D&D 5E My biggest gripe with 5e design

[Hussar]

Meh, my point is, there are so many different ways of playing 1e, that saying "This is the way the game was played" is pointless.

I mean, even using 4d6-L, with 10 PC's, you get a LOT of PC's with stats above 16. And, let's not forget, AD&D minimum stats for classes. Rangers needed a 15 Cha, so, a 16 isn't unheard of. Druids and clerics needed wisdom. Wizards needed Int. Paladins needed a 17 Cha. So, if you had a group of 10 PC's, with 2 wizards, a cleric, a druid, a ranger and a paladin, right there, you've got 6 PC's who have a chance of being psionic.

Look, I'm not saying EVERY PC was psionic. Of course not. But a group with a single PC with psionics? Yeah, that was pretty common. About as common as a gnome PC.

Call it Monty Haul all you like, it's just math. With that many PC's, plus potentials for additional PC's per player, having a psionic character in our groups wasn't unusual. It's all down to how that table played.

Like I said, statements about "How the game was played" basically don't mean anything because the plural of anecdote is not data.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Meh, my point is, there are so many different ways of playing 1e, that saying "This is the way the game was played" is pointless.

Even "how the game was written" is fraught, since 1e was so baroque, crypric, and even downright contradictory.

Then there were all those technically unofficial variants from TSRs official house organ...

 

[Maxperson]

Meh, my point is, there are so many different ways of playing 1e, that saying "This is the way the game was played" is pointless.

Sure. Each game was unique. Probably 90% of each game was the same from table to table, though. The 10%(or less) that was changed altered the feel a great deal. So we can say, "This is the way the game was played" and be mostly correct. And we can say, "This is the way the rules say the game was to be played" and be correct for most rules. Some were just so vague that you had to iron it out yourself.

I mean, even using 4d6-L, with 10 PC's, you get a LOT of PC's with stats above 16. And, let's not forget, AD&D minimum stats for classes.

Sure, but they weren't all int, wis and cha for 10 people.

Rangers needed a 15 Cha, so, a 16 isn't unheard of. Druids and clerics needed wisdom. Wizards needed Int. Paladins needed a 17 Cha. So, if you had a group of 10 PC's, with 2 wizards, a cleric, a druid, a ranger and a paladin, right there, you've got 6 PC's who have a chance of being psionic.

Yes, but let's say we give each class the 17. That paladin with his 17 cha had a 2% chance. The cleric, ranger and druid also 2% each. The two wizards are at 3% each. The odds are that none of them will make the roll, and that's if each one got a 17 and not a 14, 15 or 16, which was frequently the case with wizards, clerics and druids.

Look, I'm not saying EVERY PC was psionic. Of course not. But a group with a single PC with psionics? Yeah, that was pretty common. About as common as a gnome PC.

So going by personal experience, about once every 7 or 8 campaigns.

Gnomes were not loved by the groups I played in.

Call it Monty Haul all you like, it's just math.

No it's not. The math indicates that even with 8 people, you will not have a psionic PC in most campaigns.

Check this link. It's unlikely that even half of the PCs will have a stat that even allows a roll, let alone success.

4d6 Drop Lowest

What to expect when rolling 4d6 drop lowest for your DnD ability scores.

anydice.com

With that many PC's, plus potentials for additional PC's per player, having a psionic character in our groups wasn't unusual. It's all down to how that table played.

To have most games have one psionic PC, it would take the fudged rolls that you said you guys probably engaged in. Not math. The math is very against you here.

 

[Oofta]

@Maxperson, what's your point? In my experience people ignored rules that limited class choice.
Nobody cared.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I agree with @Maxperson about the rarity of psionics in 1E. In over 20 years of playing almost weekly, I can honestly say there was less than 10 characters (out of several hundred) in any of the games I played who happened to have not only the proper race and the required ability scores (at least one) but also managed to make the d00 roll to actually get psionics.

Now, 2E was different since the actually had the class for it.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, even using 4d6-L, with 10 PC's, you get a LOT of PC's with stats above 16. And, let's not forget, AD&D minimum stats for classes. Rangers needed a 15 Cha, so, a 16 isn't unheard of.

In what version of 1e did Rangers need Charisma?

They needed 13 Str and Int; 14 Wis and Con. Dex and Cha were the dump stats.

 

[Maxperson]

In what version of 1e did Rangers need Charisma?

They needed 13 Str and Int; 14 Wis and Con. Dex and Cha were the dump stats.

Yeah. I noticed that, too, but went with it because it didn't change either my point or his incorrect math.

 

[Hussar]

Oops. My bad. Going by memory.

But the thing is it doesn’t change the point. You, me or anyone else cannot make any definitive statements about how the game was played.

Claiming 90% of the game was played the same is complete spurious. You have no more idea than I do. You can complain about my math all day long but that doesn’t make yours any less fictional.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Maxperson :

FWIW, using 4d6-L, the probability of a human character (or dwarf/halfing if allowed) having psionics in 1E is (roughly) 0.0049709131184350 or 1 in 201.2 characters, less than 1/2 of 1%.

So, given I would say maybe 8-10 characters out of all the ones I played with (myself and other gamers) in over 20 years, yeah, that is about right.

 

[Hussar]

No idea how you calculated that.

But I’d point out that while I was wrong about rangers specifically the point does remain. Everyone wanted that +10% xp bonus which often resulted in wis or int at 16 or higher.

But yeah we used the unearthed arcana rolling method so that would really skew the numbers.