Making a Character in Every Edition of D&D, Part One: 1974

[mattcolville]

Duncan IV gets an 18 strength thanks to 4d6! We get to roll percentile strength in the fourth video!

[video=youtube;y6ssk9xf_7U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6ssk9xf_7U[/video]

 

[Yora]

Cool. I have been waiting for this one especially.

 

[The Human Target]

Cool!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Great to see the new video. Did you notice the inconsistency between Gygax's introduction (where he rejects gendar-based stat differences) and the PHB itself, which has gender-based stat differences? I wonder if that was a result of "creative differences" or just an oversight.

Good discussion of the variations in things like stats, hp, and alignment.

We always treated bows as a class for proficiency, and did the same for light/heavy crossbows (but not hand crossbows).

Heh. Polearms. You need the illustration from UA. Bohemian Ear Spoon FTW!

 

[MerricB]

Great to see the new video. Did you notice the inconsistency between Gygax's introduction (where he rejects gendar-based stat differences) and the PHB itself, which has gender-based stat differences? I wonder if that was a result of "creative differences" or just an oversight.

The really odd thing is that gender-based and racial-based maximums and minimums for ability scores are something that were added in AD&D - they don't exist in original D&D... and no other version of D&D uses them.

This, of course, led to the oddity of an elf being able to have a 19 Dex, although a halfling cannot... but a halfling can have a 19 Con, despite having no modifier.

Although TSR later tried to explain it away by saying "NPCs can get a 19 Con due to their special stat modifiers", I've always thought that a particularly weak explanation. (Especially as it is very doubtful that Gygax even had NPC stat modifiers written down at that point...) I wonder if halflings ever had a +1 Con, thus gaining the toughness of hobbits from the Lord of the Rings?

 

[Yora]

The introduction also rejected more realistic combat systems, as they would get too complicated. And then we get the full page weapons vs. armor table that nobody uses because it's too complicated.

One thing that I think is really cool though are the silly random tables for followers. Yes, they are silly, but once you start thinking how you could sensibly explain a clan of fire giants or two hell hounds, you very soon move into awesome.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The introduction also rejected more realistic combat systems, as they would get too complicated. And then we get the full page weapons vs. armor table that nobody uses because it's too complicated.

One of my own pet peeves.

One thing that I think is really cool though are the silly random tables for followers. Yes, they are silly, but once you start thinking how you could sensibly explain a clan of fire giants or two hell hounds, you very soon move into awesome.

Note that the table he's looking at is for a class from a Dragon magazine article. It's strictly house-rules territory until (I think) the idea for non-LG paladins re-appeared in an actual supplement for 3/3.5E. Tables in the DMG for followers are FAR more mundane - just different mixes of normal infantry and cavalry. Only the Ranger follower table gets into pet animals, exotic mounts, and monsters. While A COUPLE of those are pretty powerful the ranger doesn't get them until he reaches 10th level - not 5th as the non-standard class in the video.

 

[Yora]

Yeah, that might have been an exceptional case. But it's a good example how silly random tables can still be made into great adventures.

I know I will write some random follower tables for my campaign setting now.