Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9174555" data-attributes="member: 7026594">Indeed.  I've long believed (and now, thinking about it, I wonder if there is confirmation in one of the 2E development diary editorials from Dragon Magazine) that reverting to 3d6 down the line as the default was the result of player feedback.  They solicited and reviewed huge amounts of player input and included a massive survey in Dragon asking multiple choice and essay questions about various parts of the rules and proposed changes or alternative choices.  As I recall, for example, the Bard surviving but being changed to a regular class was due to reader feedback, it having initially been proposed as a class that might be cut, in the famous "Who Dies?" editorial.  My impression was that the 1974-style hardcore 3d6 down the line method was for some reason glorified by existing players, though the AD&D ability score charts were obviously not designed with it in mind.  It works fine in B/X and BECMI D&D, which more generously grants bonuses starting at a 13 for nearly every score, and which (significantly) allows point-swapping to increase your Prime Requisite.This reversion to 3d6 as the baseline method while retaining (and just cleaning up a bit) the higher AD&D requirements for bonuses on most abilities resulted in 2E being the edition in which characters are arguably the weakest (relative to monsters).  Of course, later books adding lots more options for character kits and powers redressed this somewhat, but IME nearly everyone houseruled ability score generation and made it more generous.  I think most groups I played with used 4d6 drop lowest arrange to taste AND had players roll three sets and choose their favorite.</blockquote>

Verification