D&D 5E Do you miss attribute minimums/maximums?

[nharwell]

Some old modules used roll-under ability scores as an alternative to saves in some instances. But it was sporadic rather than systematic, and not really used as "skill checks". Mostly I remember this from Judges Guild rather than TSR.

Dungeoneer's Survival Guide was the first time this was used as a skill system (Oriental Adventures had a non-weapon proficiency system but it wasn't based on ability scores). I'm fairly certain this type of system wasn't introduced in Dragon Magazine. There was a similar system I remember from Dragon Magazine, though, in which you rolled a number of D6s (the greater the difficulty, the more dice rolled) with the goal of rolling under the relevant ability score. We tried it for awhile but eventually discarded it - but in retrospect I think it was a much better system than the d20 roll-under-stat approach.

 

[Celebrim]

A nice increase to weight allowance and 7x greater chance to bend bars/lift gates for strength. Greatly increased system shock and resurrection survival rates for con. You left out a significant intelligence difference. The min/max known spells for wizards. Dexterity had some significant penalties to thief skills from 9-12. Charisma increased henchman and at 14 increased loyalty and reaction rolls.

So Wisdom, Strength, Intelligence, Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma all had significant differences from 9-14. Woah! That's all of them, leaving 0 where there was "...pretty much no difference between a 9 and 14.".

While I agree that there were differences, most of them only applied to you if you were a class that cared about the ability score. That is you really only cared about chance of clerical spell failure if you were a Cleric, or the maximum knows spells if you were a Wizard, or changes in the thief abilities if you were a thief. For most classes though, if you had 16 in your prime requisite, everything else was basically gravy. And having an 18 was a huge advantage over a 16, but really only if it was your prime requisite. A cleric might love an 18 Str, but it would be largely wasted on a cleric, as the bonuses from 18/XX strength were massive compared to the difference between a 16 and an 18. Unless you were a fighter, 18 Con was about as good as a 16 Con.

There are really a short list of 'playable' builds for 1e once you become familiar with it:

Qualifies for Paladin. Lucky you. Play a Paladin.
Has at least a 17 strength and at least a 17 constitution, and no stat of 5 or less. Play a human, dwarf, or half-orc fighter. This is a power gamer's dream build. You have one of the most powerful characters you can get, and post Unearthed Arcana such a character can be game breaking.
Has at least two 16s not in Charisma or Constitution, and no stat of 5 or less. You have a lot of flexibility, and really can make almost anything work. Plan a human dual class build, a cavalier, or play a straight classed human with extra advantages, or play a multi-class humanoid where one of the classes is thief or assassin.
Has at least one 16+ not in Charisma or Constitution, and no stat of 5 or less in a conflicting attribute. Play a straight-class with the appropriate Prime Requisite.
Has at least a 16+ on Constitution and strength is 9 or higher. Play a Dwarf fighter.
Qualifies for Bard. Begin a Bard build.
Has at least two 15+ not in Charisma or Constitution. Plan a dual-class human character.
Qualifies for Ranger. Play a Ranger.
None of the above. Roll up a new character, or commit suicide if you can't.
Two or more fives or less. You can't make a character. Roll up a new character.

While there is some small granularity between 9-14, unless you qualify for Ranger, there is no point in playing that character even with above average rolls, because the gap between a 17 and an 18 and an 18 and higher than an 18 is just massive. A fighter with 18+ strength, or a dwarf fighter with 19 Con, or a Wizard with 18 intelligence is just massively more potent than anything with no scores above 14, and even multiple 15's is barely playable unless you qualify for a 'prestige' class.

 

[Helldritch]

@Celebrim
Nice resumé.
Unfortunately, it is a bit off the reality of what was 1ed. High stats could be achieved via the many possible magical items in the DMG and the various added supplements. High stats could be reached via the various books, fountains, girdles, ioun stones (some character were litteraly a sun with many many planets...) and gloves.
It is even more debatable with the Unearthed Arcana and the infamous method V found in it. The method itself had appeared in a gencon (if it was called that way back then) as soon as 1981 (My DM had seen it there and took a photography of it, I wish we were still in contact...). But I don't remember which DM he said had brought this. Anyway, doing a character was not that hard. Even with the other methods, it was possible to have at least a workable character. And the big deal was only with strength. All other stats had bonuses from 15 to 18. Other goodies might come earlier in the stat curve but most "good" benefits were in the 15+ range.

You should also remember that in that time, the RP aspect of the game was more or less prevalent. It was mainly a fantasy combat simulator first and formost. Players were expected to chain dungeons one after the other. Get to the dungeon (if not already put in front of it), Storm the dungeon by slaying the monsters in there, take the treasure. Rince and repeat. Character dies? No big deal, roll a new one. There were even competitive modules to be used in tournament play (of which I did quite a few as a DM). And from there, the appearance of the "rail road" syndrome...

The combat simulator was taking a back seat when "name" level was about to be reached. That means level 9 to 11 for most classes. By then, rising in only one level could take many sessions, if not months. The RP aspect of the game was becoming more prevalent around that time. For some it was a bit sooner but most of the times, it was around that time that you were somehow gauded into the RP aspect as combat was becoming more and more dangerous until level 14, where the danger curve was on the down slope (and that led to the monty haul campaings in many cases.).

 

[Celebrim]

Unfortunately, it is a bit off the reality of what was 1ed.

Really? Perhaps my experience was abnormal.

High stats could be achieved via the many possible magical items in the DMG and the various added supplements. High stats could be reached via the various books, fountains, girdles, ioun stones (some character were litteraly a sun with many many planets...) and gloves.

You think that the reality of 1ed AD&D was such coveted items were so readily available as to allow you to obtain high stats? That was nothing like the reality I experienced, was that perhaps one such desirable item might be found over the course of a parties adventuring career. A Manual of Gainful Exercise is as rare or rarer than wishes. Outside of a Monte Haul campaign where the DM purposefully placed such treasure in large quantities, running into ability score enhancing tomes would either not happen, or happen less frequently than character deaths and certainly too infrequently make a difference if your starting stats were poor. It's far more likely that your DM would simply reroll any result leading to a Girdle of Frost Giant strength as game breaking, than you'll actually get one.

My experience with Method V is that it was generally an excuse to cheat. The average scores it produces are not as high as you might think, but the math is not so easy that the scores it produces are intuitive. So you could use Method V and claim you rolled 4 18's, and people would generally know you cheated but not prove it (and have less reason to care that you cheated). Method V when done in front of the DM is generally not as impressive, as even 9d6 drop 6 lowest only produces an unintuitive ~18% chance of an 18, and has an almost equal chance of producing an undesirable 15 (leaving you potentially with a largely unplayable character of the class you choose). Now, if you do Method V, reroll the 1's, sure... but by that time you're practically just choosing the stats you want and giving yourself the color of not having done so.

In my opinion, the best all around method was Method III, which forced you to take what you got, but all but guaranteed both diversity and desirable characters. Sadly, I never discovered how well it worked until after I'd left 1e AD&D.

In any event, the ability to generate desirable characters with methods other than method I does not mean that my analysis isn't correct. Quite the contrary, the adoption of methodology like Method V was actually a response to the truth I just outlined, because Method V was designed to produce a desirable and playable character and actually did so about 70% of the time without the need to cheat (and 100% of the time if you did, while still at least looking plausible).

 

[cbwjm]

Pre-3e, I never really felt the need to have those high stats, or that is to say, I never felt penalised if I didn't have a 15/16+ stat rather they were just nice to have. Even in 3e, I never felt pressured to have the best stats in a classes main stat but then I never played high level so I might have felt like pushing the stats more at the higher levels, certainly if I was a caster and if I ever reached those higher levels I would want at least a 19 to cast those 9th level spells (Actually, this would be one of the main reasons to have a high intelligence or wisdom in 2e, to get those higher level spells). 4e I did feel like I had to really push my main attack stat perhaps along with a secondary stat that provided a bonus to some attacks depending on a class ability. 5e I feel comfortable with a 14 stat in my main attack stat, higher stats are a nice bonus (and admittedly, I will increase my main attack stats) but I'm not feeling like they are definitely required to be maxed out.

 

[Pauln6]

I think that if you are going to have racial maximums just have 19 as the default maximum and reserve 20 for those with special affinity for that stat from 1e (not necessarily equating to the stat bonus which represents being above average rather than maximum ability).

Halflings for example could have very low strength and wisdom but potentially very high constitution (entirely based on Tolkien) Strength 3/18, Dexterity 8/19, Constitution 6/20, Intelligence 6/19, Wisdom 3/18, Charisma 6/19.

Elves could be Strength 6/19, Dexterity 8/20, Constitution 6/18, Intelligence 8/20, Wisdom 6/19, Charisma 6/19

Dwarves Strength 8/20, Dexterity 3/18, Constitution 8/20, Intelligence 6/19, Wisdom 3/19, Charisma 3/18.

Gnomes Strength 4/19, Dexterity 6/19, Constitution 8/19, Intelligence 6/20, Wisdom 3/19, Charisma 6/20

If a race is particularly poor in a stat, knock one point off the maximum and if dreadful, knock 2 off. If you feel the need to have a gender divide, just set strength 1 point lower for women. It won't even affect bonuses in most cases. As someone pointed out earlier, muscle density determines strength more than size. Size is a red herring insofar as we don't have to compare gnomes to 6 year old children.

Some people obsess about the bonuses but for me, the actual number informs my mental image, not the bonus. I think I'm influenced by the intelligence rankings of 1e. 3 intelligence is about the same as a dog, 4 is about the same as a great ape, 5 is a severe mental condition, 6 is as dumb as a rock, 7 is a bit stupid, 8 is a bit slow, 9 is slightly below average, 10 is average, 11-12 is smarter than average, 13-14 is highly intelligent, 15-16 is exceptional, 17-18 is genius, 19+ is astounding. So for me, capping at 18 says something meaningful even if the stat bonus is the same.

 

[Celebrim]

Pre-3e, I never really felt the need to have those high stats, or that is to say, I never felt penalised if I didn't have a 15/16+ stat rather they were just nice to have.

A lot of people say this, and for most of my AD&D career, I would have felt the same. But that's a feeling, and it was largely based on ignorance, and whether you felt it or not you were massively penalized. Looking back, it is even more obvious.

It took me years of playing before I realized how imbalanced the game was and how favored a good build could be over one that wasn't. Contrary to you intuition, having high stats in 3e is generally less important than good stats in 1e, because in 3e a 14 is actually a pretty good number and the gap between a 14 and an 18 is there but its not infinite. In 1e, the gap between a 14 and an 18 is mind-blowing. The fighter with 14 strength is barely playing the same game as the fighter with 18/XX strength. The fighter with 14 Constitution is barely playing the same game as the dwarf fighter with 19 Con and an average of about 11 hit points for HD, doubly so because the Dwarf bonus to saves that makes a low level dwarf so potent also scales with Constitution. You're playing an elven fighter/M-U with no ability scores above 14 and thinking you are cool for the first couple of levels, until the someone else with 16+ in Strength and Wisdom transforms his fighter into a dual-classed human fighter-cleric build and gains like 8 levels of spell casting faster than you can gain your next level, and on top of that you realize you are level capped at 5/9. Or someone does a Bard build and suddenly gains like 16 levels while you are gaining 2. Pity you if you are playing a single classed thief or if you wasted your decent stats playing a monk because it sounded cool.

It's not that odd in 1e to find parties where certain individuals can by themselves carry 5, 10 or even 15 times the weight of other party members in combat because of gaps in ability scores and optimization. You don't feel picked on, until you start doing in the math and realize that your thief will probably never have the combat ability of even a 5th level fighter, nor will his abilities out of combat ever be as reliable and useful as a wizard or clerics.

 

[Hussar]

That's untrue. She is not told that for a few reasons. First, she is not limited to female PCs. Second, a 18/50 strength is still very, very strong, so the concept is still there even with a female PC.

Wow. "You can have a high strength so long as you don't play your own gender" isn't sexist? Seriously?

Imagine, just for a second, that you were told, in no uncertain terms, that your character could never, ever have an 18 Wisdom unless you were female. The greatest clerics in the land MUST be female. You'd have no problems whatsoever with this?

Or, better yet, you can only play a paladin if it's one gender. Pick one, doesn't matter. All paladins in AD&D needed an 17 or better Cha. So, only men can be paladins since men are natural leaders, or some such argument.

No, that's not sexist at all...

Good grief.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A lot of people say this, and for most of my AD&D career, I would have felt the same. But that's a feeling, and it was largely based on ignorance, and whether you felt it or not you were massively penalized. Looking back, it is even more obvious.

The thing is, penalties are relative. Sure, the fighter with Str 14 is at a massive penalty compared to the one with Str 18, but if you're both rolling straight down the line then one of you ends up with a 10 and the other gets a 14, which isn't all that significant.

Stats in AD&D were fine as long as everyone stayed under 15, or everyone had a 16+ in their primary stats. It was only bad if some people had a 17 while others had a 12.

 

[Celebrim]

Wow. "You can have a high strength so long as you don't play your own gender" isn't sexist? Seriously?

Imagine, just for a second, that you were told, in no uncertain terms, that your character could never, ever have an 18 Wisdom unless you were female. The greatest clerics in the land MUST be female. You'd have no problems whatsoever with this?

Actually I wouldn't, but I suppose if I say that the immediate response will be "male privilege".

On the other hand, I suspect this is like getting a paper published in sociology or biology - you can publish on whatever gender differences you want, so long as in the conclusion of the paper you say that women gain a natural advantage by this and are being oppressed by the patriarchy.

Or, better yet, you can only play a paladin if it's one gender. Pick one, doesn't matter.

Female. All the female gods don't trust men to serve them, and all the male gods are lechers that get off on women serving them.

All paladins in AD&D needed an 17 or better Cha.

And now you know why.

No, that's not sexist at all...

The whole thing with all the male gods being lecherous old farts is sexist, but really isn't the far from many real world mythologies - Zeus was a serial rapist.

But when you make the argument in the over the top manner you just made it, based on feelings and crap - instead of for example the very nicely argued essay earlier that noted that D&D combat was not granular enough to provide for physical gender differences that aren't unfair (and I agree) - I basically tune you out as offering an argument mostly meant to stoke the flames of your own self-righteous outrage, and not one that is reasonable or rational.

UPDATE: Honestly, the more I think about it, your supposedly over the top setting is more interesting and less sexist than the Forgotten Realms.