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

[TwoSix]

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.

I like something similar too. If I was hypothetically hacking AD&D, I think I would let a 1st level fighter set their Strength to 17 if it wasn't already there, and then go up by 1 tier every level after that. So 18 at level 2, 18/01 at 3, 18/51 at 4, etc., up to 18/00 at 7.

So rolling high gives you an advantage at low levels, but it worn away as levels increase.

If I was hacking further, I might do something similar with exceptional Dex for thieves, exceptional Wis for clerics, etc.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

OA is filled with little kludge fixes to the system with varying degrees of success. For example, all Samurai can rage and function as if they have 18/00 strength a certain number of times per day. The Kensai have a variant of weapon specialization that is more powerful, but also not front loaded. Just as the Ninja in some sense is a fixed thief, OA is attempting to fix the problems with the stock fighters. It looks at first like cheese compared to the "western" counterparts, but at least it's aware of the problems.

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

Yes, but even if we apply the logic of the dragon article author, we don't get to the same answers. I'd could argue that the intention of a statement like "Surprised on a 1 in 20" is comparable to "Surprised 1/7th as often and not as severely as other characters". In which case that should translate to something more like a 13% chance of being surprised by something that surprises you 90% of the time, and not a 62%. The author of the article has to make some assumptions though, and they are working toward the linear modifiers of 2e. And really, one of the problems here is that both "surprises 90% of the time" and "Is only surprised 5% of the time" are both ridiculous statements, not just in the context of the fiction but in terms of the game rules. Probably neither statement should have ever been written.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

1) Surprise:

2) Initiative:

Our solution back in the day was to just use the rules from BECMI D&D. Probably still the best way to do it, in my opinion.

3) Ability Scores:

I would argue that with the exception of the minimum/maximums by gender, it doesn't need to be fixed. To me, that's a huge part of the game, how you have this whole subsystem nested in your character stats.

Plus, this charming art:

 

[Willie the Duck]

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.

I'm trying to discuss the situation in general, not anyone's individual experience with it.

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

I'm not looking to rebut anything. Why do I get the feeling I'm coming in late to an argument that you have already had, but not included in this thread?

My point (to SW) was that yes, we did all find a way to work around the issues. What I perhaps should have gone more into depth over was that that does not make-fruitless any further examination of those issues or communally work on solutions to them.

Clearly the original statement is hyperbolic -- these things can be fixed (although the fix might end being indistinguishable with replacing) -- but there's a serious fine line in how much (and what kind) of fixes can be implemented and receive buy-in as 'AD&D-esque-enough.'

I feel like you are conceding my whole argument now.

Conceding what? And what argument? Are we arguing? If I'm conceding your whole argument, how is that different from agreeing with it?

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

What do you mean, "Begin to see?" I brought it up. There is some amazing stilted language going on that makes me wonder what is going on and what conversation I wandered into.

How about this -- what are your goals here? Are you just trying to communally come up with a solution attempt?

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.

Starting out 'on hard mod' makes it hard to get to level 2+, but after that, 'playable' just becomes a matter of taking on challenges that match your ability (which becomes a specific, very cautious, style of play -- one that leaves out certain entertaining playstyle avenues). However, there is so much content that AD&D has that is gated behind specific attributes -- from higher level spells to entire classes to just all the interesting nuances of post-18 stats -- that unplayable certainly has merit (above and beyond just having to play in hard/cautious mode).

 

[Celebrim]

Our solution back in the day was to just use the rules from BECMI D&D. Probably still the best way to do it, in my opinion.

I'm not familiar enough with BECMI to address how it worked, though I do think the BECMI dividing the round into stages is a very elegant solution. What I think is likely however that your solution isn't really a solution to the problem AD&D creates in the general case. At least the answer provided by Leigh Krehmeyer is an attempt to provide a definitive answer in all cases of play that could come up in the game. The answer is arbitrary and subjective and you could justify different ones, but at least it is comprehensive, which I don't imagine "just use BECMI" actually is.

 

[Mannahnin]

Starting out 'on hard mode' makes it hard to get to level 2+, but after that, 'playable' just becomes a matter of taking on challenges that match your ability (which becomes a specific, very cautious, style of play -- one that leaves out certain entertaining playstyle avenues). However, there is so much content that AD&D has that is gated behind specific attributes -- from higher level spells to entire classes to just all the interesting nuances of post-18 stats -- that unplayable certainly has merit (above and beyond just having to play in hard/cautious mode).

I agree that being on hard mode requires a different, more cautious style of play. I don't think we can say it's just starting out on hard mode though, as hard mode continues for the life of the characters unless the DM gives out a huge number of wishes or other unique ability score increasing boons/magical effects.*

The increasing attack progression of the Fighter does mean that the importance of Exceptional Strength gradually diminishes a bit over time, but it's still a big benefit at high levels. And other stuff like % to learn spell rolls and % spell failure chances get arguably more important over time as rolls get failed over and over.

*(semi-obligatory Mannahnin referencing The Nightmares Underneath instance: TNU includes chances to increase two ability scores every time a character gains a level, and the lower the stat, both the higher the chances of increasing it, and the more it goes up).

 

[Willie the Duck]

I agree that being on hard mode requires a different, more cautious style of play. I don't think we can say it's just starting out on hard mode though, as hard mode continues for the life of the characters unless the DM gives out a huge number of wishes or other unique ability score increasing boons/magical effects.*

What I mean is that at low levels, there's often little you can do about it. You can't 'explore level one-half dungeons' or the like. After that, you can choose to take on lesser challenges than you would otherwise attempt, not stick your neck out, and generally play it safe. This makes the game 'playable,' even if it limits the playstyle.

The increasing attack progression of the Fighter does mean that the importance of Exceptional Strength gradually diminishes a bit over time, but it's still a big benefit at high levels. And other stuff like % to learn spell rolls and % spell failure chances get arguably more important over time as rolls get failed over and over.

Getting extra attacks and magical weapon pluses (and, let's be honest, gauntlets and girdles) will eventually ameliorate low starting Str on a fighter. As you level, Constitution will also be... comingled with another concern -- hp rolls as you level, making a high or un-high Con not the only thing to worry about on that front.

Caster % to learn spell rolls and % spell failure are indeed going to be a problem as you level up. Max level cast for M-Us is going to be super-weird in that it isn't a problem right up until it is, and then it's character defining. I can definitely see an entire party going on an epic quest for a fabled Manual of Int-boost to let the party mage cast the next level of spells.

 

[Celebrim]

I like something similar too. If I was hypothetically hacking AD&D, I think I would let a 1st level fighter set their Strength to 17 if it wasn't already there, and then go up by 1 tier every level after that. So 18 at level 2, 18/01 at 3, 18/51 at 4, etc., up to 18/00 at 7.

So rolling high gives you an advantage at low levels, but it worn away as levels increase.

If I was hacking further, I might do something similar with exceptional Dex for thieves, exceptional Wis for clerics, etc.

That's the obvious thing to do, and you can see a variation of that in my write up of the thief.

The problem with your specific concept is counter intuitively, the best way to make a fighter is to "dump stat" strength. That is, given an array of ability scores, you maximize your character's power by choosing to be a fighter if you are generally high in scores other than strength, since you get strength for free.

 

[Celebrim]

Getting extra attacks and magical weapon pluses...will eventually ameliorate low starting Str on a fighter.

It doesn't really though, or at least, not much.

The problem is hypothetically a 1st level fighter can have +6 to hit and +9 to damage from first level. This is an insane number compared to the increases likely available for magical weapons. And for extra attacks, those bonuses carry to the extra attacks. In a sense, the bonus you get from high strength doesn't get mitigated by extra attacks, it gets multiplied. You are doing 2 extra HD worth of damage for each attack you make. This is one of the reasons Cavaliers with their better even than fighters attack progression are so bustedly powerful even without specialization damage.

 

[TwoSix]

That's the obvious thing to do, and you can see a variation of that in my write up of the thief.

The problem with your specific concept is counter intuitively, the best way to make a fighter is to "dump stat" strength. That is, given an array of ability scores, you maximize your character's power by choosing to be a fighter if you are generally high in scores other than strength, since you get strength for free.

Totally agree on the impact, but I see that as feature, not bug. It creates a strategic tradeoff between using your 18 on Str to get an early boost to damage (at least +2, and maybe more and an attack bonus with a lucky d100 roll), or buffing your other stats at the expense of low-level combat capacity.

Depending on the stat-generating regime, if I was truly concerned about stat-dumping abuse, I'd raise the minimum stat requirement for Fighter (and other base classes if I expanded the methodology) to somewhere between 11 and 13.