AD&D 1E Three Things that can't be Fixed in 1e AD&D

[Celebrim]

The whole percentile strength system is charming as heck. It makes no sense but come on its fun! And adds authenticity to a game that was grown not engineered.

Hey lets build a subsystem is what makes AD&D POP!

To this day I love subsystems to solve particular problems. For example, I frequently use a Chase subsystem in place of 3e's standard grid based movement to resolve chases instead of skirmishes.

The problem is it really "authentic"? I mean what is "authentic" even meaning in terms of a fantasy game?

If by authentic you mean something like, "A hero among men, broad shouldered Ajax standing a tier above the common man" then I agree that in a sense you are right. That's something we should be going for in a fantasy system. The trouble comes not that the PC's are standing a tier above men-at-arms on the battlefield, but when you have PC's standing a tier above other PCs. You get situations where one character is doing average 9.2 damage per round and another is doing average 0.875 damage per round, and that one character is basically the whole party. What would challenge that character overwhelms the rest of the party, and what would challenge the rest of the party is a cake walk for the guy who lucked out and got the high stats. Ajax is indeed a tier above, but not in the way we set out to achieve.

At some point the lack of engineering and the lack of planning in the system is a problem.

 

[TwoSix]

Functionally the system comes down to one of two procedures of play - either cheating or else high player death to winnow out the sort of characters the system creates that couldn't cut it. In the long run you create a system that is about chasing fun, more akin to breaking open packs of collectible playing cards hoping to find a chase mythic rare than pretty much any chargen system written since 1990. And that should tell you something.

The weird non-linearity and number of subsystems baked into the ability score system of AD&D make removing or heavily modifying it pretty much a non-starter if you want to maintain any semblance of the AD&D play experience.

As you said, the easiest solution is to simply remove, or heavily mediate the randomness of stat generation. I would go with either a fixed array of 13/14/15/16/17/18 (keeps bonuses in the relevant zone while still providing a little texture), or maybe 2d8k1 + 10 if you want a higher randomized element.

 

[Celebrim]

Uncompressing Strength such that 18.00 = 24 and Hill Giants are 25 is IMO the way to go.

How many wishes does it take to go from 12 to 16 strength? The answer is four.

How many wishes does it take to go from 16 to 18 strength. You probably know the answer isn't two. The answer is 20.

Now, how many wishes does it take to go from 18 to 18/00 strength - which is the same you admit as going from 18 to 24. The answer is 10.

Clearly something is weird here. We've got stacks of kludges and we're trying to get it to work out.

The point of the 1e (and, to a lesser extent, 0e and BX) bonus system is to intentionally produce a J-curve in bonuses out toward the edges of the 3-18 bell-curve range while keeping the wide mushy middle at +0. In this it succeeds, and is IMO far better than the WotC-editions that try to apply linear bonuses to bell-curve stats.

I think you are defining design post-hoc, sort of like the people who found design in the dragon's breath weapon in the dragon thread.

I guess when I was redesigning the thief it never occurred to me in the slightest I'd need to redesign the fighter.

 

[Celebrim]

The weird non-linearity and number of subsystems baked into the ability score system of AD&D make removing or heavily modifying it pretty much a non-starter if you want to maintain any semblance of the AD&D play experience.

As you said, the easiest solution is to simply remove, or heavily mediate the randomness of stat generation. I would go with either a fixed array of 13/14/15/16/17/18 (keeps bonuses in the relevant zone while still providing a little texture), or maybe 2d8k1 + 10 if you want a higher randomized element.

I think you are largely right, but I also think that's at some level hilarious because the purists will insist that part of the charm of AD&D is the ability scores matter less than in WotC editions, when in fact they matter much more and strongly encourage systems of chargen like Method III or Method V or my suggestion of "method C" (12+1d6 down the line) or the thoughtful ideas you are suggesting here that are complete cheese compared to WotC era chargen.

 

[Mannahnin]

It has to do with the fact that the way bonuses to surprise are defined, they are defined not as modifiers but as dice rolls. Typically, you see very stealthy and alert things defined by the dice that they use or impose on others. And that works fine if but one side is imposing a dice, but if both sides define a variant dice, it is far from obvious how to make the adjustments. My rules say I use one dice, but your rules say I use some other dice while my rules also say you should use some dice while your rules say you should use a different dice. There are ways to make it work out, but try reading a modern document on how to run surprise and initiative in 1e AD&D in the general case.

Yup. There was a fix offered for this in Dragon Magazine, where someone did the math of breaking down the percentage adjustments represented by the individual "x in y" chances to surprise or be surprised, but it wasn't until 1988, quite late in 1E's life cycle. I imagine some individual DMs came up with the same solution.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Sure, there is no way to incorporate everything that is written on initiative and have it all just work together. But again, the basic process is pretty straightforward and coming up with a working solution isn't that hard. The most complex parts of initiative were dealing with ties and dealing with weapons vs spell casting. I came up with solutions for those and the rest mostly just worked.
To be fair, by the time I was seriously looking at these things myself, I had access to forums where people with plenty of experience were discussing them, which made it much easier for me to form an opinion and arrive at a solution. But the underlying point remains that it's not at all unfixable, and I found it quite easy to fix.

Yes, all of these are immanently fixable. We know because people played AD&D (and AD&D 1&2, for the ability scores) for decades, mostly by each group finding their own solutions.

The weird non-linearity and number of subsystems baked into the ability score system of AD&D make removing or heavily modifying it pretty much a non-starter if you want to maintain any semblance of the AD&D play experience.

I think that's part of the problem -- the kludginess of the system can sometimes be part of the experience. The only solution I've come up with that maintains the sense of the old thing but also regularly makes characters one would want to play is some kind of multiple attempt method. Maybe up to 'roll until you get something you are satisfied with' with some kind of constraint stopping someone from pressing until they have all-18s or the like.

Example: maybe you have to write down character name first, then roll out stats, starting hp, and starting gp, then decide to keep or ditch (no takebacks). Rolling a fighter with 'merely' a 17 Str (when you can keep pressing for 18/00), but a 16 Con, 9 (upped to 11) starting hp and enough starting gp to afford armor which might keep the alive to level 2 is enough to tempt many away from infinitely re-rolling. Rolling a decent fighter when you are up to 'Glendor Wyvernsbane' on your dreamt-up-names, knowing the all-18 character would probably be when you were writing down 'Asdfj;;; Fartsnarggler the 47th,' would constrain many of the others.

Uncompressing Strength such that 18.00 = 24 and Hill Giants are 25 is IMO the way to go.

Generally in favor. The issue I have (actually an issue with stats 19-25 in general) is roll-under-attribute checks. Obviously not part of the system as it is in B/X (or with NWPs in 2e), I don't know many who did not use them. Not insurmountable, but an issue that would require attention.

 

[Celebrim]

Yup. There was a fix offered for this in Dragon Magazine, where someone did the math of breaking down the percentage adjustments represented by the individual "x in y" chances to surprise or be surprised, but it wasn't until 1988, quite late in 1E's life cycle. I imagine some individual DMs came up with the same solution.

While the table in the Dragon magazine is incredibly useful and functional, it's also an arbitrary fix which even the author has to admit is subjective (look at the end of the second paragraph there). The truth is the rules offer up exceptions all throughout them without reference to other exceptions, and thus there really isn't an official answer about how to handle all the possible interactions. Lines of the rules arbitrarily impose conditions on other creatures that themselves arbitrarily impose conditions.

The table is one step towards 2e unifying everything but is on inspection massively surprising in its answers and certain to cause table arguments. I'm quite certain that a PC who has written on his character sheet "I'm only surprised 5% of the time" doesn't understand that to mean that sometimes he's surprised 62% of the time and subject to the equivalent of four rounds of attacks while flat footed.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes, all of these are immanently fixable. We know because people played AD&D (and AD&D 1&2, for the ability scores) for decades, mostly by each group finding their own solutions.

I think one thing that I have amply demonstrated in these threads with AD&D 1E tags, some of them going back nearly a decade now (like the Dragons I'm very happy with) is that I know AD&D rules very well and had lots of experience playing 1e AD&D in something close to RAW.

So the whole, "we fixed it by finding our own solutions" thing isn't quite the rebuttal that you think it is.

I think that's part of the problem -- the kludginess of the system can sometimes be part of the experience. The only solution I've come up with that maintains the sense of the old thing but also regularly makes characters one would want to play is some kind of multiple attempt method. Maybe up to 'roll until you get something you are satisfied with' with some kind of constraint stopping someone from pressing until they have all-18s or the like.

I feel like you are conceding my whole argument now.

Generally in favor. The issue I have (actually an issue with stats 19-25 in general) is roll-under-attribute checks. Obviously not part of the system as it is in B/X (or with NWPs in 2e), I don't know many who did not use them. Not insurmountable, but an issue that would require attention.

Yes, you begin to see the problem of why we can't uncompress the exceptional strength table without impacting all sorts of things.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, all of these are immanently fixable. We know because people played AD&D (and AD&D 1&2, for the ability scores) for decades, mostly by each group finding their own solutions.

I think that's part of the problem -- the kludginess of the system can sometimes be part of the experience. The only solution I've come up with that maintains the sense of the old thing but also regularly makes characters one would want to play is some kind of multiple attempt method. Maybe up to 'roll until you get something you are satisfied with' with some kind of constraint stopping someone from pressing until they have all-18s or the like.

For sure.

I don't think I'm clamoring to go back to AD&D, but if I wanted that experience for the nostalgia, I'd want to keep the "fun" parts of the kludge without the "annoying" parts. The fly in the ointment here, of course, is that one person's fun is another's annoyance.

For me, those classic throwbacks like "bend bars/lift gates" and "system shock" are definitely part of the fun; only rolling well enough to play a Dex 14 thief is NOT the part I want to go back to.

 

[Mannahnin]

Even without doing this though, I don't think 18s are really all that needed, desired sure, but not needed. With the increase in thac0 that warriors get they end up being quite capable at striking their enemies and once you start getting magical weapons or adding in specialisation bonuses I think they quickly start being able to take care of themselves. While I do think that stat bonuses could have been gained a point or two lower, I've never found them necessary to have fun playing the game.

That's an interesting perspective, and I think there's some truth to the idea that AD&D is playable with characters having mediocre stats, but it's certainly playing on hard mode.

Celebrim has compared and contrasted the massive difference in DPR between a Fighter with no Strength bonus vs. one with Exceptional Strength, and the encumbrance difference. As another contrast, say look at a Cleric with a Wisdom of 14 starting out with three 1st level spells every day, vs one with 9-12 Wisdom having not just no bonus spells, but a flat percentage chance of failure (between 5% and 20% depending on how low that Wisdom is) every time they cast a spell. A Magic User with a 9 Int can only ever learn spells up to 4th level, and has only a 35% chance of learning any given spell they try to add to their spell book. At a 13 Int they're capped at 6th level spells and still have only a 55% chance to learn a given spell. This is definitely not a system intended to be played with Prime Requisites under 15, and as Celebrim also pointed out, the large majority of ability score benefits are gated behind scores of 16 or better.

If I was to run 2e again, I'd simply remove exceptional strength from being coupled with an 18 and allow warriors to roll it no matter their strength score. Half the time, exceptional strength only gives a +1 damage bonus anyway so I don't see this as a big deal and you can play around with it a little so that single classed fighters gain a bonus to the percentile roll to give them a small bonus.

This is a fun solution. Reminds me a little of Grit from Shadowdark. Just give Fighters and their subclasses (the Warrior class group in 2E) a flat benefit to Strength all the time. Not as elegant as just "advantage on checks", but functionally assuming all Warriors have 18/xx Strength and giving Fighters (or single-classed Fighters) a bonus on their percentile roll would work.

As an aside, don't 1e rangers get to add their level to damage against giants which ended up being almost any monstrous humanoid in 1e? I'd have thought that they'd quickly start dealing a decent amount of damage fairly quickly after just a few levels, though admittedly less useful against things like undead, they'd excel in their element.

1E Rangers get a +1/level damage bonus against "humanoid-type creatures of the 'giant class'", and it goes on to list them. Bugbears, Ettins, Giants, Gnolls, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Ogres, Ogre Magi, Orcs, and Trolls. This list got expanded a little when the Fiend Folio came out.

AD&D didn't explain what the heck "Giant class" meant, so it meaning all those humanoids and not just giants made no sense to me until many years later when I read OD&D and Joe Fischer's original Ranger class from The Strategic Review, and learned that it originally referred to the wilderness encounter type tables, specifically the one labeled "Giants", and the ability was originally described as applying to all creatures of the "Giant class (Kobold to Giant)", which meant everything on that specific wilderness encounter sub-table between and inclusive of those two entries. That is, Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs, Hobgoblins, Gnolls, Ogres, Trolls, and all Giants. (and excluding the non-evil entries at the end of that table - Gnomes, Dwarves, Elves, and Treants.)

While the table in the Dragon magazine is incredibly useful and functional, it's also an arbitrary fix which even the author has to admit is subjective (look at the end of the second paragraph there). The truth is the rules offer up exceptions all throughout them without reference to other exceptions, and thus there really isn't an official answer about how to handle all the possible interactions. Lines of the rules arbitrarily impose conditions on other creatures that themselves arbitrarily impose conditions.

The table is one step towards 2e unifying everything but is on inspection massively surprising in its answers and certain to cause table arguments. I'm quite certain that a PC who has written on his character sheet "I'm only surprised 5% of the time" doesn't understand that to mean that sometimes he's surprised 62% of the time.

True enough, though I think most players can wrap their heads around an "under standard conditions" caveat.