D&D 2E On AD&D 2E

[Micah Sweet]

Every group I ever played 2E with (over maybe 7 or 8 years of consistent play?) used more generous rolling methods than 3d6 in order. Finally settling on 4d6 drop lowest, three sets, pick one and arrange to taste.

IME everyone concluded from looking at the ability bonus tables that designating 3d6 in order as the default was an error; the tables were rationalized updates of Gygax's tables from 1E, in 1E 4d6 drop the lowest was method 1, and in the 1978 PH Gary outright told us that a PC should have at least two scores of 15 or better to be viable. The character gen example with Rath in the 2E PH seemed decidedly unheroic and unappealing.


While there's the core of a good sentiment there, certainly, about embracing characters who have a weakness or two and not obsessing over high stats, these are not inspiring characters, and they are decidedly at odds with the messages implicitly communicated by the tables immediately preceding them.

And the statistical reality is that in a group of a half dozen players rolling 3d6 down the line, usually one or two are going to get a couple or few high scores, one or two are going to get garbage, and the rest of the group pretty average numbers. The disparity between the folks who naturally roll up a hero and those who roll up a spear-carrier or a Rath is not a recipe for fun.

3d6 down the line (with allowances for re-rolling "hopeless characters") was functional in OD&D and B/X or BECMI, all of which allowed swapping ability score points in increase your Prime Requisite. But AD&D was never designed around it.

I always guessed that the default in 2E was driven by misguided reader mail input, "hardcore" purist players sounding off.

It is worth noting, however, that ability scores in AD&D were not nearly as mathematically vital to PCs as they became in the WotC editions. A character with lower stats was absolutely viable. Also, the assumption was that you rolled your stars first, and then used them to help determine a race and/or class for your character. All of this stuff works out better if you don't go into the campaign with a character concept prior to rolling dice.

 

[Mannahnin]

It is worth noting, however, that ability scores in AD&D were not nearly as mathematically vital to PCs as they became in the WotC editions. A character with lower stats was absolutely viable. Also, the assumption was that you rolled your stars first, and then used them to help determine a race and/or class for your character. All of this stuff works out better if you don't go into the campaign with a character concept prior to rolling dice.

I think the lesser importance of good stats was very true in 1974 OD&D, where they didn't do much (Strength gives at most an xp bonus; no hit or damage bonuses, for example, and Dex gave at most a +1 to missile attacks, nothing else), but by 1975's Greyhawk we already saw Gygax trying to give Fighters a boost relative to Magic-Users, but only applying that boost to characters with Strength scores above 15, and ESPECIALLY ones with an 18. Same with the expanded benefits of Dex and Con, only applying to characters with decidedly above average stats.

There are two main ways to interpret this design, right? 1) the bonuses are meant to be rare, so treat it as a lucky occasion if you qualify for one, or 2) the bonuses are there to be used, and to (e.g.) make Fighters a bit better, so we're missing out if our characters don't have them. Gygax made a WHOLE CHART of benefits for Fighters with an 18 Strength; that seems kind of weird if only one in 216 characters ever use it, no?

As Gygax's 1978 comments in the PH at the start of the ability section indicate, clearly he leaned toward the latter, and IME so did most players and groups.

I'm a bit torn on the question of whether high stats were more or less important in AD&D vs the WotC editions. An AD&D Fighter with high stats could put out a LOT more offense than one with dead average ability scores, and was a bit more durable. WotC edition characters have a much smoother ability progression/access to bonuses (hey, my Fighter with a 12 or 14 strength actually gets a bonus to hit, where in AD&D I need at least a 17 to get a bonus to hit!), which means the riches are spread around a lot more. And the WotC editions actually embraced point buy as a main option (though not the default in 3.x or 5E), which greatly smooths out variation in ability scores from PC to PC.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And the statistical reality is that in a group of a half dozen players rolling 3d6 down the line, usually one or two are going to get a couple or few high scores, one or two are going to get garbage, and the rest of the group pretty average numbers. The disparity between the folks who naturally roll up a hero and those who roll up a spear-carrier or a Rath is not a recipe for fun.

I would argue this is a matter of taste. For some people, having characters start off on a fairly even baseline makes the game more enjoyable. I personally always saw character creation as part of the game and half the fun is not knowing whether you will roll well or badly, then doing what you can with the result. The same reason why some people prefer higher lethality, some people prefer less. I don't think there is a one true way here. For me the game got 10 times better when I embraced the aspects of play that led to things like disparities between character abilities.

 

[Bedrockgames]

All of this stuff works out better if you don't go into the campaign with a character concept prior to rolling dice.

I think this was very much key

 

[James Gasik]

It would produce a pretty high average, so I would very much expect it to be popular.

Well what I meant is, even DM's I play with seem to like it, which is interesting since I've met a lot of DM's who are very skeptical of anything that gives players more power, lol. And you're right, the average seems to fall in the 13-14 range (I once rolled a character with all 14's, lol), even though you'd think it would be 12. I'm not a maths guy, so I have no idea how the fourth die makes that work.

 

[James Gasik]

Thinking back on it though, a lot of characters in D&D fiction have pretty high stats. Caramon Majere had an 18 Strength, Raistlin had a 17 Intelligence, it's been awhile, but I think Sturm Brightblade had a 17 Strength. Gary's own Gord the Rogue had sweet stats, including ad hoc "sword training" that gave him a +1 to hit and damage with a sword. And of course, Hall of Heroes shows that the early Forgotten Realms heroes all have great stats (I think Alias had a 17 in everything!).

Went back to check, and this isn't universally true, they gave Shandril Shessair less exciting ability scores, but given that she's a walking magical WMD, I guess she doesn't need them, lol.

I remember thinking though, whenever I saw published ability scores for characters, especially in Dragonlance adventures, that this is what was really intended for PC's. I don't think any 2e designer weighed in on this, but even the examples of the character classes listed legendary and mythical figures that would likely have some pretty high ability scores.

And yes, as Mannahnin points out, it's very odd that Gary would put rules patches for Warriors in the super special bonus round of needing an 18 in the first place, lol. It's like he thought his player base were a bunch of gambling addicts!

Then again, he probably expected players to either cheat or keep rolling up characters until they got one they liked, given his rants about those darned (kids) PC's!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Thinking back on it though, a lot of characters in D&D fiction have pretty high stats. Caramon Majere had an 18 Strength, Raistlin had a 17 Intelligence, it's been awhile, but I think Sturm Brightblade had a 17 Strength. Gary's own Gord the Rogue had sweet stats, including ad hoc "sword training" that gave him a +1 to hit and damage with a sword. And of course, Hall of Heroes shows that the early Forgotten Realms heroes all have great stats (I think Alias had a 17 in everything!).

Went back to check, and this isn't universally true, they gave Shandril Shessair less exciting ability scores, but given that she's a walking magical WMD, I guess she doesn't need them, lol.

I remember thinking though, whenever I saw published ability scores for characters, especially in Dragonlance adventures, that this is what was really intended for PC's. I don't think any 2e designer weighed in on this, but even the examples of the character classes listed legendary and mythical figures that would likely have some pretty high ability scores.

And yes, as Mannahnin points out, it's very odd that Gary would put rules patches for Warriors in the super special bonus round of needing an 18 in the first place, lol. It's like he thought his player base were a bunch of gambling addicts!

Then again, he probably expected players to either cheat or keep rolling up characters until they got one they liked, given his rants about those darned (kids) PC's!

Dragonlance is a little more on the epic side so I would expect some of the stats to be on the higher end. But it is one of those settings where most of the books I had for it, were from 1E and not 2E, so I can't really comment on the 2E era of material for that line.

One thing I noticed going back to old modules is the NPC scores are all over the map and, I think, often simply assigned by writers. In a large number of cases these were ridiculously high averages. For instance these are just random NPCs I clipped from the Book of Crypts for Ravenloft:

I think a lot of it was also just the designer trying to make a particular NPC really cool or the best at everything. Even Feast of Goblyns, which was one of my favorite modules, chose these stats for Akriel Lucas. I am all for making an effective villain, but these kinds of stats don't really work for me as a GM (it just feels too good across the board----and if your dump stat is a 12?).

Again, I love that module, but I think there was sometimes a lack of oversight or revision on the stat front. Definitely one quirk of the 2E era is things could genuinely be all over the map. And going through many of the other modules, there is a similar tendency to have very high stats allocated across the board. I do get that NPCs are not necessarily following the same rules here as PCs, but it always felt like when I first started playing D&D and guys would show up to the game with characters they rolled all sporting 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 17 stats

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

On a scale from 1-10, how much do people like THAC0?

Give me your top 10 list of favorite armors.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Give me your top 10 list of favorite armors.

I've always leaned towards scale, banded and brigandine. Bronze plate is cool too

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've always leaned towards scale, banded and brigandine. Bronze plate is cool too

I'm often amused by the idea of imaginary things, so studded leather for me.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Give me your top 10 list of favorite armors.

1. Chainmail.

2. Leather Armor.

3. Splint Mail.

4. Scale Mail.

5. Plate Mail.

6. Shield.

7. Banded Mail.

8. Field Plate.

9. Ring Mail.

10. Buckler.

878. Elfin Chain (unless there's a dead elf in it, in which case it's number one, with a bullet!).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm often amused by the idea of imaginary things, so studded leather for me.

Its good for slaying dragons and fronting a heavy metal band

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Thought of something else that I love about 2nd edition, as a good friend is sending me a barrage of messages as to why he loves building characters in PF2: You don’t have to have max strength or dexterity on your Warrior and Rogue group characters in order to be effective. High Str and Dex provide just bonuses. THAC0 sets your default math for hitting. Sure, high attributes help, and give more experience, but they aren’t necessary as they are in WotC D&D. That gives more character variety.

The two notable exceptions are Priest and Wizard group classes, which need primary attribute for max level spells. Still, there are ways around that.

And to be fair, it takes a lot of work and luck to get a wizard up to the levels where Int 10 is not viable. Conversely, even if you roll an Int 18, he's probably going to die before you get much benefit out of it, so high stats primarily just increase your anxiety and emotional investment in the character as opposed to granting mechanical benefits.

Priests are different because low Wisdom causes spell failure, which in headcanon I take to indicate transgression. "Sorry, I just can't pray for divine healing right now when I feel such a hypocrite about my unclean thoughts last night about the baron's wife. I need to get right with my Maker first. Come back in a few hours after I've had a good conversation with Him."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think the lesser importance of good stats was very true in 1974 OD&D, where they didn't do much (Strength gives at most an xp bonus; no hit or damage bonuses, for example, and Dex gave at most a +1 to missile attacks, nothing else), but by 1975's Greyhawk we already saw Gygax trying to give Fighters a boost relative to Magic-Users, but only applying that boost to characters with Strength scores above 15, and ESPECIALLY ones with an 18. Same with the expanded benefits of Dex and Con, only applying to characters with decidedly above average stats.

There are two main ways to interpret this design, right? 1) the bonuses are meant to be rare, so treat it as a lucky occasion if you qualify for one, or 2) the bonuses are there to be used, and to (e.g.) make Fighters a bit better, so we're missing out if our characters don't have them. Gygax made a WHOLE CHART of benefits for Fighters with an 18 Strength; that seems kind of weird if only one in 216 characters ever use it, no?

When I was a teenager I would have heartily agreed. Now that I'm older and better at powergaming I can point out that a Str 15 fighter with Strength cast on him has a pretty good chance of ending up 18/01 or better, and an Enlarge spell from a 10th+ level wizard is almost as good as stacking 18/00 on top of THAT.

High stats are nice, but between spells and magic items like Gauntlets of Ogre Power, rolling ultra-high stats is less of an amazing force multiplier than I thought it was back then. It mostly simplifies logistics and enables dual-classing.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

1. Chainmail.

2. Leather Armor.

3. Splint Mail.

4. Scale Mail.

5. Plate Mail.

6. Shield.

7. Banded Mail.

8. Field Plate.

9. Ring Mail.

10. Buckler.

878. Elfin Chain (unless there's a dead elf in it, in which case it's number one, with a bullet!).

One reason I like descending AC is because it fits this same scheme: the "best" stuff is 1st class, the worst stuff is 10th class.

That said, I'm definitely in favor of altering the Dex chart so the AC bonuses are written as +N, not -N. That chart doesn't need to be so idiosyncratic.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

One reason I like descending AC is because it fits this same scheme: the "best" stuff is 1st class, the worst stuff is 10th class.

That said, I'm definitely in favor of altering the Dex chart so the AC bonuses are written as +N, not -N. That chart doesn't need to be so idiosyncratic.

Speaking as an OD&D / 1e fan, the idiosyncrasies are the feature, not the bug.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Speaking as an OD&D / 1e fan, the idiosyncrasies are the feature, not the bug.

I like AD&D's tolerance of idiosyncracies. I have no problem with the fact that some outcomes are rolled on d20, others on d100. I even think the game is better when I roll ability checks and psionic power checks on 3d6. Permitting idiosyncracies lets you use the right tool for the job.

But in the case of the Dex/AC chart I acknowledge that it's confusing to write a bonus as a negative number when all other AC bonuses in the game are written as positive numbers. (It's fine for the final AC RESULT to have negative as good, but AC modifiers that are good are positive, except for on the Dex chart.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Oh no, Thac0 does eventually drop to 1 for a 20th-level Warrior. But the question is one of relevance at that point- without the benefits of high Strength, what are you doing for damage? Can you afford to two-weapon fight without investing 2 weapon proficiencies to obviate the penalties?

A Str 9 Fighter 20 can specialize in two-handed swords, and then she makes a great platform for a 20th level wizard to Enlarge and cast Improved Haste on: 5 attacks per round doing 9d6+2 (33.5) damage against most monsters for a total of 167.5 damage if they all hit, which they might, in a system where 90 HP is a lot of HP.

If the Fighter had rolled a Str 18/00, damage would increase by +30 to 197.5, but that's fairly small potatoes.

The big difference between the two fighters is basically logistical: high stats lets you fight better solo, independent of teamwork or strategy. It's definitely fun to be able to do 3d6+8 x 2 (38) damage at 7th level in every fight you have with large-sized creatures, without needing any prep time or spell support. But low stats don't make you irrelevant.

 

[DammitVictor]

Something to remember about NPCs and ability scores is that... there's a commonality between AD&D and WotC D&D about the fact that named NPCs simply aren't running on the same rules as player characters and player characters aren't supposed to be anywhere near as powerful as the authors' precious pets.

Rock up to most any D&D table in any D&D edition with a 1st level Drizzt Do'Urden or even a Sturm Brightblade and the DM's going to tell you to roll your next character where everyone can see it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Something to remember about NPCs and ability scores is that... there's a commonality between AD&D and WotC D&D about the fact that named NPCs simply aren't running on the same rules as player characters and player characters aren't supposed to be anywhere near as powerful as the authors' precious pets.

Uh, wut?

I don't understand this. I can break out my WOG or old modules, and I can assure you that named NPCs have classes and abilities. Because of the simplified nature of things (that you don't have ability scores as saves), they might not bother with the abilities ... but they had them.

Am I missing something?