7d6. They could then assign those dice to the stats as they wished, with two caveats: they couldn't 'split' a die, and they couldn't go above 18 in any stat. So if you rolled seven '6's, it actually wasn't the best result. That was the method we used, basically from day one.

Skills & Powers added some more methods, mostly some form of point buy.

 

[delericho]

With the exception of multiclassing, 5e doesn't have score requirements for characters - and sure, you may be less effective, depending on score placement, but standard assignable array is the default, followed by assignable 4d6 generation -- players have a high level of control over how effective the characters are, and a few low scores aren't going to prevent a character option outright.

???

I've just checked the Basic Rules, and the 4d6 method is presented first with the standard array following. (Point Buy is called out as a Variant Rule.)

Though I'm not sure I'd necessarily describe either as the default method - the Basic Rules make it clear that you can choose to roll or use the array; obviously, one of them had to be presented first.

 

[Hussar]

That's not true.

A little history. The AD&D PHB was released in 1977, and referenced the non-existent DMG for generation of ability scores. So, the default was to use 3d6 (the accepted and customary method). This happened early and often for two years of play.

Then, in 1979, the DMG was released. As you note, the DMG proposes alternate methods, but only as alternates to the customary 3d6 method. p. 11, DMG:

"Four alternatives [to the 3d6 method] are offered to player characters."

Now, some additional notes-

IME, AD&D games used either a 3d6 method (traditional) or a 4d6 method (drop lowest one).
Most people were unaware of this provision in the DMG. Seriously, it wasn't something that was read cover-to-cover by many people.
No one, ever, that I know of, used methods III or IV.

So saying it wasnt an option isn't true. It remained an option and fairly common (again, IME). The DMG was critical of the 3d6 method, but it was entrenched, and even the DMG presented alternatives to the default.

Since we're quoting the books:

As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:

Even as early as the 1e DMG, they are noting that people basically cheated when they rolled 3d6 in order. "extended periods of attempts at finding a suitable one" indeed. IOW, since many people already cheat when they roll 3d6 in order, you might as well use these systems which will give you better results without having to roll and reroll over and over until you get a character you want to play.


I started playing in 1980, so, I can't speak to before that, but, I'm thinking that 1979 is far enough back to pretty much count as pretty much always. And, I certainly am not going to begin to attempt to claim to know how much "most people" were or were not aware of rolling rules. I know our group, in the very first session, rolled 4d6 drop lowest, so, it mustn't have been too hard to find the rules.

So, basically, we're talking about the 2 years from the 1e PHB to the DMG being released where 3d6 may have been the default. But, since that point, unless you were playing Holmes or Mentzer Basic, there is actually no listing for 3d6 in order in AD&D.

Since we're playing duelling anecdotes, I never saw a single group play 3d6 in order. Ever. I'm sure that some did though, I've certainly heard about this mythical beast, but, every where I went, every group I played with, 4d6 drop lowest was always the standard.

 

[Maxperson]

Since we're quoting the books:



Even as early as the 1e DMG, they are noting that people basically cheated when they rolled 3d6 in order. "extended periods of attempts at finding a suitable one" indeed. IOW, since many people already cheat when they roll 3d6 in order, you might as well use these systems which will give you better results without having to roll and reroll over and over until you get a character you want to play.

It wasn't cheating. It was pretty much required as this from the PHB shows...

"The premise of the game is each player character is above average - at least in some respects - and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."

If you used 3d6 in order, you often didn't end up with a character that qualified and had to re-roll.

Since we're playing duelling anecdotes, I never saw a single group play 3d6 in order. Ever. I'm sure that some did though, I've certainly heard about this mythical beast, but, every where I went, every group I played with, 4d6 drop lowest was always the standard.

We periodically tried it, but stopped after making one or two characters that died quickly due to lousy stats.