What 5e got wrong

[Hussar]

Okay, since we have established that you were incorrect to begin with, I am not entirely sure why you are continuing to argue. Since you played since 1980, you are no doubt aware that playing back then was decidedly different than modern playing. There was no internet to share information. Players often didn't have (or read) the DMG. Many people started with pre-79 material (or Moldvay) and moved up, while incorporating rules and ideas from other rule sets that they played (not to mention Dragon magazine and supplements).

It's one thing to assert, incorrectly, what the rules were, as you did in the first post. It's another thing to assert the rules as authority when you are incorrect. If I say, for example, that, elves could never be resurrected - a rule I saw applied precisely *never* I would at least have support in the rules, but I would be careful to note that it was a rule that was rarely applied, and one I didn't see applied.

You may think 3d6 in order is stupid. That's fine. But you're wrong on the rules. The default listing is 3d6 in order, and the method alternatives listed by Gygax are variations from that. It's better to confess error, and move on, than to keep digging the hole.

Show me where 3d6 in order is listed in AD&D 1e.

Actually, Elves *can* be resurrected, they cannot be raised. A rule we played with assiduously. So, again, where are you getting "rarely" from? Why do you keep trying to pretend that your experience was somehow universal?

That's the point I'm arguing with. This idea that just because you or I happened to play a certain way, that everyone else did too. I am only talking about my table and what the rules said, I'm making absolutely no judgements on how other players played the game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Curmudjinn]

5e was a huge opportunity to do some modernizing to the traditional ruleset of dungeons and dragons. They did a great job with this in certain aspects of the game, like the updated spellcasting rules. However, my biggest complaint by far about 5e is how they made almost no updates to the traditional attribute system d&D has always used, which frankly has a lot of problems.

Pillars of Eternity is a great example of how the 6-score system of D&D could have been easily updated into something more coherent, sensible, modern, and balanced. Not only do the 6 attributes in PoE make more conceptual/thematic sense, but they are also designed with the mantra of being useful independent of class. There's no such thing as a dump stat. Some stats may be more useful for some builds than other stats, but it comes much closer to being class-independent than D&D, which I vastly prefer because it makes character concepting and building much more engaging, with the potential for much more diversity, and opens up interesting role-play options.

While there are flaws, they are only exaggerated by us exploiting them, as we ourselves are flawed. The 6-attribute system is simple enough if you play them as written, using them in their proper form. However, the dump stat ideology is only a flaw because we, looking for mechanical exploits, have made it one. Putting another name on the six attributes doesn't change the flaw, it only modifies the way in which people exploit it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

For those who don't remember, anything lower than a 15 (16 for strength) basically gave you no numerical advantages, but then the advantages scaled quickly.* And then there were the quirky rules- such as the special strength percentile rules (if you were a non-fighter with an 18, that was one thing, and you had your +1/+2, but a fighter-type got into the lottery for up to +3/+6) which really, really privileged getting an 18 in a key stat.

More specifically, it encouraged anyone who rolled an 18 for Strength to take a race with a Strength bonus, since you skip straight to 19 without having to even play the lottery.

 

[MostlyDm]

Also, initiative. The initiative system in 5e is broken, but it's been broken in every version of D&D. People just don't know it's broken. It's broken because it stops the flow of the game and forces people to transition from one line of thinking into another.
I've said this on other forums, but I use an app that computes initiative for everything and rerolls initiative behind the DM screen every round. And I don't tell people when initiative starts. I simply describe the scene in detail and ask people what they are doing. What results is that people simply play their characters, and the immersion is much better. Every round people are watching the combat, not knowing who's going next, not knowing what's going to happen next. It's more exciting and keeps everyone's attention.
I've used this in 7 sessions now, and have already had 3 cases where players were actually in combat (initiative had started), and had no idea. In one situation, the player was in combat and managed to end combat peacefully without ever knowing he was about to be attacked. I play with a group of players who've played everything from OD&D through 4e (one of them has his own published game system), and they've said it's the best version of initiative they've ever played. I said, "That's because initiative is broken, but you never knew it"

Sounds neat; what app are you using?

 

[Lord Twig]

I already did. They present the bell curve. They state that you can create the character using the 3d6 system. They then present four *alternatives* to the 3d6 system. (DMG, p. 11) It says "3d6." I don't think this is a point worth belaboring, since we have both quoted the relevant sections. Your methods, which you used to say someone was just wrong, were not the sole methods. They are explicitly listed as alternatives to the 3d6 system. Hole, digging.

I don't have my old rule book handy, but it seems that it was never explicitly stated that you roll 3d6 in order and keep what you get regardless of the rolls. Apparently the books even said you should have at least two 15s. So the implied method was, roll 3d6 in order and keep trying until you get a decent set of rolls.

And honestly, that's how we made characters for my first few games (I also started in 1980). Needless to say this method gets you scores a lot better than 10.5 average on each stat and therefore makes it easier to qualify for whatever class you want. Which I believe was the whole point of this argument?

Resurrection is a 7th level cleric spell. In Resurrection, the following text is included: See raise dead for limitations on what persons can be raised. (p. 53, PHB). Do you wish to guess what limitations there are? Again, hole, digging.

Just because someone makes a mistake doesn't mean you should be obnoxious in pointing out that mistake.

No, you started this whole issue by making an incorrect assertion about the rules. That isn't an argument. If you had simply said that your experience was that people you knew rarely used 3d6, I'd have no argument with it. If you had stated that 1e allowed alterantives in the RAW, again, no argument. But responding to someone, as you did, with, "This is not true. 3d6 in order wasn't even an option in 1e D&D" is incorrect. Compounding your error by then misremembering the rule for resurrection and elves is ... understandable. Most people, as I stated, didn't play with it. Still, I would recommend more caution since I just pointed it out. It's ... funny?

All that said, I don't particularly enjoy arguing about arguing or shifting goalposts. Your experience is your own- but the written rules are there for anyone else to look at.

He asked that you show where it says that you roll 3d6 in order and keep what you get. I believe you have failed to come up with a page number so far. The best you can say at this point was that you were both a little off on remembering the exact method described as the default method of generating characteristics in 1e D&D.

Again, I don't have my books available right now, so I am working off memory and comments in this thread. If it actually is stated somewhere in the 1e PHB or DMG that you roll 3d6 in order and keep the results you get, a polite correction would be most welcome.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

I don't have my old rule book handy, but it seems that it was never explicitly stated that you roll 3d6 in order and keep what you get regardless of the rolls. Apparently the books even said you should have at least two 15s. So the implied method was, roll 3d6 in order and keep trying until you get a decent set of rolls.

And honestly, that's how we made characters for my first few games (I also started in 1980). Needless to say this method gets you scores a lot better than 10.5 average on each stat and therefore makes it easier to qualify for whatever class you want. Which I believe was the whole point of this argument?



Just because someone makes a mistake doesn't mean you should be obnoxious in pointing out that mistake.



He asked that you show where it says that you roll 3d6 in order and keep what you get. I believe you have failed to come up with a page number so far. The best you can say at this point was that you were both a little off on remembering the exact method described as the default method of generating characteristics in 1e D&D.

Again, I don't have my books available right now, so I am working off memory and comments in this thread. If it actually is stated somewhere in the 1e PHB or DMG that you roll 3d6 in order and keep the results you get, a polite correction would be most welcome.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find it explicitly stated in the books -- unfortunately, as has been an ongoing criticism of the 1E rule books, some of the expected rules of the game were either assumed or implicit in some of the language of the rulebooks, such as Hussar's quote of the introduction to the four alternative methods of generation -- in that particular instance, it's at least explicit that those are "alternate methods," which assumes that 3d6 is the default. A large complaint has been that there are gaping holes in the ruleset, due to assumptions like these.

While while E. Gary Gygax was revolutionary in creating D&D and, in turn, AD&D, communicating rules clearly and concisely wasn't his strong suit. Like OD&D made multiple assumptions on players being aware of rules from Chainmail, AD&D carried similar notions forward concerning OD&D rules. One of AD&D 2E's many missions was to codify and clarify what existed in AD&D 1E, to make it more accessible to the novice player. While it may be argued by some that 2E, as a system, made unnecessary changes to certain rules (classes, races, spells, etc.), its organization was at least more coherent than 1E, in most cases (the comparable sparseness of the 2E DMG aside).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*