Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7855433" data-attributes="member: 22779">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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />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.</blockquote>