Shadowdark Unless I am wrong

[Celebrim]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I mean that per the 1e AD&D RAW, if you have a 5 in two different attributes, you do not qualify for any class regardless of what your other stats are. You'd be limited to being a 0th level human who can't advance in levels.

Or this. I wonder if you are universalizing something that was very specific to.your gaming circle?

My gaming circle has crossed like 6 states at this point, and I've heard repeatedly people bragging about how they played "3d6 straight up, in order" or something of that sort in person in those states, as well as online. And it's the sort of thing which in KOTDT, Weird Pete would be made to say when complaining about kids these days. I'm not prepared to provide proof through citations that it's common enough to be a trope, but it's common enough to be a trope.

There is nothing sacred about copying over a ritual of play that was at the time mostly honored in reality in the breach of it, either by making many many characters until by sifting you got one viable (many ways to do this) or by literally cheating (many ways to do that as well). The old school games were not balanced around the idea of average stats. If anything, they too front-loaded things by rewarding better than average stats far more extensively than they perhaps should have. There is no reason for emulating something that was not only dysfunctional back in the day, but which I eventually realized wasn't even being demanded or encouraged by the game's designer.

 

[Reynard]

I mean that per the 1e AD&D RAW, if you have a 5 in two different attributes, you do not qualify for any class regardless of what your other stats are. You'd be limited to being a 0th level human who can't advance in levels.

It has been a long time but I only recall you needing at least one of Str, Int, Wis or Dex of 9 to be a member of one of the core 4.

 

[Celebrim]

It has been a long time but I only recall you needing at least one of Str, Int, Wis or Dex of 9 to be a member of one of the core 4.

For each ability score there is a restriction that if you have 5 or less in that ability, you may only be a member of a single class. For example, if you have 5 or less wisdom you may only be a thief. If you have 5 or less dexterity, you may only be a cleric. But if you have 5 or less in two abilities, then you can't qualify for any class because you would be forbidden from both.

And while the prime requisite for core classes was only a 9, as a practical matter you generally needed at least a 13 or 14. For example, if you were merely a DEX 9 thief, you'd get massive penalties on all your thief abilities. It's not until DEX 13 that you have the minimum DEX to be a competent thief, but as a practical matter without a DEX 16 you shouldn't even bother, because at that point you get only bonuses on your thief skills but the all important 10% bonus to XP.

Similarly, you could be a Wizard with merely 9 INT, but you were forbidden from learning higher levels spells without higher INT, and if you were a Cleric with 9 WIS, you'd have to roll each time you cast a spell to see if it would be successful. In short, you'd suck.

 

[Reynard]

For each ability score there is a restriction that if you have 5 or less in that ability, you may only be a member of a single class. For example, if you have 5 or less wisdom you may only be a thief. If you have 5 or less dexterity, you may only be a cleric. But if you have 5 or less in two abilities, then you can't qualify for any class because you would be forbidden from both.

Ah. Interesting. It is not a rule I can remember ever being invoked, but a character starting with 2 5s is just as unlikely as one starting with 2 16s.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Well in fairness…D&D has had labels and specifics about being able to speak and write and lift and son on…

But I did not see such a thing in my reading of shadowdark. It may only be because it is so succinct…or the creator did not want people on the sidelines.

Kelsey made room for class titles after decades of no one using them. If she wanted to say low intelligence people were half-wits, she would have found the space

 

[Composer99]

I'm inclined to think that giving non-humanoid creatures ability scores is part of the problem. When a typical animal has an Intelligence of, say, 2, it definitely leads to viewing especially low rolls in a more unforgiving light.

 

[Celebrim]

Ah. Interesting. It is not a rule I can remember ever being invoked, but a character starting with 2 5s is just as unlikely as one starting with 2 16s.

About 2.9% chance if you straight up rolled 3d6 rather than 4d6 pick the best three. The odds you'd have at least one 5 or less on six sets of three rolled six times is closer to 25% of the time though. So if you really did it that way - and the official AD&D rules didn't tell you to do so - one in 4 characters you rolled up would be locked into a single class, and about one in 30 would be forced to be a 0th level fighter with no ability to progress.

In practice most tables used 4d6 pick best three and arrange to taste, but IME even then players would make 20 or 30 characters by this method and then after getting one with 18's or at least two 17's or otherwise qualifying for a class like Ranger, Cavalier, Barbarian, Paladin, or Bard that would let you play something useful without maxing out one ability score would then bring that to play and tell me how they rolled it up legally and could they play it. Which of course, I sighed and generally said "Yes", because as long as everyone was doing this it wasn't a problem. It was only a problem if the one guy was being honest and brought to the table something with nothing higher than a 14 because that's really what he rolled, and everyone else was lying or telling half-truths.

In retrospect, knowing what it takes for a 1e AD&D character to actually be good in the long term, I should have used method III at my table and made everyone roll in front of me. That yields across the board good stats without an excessive number of 18s, and it would have made everyone happy and no one would have felt pressured to lie or cheat.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's crazy that you should role-play your character?

Oh, sorry, is my version of roleplaying BadWrongFun? Thanks for letting me know.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Gotcha. There's no wrong way to play. But there are wrong ways to use rules.

Like....trying to interpret modifiers to dice rolls as requiring certain kinds of roleplaying?