D&D General Lethality, AD&D, and 5e: Looking Back at the Deadliest Edition

[overgeeked]

I always like to point people to the 1e AD&D PHB which says very clearly that a PC should have no less than two stats of 15 or higher.

It doesn’t say that. What it says is: “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.”

“Usually essential” is not “no character shall have less than two 15s.”

People playing 3d6 straight were not playing the way Gygax was directing.

Weird because exactly that method is a listed option in the DMG.

 

[Bacon Bits]

It doesn’t say that. What it says is: “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.”

“Usually essential” is not “no character shall have less than two 15s.”

Sure those are super different.

Weird because exactly that method is a listed option in the DMG.

You mean the same DMG right below where it says: "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."

Gary expected you to keep rolling until you got at least two 15s.

 

[overgeeked]

Sure those are super different.

Yes, they are. Especially given that not a single method of generating scores guarantees at least two 15s. And not a single line in the DMG supports your reading of the PHB.

Look, if you want to house rule things, that’s fine. It’s your table. But the book doesn’t say what you’re claiming.

You mean the same DMG right below where it says: "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."

AD&D DMG p11:

“Method I: All scores are recorded and arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, and the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded.

Method II: All scores are recorded and arranged as in Method I. 3d6 are rolled 12 times and the highest 6 scores are retained.

Method III: Scores rolled are according to each ability category, in order, STRENGTH, INTELLIGENCE, WISDOM, DEXTERITY, CONSTITUTION, CHARISMA. 3d6 are rolled 6 times for each ability, and the highest score in each category is retained for that category.

Method IV: 3d6 are rolled sufficient times to generate the 6 ability scores, in order, for 12 characters. The player then selects the single set of scores which he or she finds most desirable and these scores are noted on the character record sheet.”

Please point to the line where the DMG tells the DM to have the player keep rolling until they get two 15s. Yes, some of those methods give PCs a good chance for high stats, but there’s nothing about just keep rolling until you get two 15s.

Gary expected you to keep rolling until you got at least two 15s.

Then Gary would have said so. He did not. Note how none of the listed methods guarantee any given numbers. We know Gary knew his numbers and probabilities as he gives a detailed breakdown of various dice and their probabilities. So if Gary wanted at least two 15s he could have listed that in the DMG…and yet he did not.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Yes, they are. Especially given that not a single method of generating scores guarantees at least two 15s. And not a single line in the DMG supports your reading of the PHB.

Look, you don't get to say you can only read the PHB or only read the DMG. That's not how the game works. You need to use the books together. That's why they keep referencing each other throughout.

You're just saying, "Well, it doesn't say Gary is going to send Pinkertons to your house to confiscate your books if you dare play without two 15s." Congratulations. You have moved the goal post so far that your point is defensible. You've discovered that Gary will let you play the game however you want, including ways he might think are not going to be fun to the extent that he specific points it out that it's not a recommendation.

That doesn't mean the books aren't advocating against doing something they very plainly state is not a very good idea or not conducive to a fun experience. The PHB says, "We suggest that PCs have two 15s or better because the PCs are supposed to be exceptional and they're going to need it to survive." And then in the DMG he says, "Technically, you could use 3d6 straight, but the reality is that that not much fun for most people. You'll never get the play the cool classes, and some players will just get frustrated. So here's four other ways to generate stats, none of which are 3d6 straight." You really can't argue that 3d6 straight is "playing the game the way it was intended." You're clearly not by any interpretation of what's in either the 1e PHB or DMG.

If you're comparing it to how Basic stat gen works, that's not really a fair comparison. Bonus in AD&D start at 15. That's not like B/X. In B/X, they start at 13, which is much more common on 3d6. On 3d6 you have a 26% for a 13+. On 4d6 keep 3, you have a 23% chance of a 15+. And even OD&D and B/X typically allowed you to adjust your prime requisite ability score.

So, going back to @Hussar's point, showing up to play AD&D with a Fighter with 17,10,9,15,16,12 should really not be very unusual.

 

[Voadam]

Any armour, yes.

Any weapon, no. A Fighter started proficient in four weapons and gained another every three levels (so at 4th, 7th, etc.). Use of a non-proficient weapon carried a -2 to-hit penalty.

It wasn't until 3e that a) weapons got sorted into just a few broad categories - simple, martial, etc. - and b) a Fighter could pick up pretty much anything and use it without penalty.

OD&D. Fighters could use anything.

And B/X Fighters.

And BECMI ones originally with the caveat that once the Master Set came out weapon mastery was a character specific choice to excell at a specific type of weapon similar to AD&D specialization.

 

[Hussar]

I think this at least requires ignoring the extent treasure tables to make this argument. If that doesn't set expectations, what does?

Never minding paladins. If ten magic items is a hard limit, that does rather imply that other characters have more than ten.

 

[Hussar]

AD&D DMG p80. Item saving throws and damage types:

“2. Blow, Crushing: This assumes that the item is struck by a weighty falling object or a blow from an ogre's or giant's weapon, for example. Another example would be a (ceramic) flask of oil or a (crystal or glass) vial of holy water hurled against a hard surface or dropped from a height. A piece of cloth can be ripped or torn by a crushing blow.”

A crystal or vial has a 2-in-20 chance of surviving. Glass has a 1-in-20.

Yes. That’s if the ogre attacked the bottle directly.

Would you seriously make a character make item saving throws for every item after every successful attack?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Never minding paladins. If ten magic items is a hard limit, that does rather imply that other characters have more than ten.

No, it implies that they can.

 

[overgeeked]

Yes. That’s if the ogre attacked the bottle directly.

Would you seriously make a character make item saving throws for every item after every successful attack?

From an ogre or a giant against a target laden with glass bottles? Yes, absolutely. AD&D is a resource management game more than anything. The base damage from an ogre or giant in no way corresponds to how damaging having a giant play baseball with your chest using an uprooted tree for a bat. Having a lot of the fragile glass containers on your person shatter as a result does a lot to add verisimilitude.

 

[Hussar]

No, it implies that they can.

It's not much of a restriction of no one ever exceeds it is it?

The presumption in the game is that every PC will have more than 10 magic items, other wise that restriction on paladins is meaningless. Which means, in a 6-8 PC party, you should have more than 60-80 magic items.

From an ogre or a giant against a target laden with glass bottle? Yes, absolutely. AD&D is a resource management game more than anything. The base damage from an ogre or giant in no way corresponds to how damaging having a giant play baseball with your chest using an uprooted tree for a bat. Having a lot of the fragile glass containers on your person shatter as a result does a lot to add verisimilitude.

That's utterly ludicrous. Did anyone actually play this way?

Who in their right mind would ever carry potions in glass bottles? What's wrong with metal flasks? Or a bag of holding? After all, you need to destroy the bag before you can destroy the contents.

Stories like this just remind me of why I don't play AD&D anymore. Yeesh, that sounds like the complete opposite of anything remotely close to fun. Yay, you have a couple of potions. Poof, now you don't. What? The game doesn't have anything like hit locations or any actual ability to damage items, but, now, I'm going to randomly assign that ability to random monsters? Hey, that sounds like a blast. "Uprooted tree"? How big do you think a 1e giant is? An ogre isn't even stronger than a human. Strong human, sure, but, still not stronger than a human. Does my fighter get a chance to destroy all the baddie's items with every attack I make?