D&D 1E Seriously contemplating an attempt at a retro AD&D

[Mannahnin]

One could certainly invent more restrictions, sure. There is of course (as far as I'm aware; open to a text reference if I'm missing some ruling in Dragon or UA) no rule saying that you have to move your arms around to gain the defensive protection of magical bracers, just as there is no such rule with rings, cloaks, or worn armor. Every table I have played at has seen all such magical protective devices as giving a passive defensive bonus akin to a minor force field. The enchantment makes it a bit harder to hit the target, deflecting some (but not all) blows. Much like defensive spells which grant an AC bonus, such as Protection from Evil.

I've always seen bracers as equivalent to shields with regards to when they can and can't be of use. Rings, cloaks, etc are passive and thus always-on, while bracers and dexterity are active and thus their use to defend against an attack disrupts casting.

Which is you or your group inventing a rule and imposing a new restriction not present in the published game.

You misunderstand, I assume unintentionally. With the AD&D DMG including items such as Bracers of Defence AC 2, Cloaks of Protection up to +5, and Rings of Protection up to +6, it's obviously possible for a character not wearing armor to get quite a good AC. What's cruddy IMO is making a character's core functions dependent on finding particular magic items (AND getting them in the treasure division).

A Fighter or Cleric or Thief or M-U gets to do their shtick regardless of what items they find. Obviously they get better when they find items. An F-MU gets to do their shtick (fight wearing armor and cast spells) right from the start as well, under the OE and 1E rules, without being dependent on magic items. In 2E that changed. And obviously in your table's house rules.

Provided those items are of use to that class.

The only use a Thief is gonna get out of +3 plate mail is to sell it for a boatload of gold. Ditto a Mage. And thus, by extension the way I see it, the same would apply to a F-T or a F-MU.

Once again you misunderstand, and your response doesn't address my point.

A Fighter gets to wear armor and fight regardless of what magic items they find or don't find. Magic items may enhance their capabilities or add new ones, but their capacity to ENGAGE IN THEIR CORE CLASS FUNCTIONS is not gated behind finding specific magic items (edge case: needing magic weapons to hurt higher level monsters, but those are given out like popcorn).

A Magic-User gets to cast spells regardless of what magic items they find or don't find.

A Cleric gets to cast spells, turn undead, wear armor and fight regardless of what magic items they find or don't find.

A Thief gets to use thief skills and backstab things regardless of what magic items they find or don't find.

A Fighter/Cleric gets to cast spells, turn undead, wear armor and fight regardless of what magic items they find or don't find.

A Fighter/MU gets to cast spells, wear armor and fight regardless of what magic items they find or don't find. ...except that casting spells in armor is suddenly restricted in 2nd ed. And in your house rules. In 1E they get to use their class abilities together easily and freely. But in 2E they still pay full xp for advancement, but don't get to use their abilities easily and freely together anymore. Which I think is worse design. There's some implicit worldbuilding there, and it's functional design if you want to discourage this particular multiclass combo, but I don't think game balance requires it, by any means.

Yes, obviously. I'm talking about the topic we're discussing. Other multiclass combos aren't subject to the same issue. The issue we're discussing is casting MU spells in armor and whether it's a game balance problem. This issue only applies to MU multiclass combos (and Gnome multi-classed Illusionists as an edge case, sure), because the other spellcasting classes (Cleric and Druid) can cast in armor in the first place.

Well, yes they are. A Fighter-Thief can't do much thieving in plate mail.

Druids can't wear metal armour, thus if one allows a multiclassed Druid one would think it too can't wear metal armour.

Again, the topic of discussion was casting M-U spells in armor. Thieves and Druids are a tangent.

The actual class description for Druids says that metal armor spoils their magical powers. The description for MUs says no such thing. There is also to the best of my knowledge no common example of such a rationale existing in pre-D&D source fiction. Though it became common practice for people trying to use AD&D as a physics/world engine to invent such rationalizations.

A Fighter/Thief being unable to use or penalized while using Thief skills in armor is at least grounded in our common physical reality, rather than being an arbitrary imposition of a fictional rationale. Still, the AD&D penalties for use of Thief skills in armor are notoriously strict, another example of Gygax's silly zeal to handicap Thieves. Heck the UA chart for penalties for using Thief skills in Studded Leather or Elfin Chain gives penalties to skills like Open Locks and Hear Noise! Which is just obviously moronic, and people twisted themselves in knots trying to justify that nonsense. This is all still a tangent, though.

Of course giving humans racial benefits is fine. Your preference to keep them "a zero baseline against which everything is compared" is purely a subjective preference, and it's one which led to human characters being rare at most tables unless humans were given other goodies (like the incredibly generous ability generation Method V from Unearthed Arcana, designed to let humans reliably qualify for the more powerful classes like Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, and Cavalier).

In OE and 1E as designed humans WERE given racial benefits. They were allowed unlimited level advancement, access to all character classes, and the least costly/restrictive means of being raised from the dead. Of course the problem with this was that most of these racial bonuses weren't actually very useful or were negated by house rules, because they didn't apply at low and mid levels where everyone played, only at higher levels which not all campaigns would reach. And by the time a game DID reach high levels, as you know, DMs would be reluctant to impose level limits and resurrection restrictions on demihuman characters players had been playing usually for years by that point. It was just bad design.

It usually resulted in those higher-level downsides to demihumans being ignored or reduced, and thus the human racial benefits never materialized. Except for class access, which was restricted by high ability score requirements for the really badass classes, hence Gary giving us Method V in UA to make humans more powerful and make sure they could qualify for their desired class. While of course a lot of tables ignored Method V, finding it over the top powerful, every table I ever played AD&D with DID use more generous ability rolling methods than the ones in the DMG.

In the WotC editions the various groups I've been in have had A LOT more human characters. Folks like playing them, and they feel better playing them when they don't have to handicap themselves to do so.

My experience differs: even though we've opened up the class-species possibilities far beyond 1e RAW limits, Humans have always been the most common PC species in our games, in part I think because we still have stat penalties as well as bonuses for other species and people don't want to take the hit unless it directly lines up with their character idea.

And while our stat generation method is generous, it's nowhere near as crazy as that UA method.

That said, we're generally not hard-core optimizers here. If we were, Part-Elf would be the species-du-jour (as in, nobody would play anything else!) as they've overall got the most going for them mechanically in our system.

I never saw those class level limits etc. as being specific Human benefits, but instead saw them as variable penalties and drawbacks against other species. But then, I see Humans as the baseline.

And yeah, those level limits never made much sense anyway.

We have both roll-and-arrange and separate class-species, and (other than a few specific players who are now long gone) the min-maxing hasn't been a big issue. I mean, obviously you arrange your stats to suit your intended class, but to me that just makes sense: a low-Dex person, for example, isn't likely to take up Thieving as a career and would be laughed out of the guild if he tried.

Right. You've internalized and rationalized what your table does as just "the way things are" and "how the game works". Both the parts of the rules which don't make sense but you're ok with, and the house rules that you've adopted for the parts which didn't make sense to or were un-fun for you. This can make discussions of the D&D rules with you a little challenging, because you're almost always answering from the perspective of your table rules, whether they're germane to the subject or not.

I get that you see humans as a baseline, and the 1E PH says something similar. It does also list unlimited class selection and level advancement under the human racial description. The UA human entry is even more explicit that these are their benefits, as well as the special more powerful method of ability generation introduced in that book for them.

I could predict that you use a more generous ability score generation method than the ones in the DMG because virtually everyone playing AD&D does. Especially people playing it long-term. If your crew plays more humans than most that might be a product of a strong group culture against min-maxing, or it may relate to that more generous ability score generation method making the bonuses granted by the demi-human races less significant on a percentage basis. Of course, you having other house rules like reducing the benefits of races (elves you mentioned specifically) weighs in here too. Most likely it's a combination of these factors.

You opine that if you were "hard-core optimizers" you'd see more "Part-Elf"s, as this custom race is the most powerful mechanically, but that's impossible to assess from here. Since it's a house-ruled race, I'm betting that it's a downgraded version of Half-Elf, just as your table downgraded Elves. If the benefits are only marginal, then they may not outweigh the RP benefits of playing a human character in the setting/s you use, combined with the mechanical benefits of unlimited class and level and easier resurrection, or whatever variation of those exists in your house ruled version of AD&D.

Even with a mix of ability score bonuses AND penalties, separate race & class is always one of the most basic game elements enabling and encouraging min-maxing.

Sure, it can be. But just taking away one of the two MAIN things in the rules that can be min-maxed is certainly effective.

If you do race as class and remove "arrange to taste" in ability score generation, that get rid of 90%+ of all AD&D min-maxing.

We have both roll-and-arrange and separate class-species, and (other than a few specific players who are now long gone) the min-maxing hasn't been a big issue. I mean, obviously you arrange your stats to suit your intended class, but to me that just makes sense: a low-Dex person, for example, isn't likely to take up Thieving as a career and would be laughed out of the guild if he tried.

I can have no opinion on whether min-maxing is a big issue at your table.

Obviously with you using a more generous ability score generation system than the ones in the rule book, the bonuses granted by demi-human races to ability scores are of reduced value. And obviously with you using house-ruled depowered versions of the more powerful races, their other powers and benefits are of reduced value too.

You've taken significant steps in altering the rules to reduce the impact of min-maxing, so I'd HOPE that you'd see less of it.

 

[Mannahnin]

I always assumed the idea of defensive bracers came straight from the Wonder Woman comics.

If read as being passive, their stacking with rings or protection kinda stops making sense.

But yes - typical Gygax - he's not clear about how bracers actually do their defending, and thus leaves it up to us to interpret.

I mean, the text of the rules directly compares bracers to armor. The implication is that they function a lot like a magical version of armor, passively defending you.

Bracers explicitly state that they don't combine and can't stack with armor, but that they do stack with other magical defensive items. Similarly, cloaks of protection explicitly stack with other magical devices, but not with shields or with armor except for leather armor (for some unexplained reason). Rings of Protection stack with everything except another Ring of Protection (only the highest bonus counts) and AC bonuses from MAGIC armor (though they still give their save bonuses).

With weapons, at least it's consistent: the less-restrictive option always takes precedence. With armour, I just went the other way and had it that the more-restrictive option always takes precedence. Keeps it simple.

Right. Less restrictive for one thing, but rule the opposite for the other. Simple!

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, the text of the rules directly compares bracers to armor. The implication is that they function a lot like a magical version of armor, passively defending you.

Bracers explicitly state that they don't combine and can't stack with armor, but that they do stack with other magical defensive items. Similarly, cloaks of protection explicitly stack with other magical devices, but not with shields or with armor except for leather armor (for some unexplained reason). Rings of Protection stack with everything except another Ring of Protection (only the highest bonus counts) and AC bonuses from MAGIC armor (though they still give their save bonuses).

Some years ago I went through and made up a chart of what defensive things are supposed to stack with what, based on the printed books; and it was surprisingly* messy.

We then tweaked it slightly to reflect some physics and common sense, and still use that chart today.

* - well, maybe not so surprisingly - this is 1e, after all.

Right. Less restrictive for one thing, but rule the opposite for the other. Simple!

You get the best weapons and the worst armour. How hard is that?

 

[Lanefan]

Once again you misunderstand, and your response doesn't address my point.

A Fighter gets to wear armor and fight regardless of what magic items they find or don't find. Magic items may enhance their capabilities or add new ones, but their capacity to ENGAGE IN THEIR CORE CLASS FUNCTIONS is not gated behind finding specific magic items (edge case: needing magic weapons to hurt higher level monsters, but those are given out like popcorn).

A Magic-User gets to cast spells regardless of what magic items they find or don't find.

A Cleric gets to cast spells, turn undead, wear armor and fight regardless of what magic items they find or don't find.

A Thief gets to use thief skills and backstab things regardless of what magic items they find or don't find.

A Fighter/Cleric gets to cast spells, turn undead, wear armor and fight regardless of what magic items they find or don't find.

A Fighter/MU gets to cast spells, wear armor and fight regardless of what magic items they find or don't find. ...except that casting spells in armor is suddenly restricted in 2nd ed. And in your house rules. In 1E they get to use their class abilities together easily and freely. But in 2E they still pay full xp for advancement, but don't get to use their abilities easily and freely together anymore. Which I think is worse design.

I disagree that it's worse design at least in one direction: if unrestricted, F-MUs (or worse, R-MUs) can quickly become one-person parties, with their only serious limitation being that they can't heal themselves. This works directly against party play and character interdependence. And so, I'm fine with putting some restrictions on them - and disallowing them from casting in armour also has the happy side effect of making them work the same, setting-physics-wise, as single-class Mages.

Truth be told, if I was designing from scratch I'd probably ban multi-classing altogether, and maybe design a couple of new single classes to fill holes e.g. a Swashbuckler to replace F-T. I would specifically not, however, design a class to replace any martial-arcane combinations; and martial-divine could be done by simply expanding on the already-existing Paladin class.

But that horse of precedent has long since left the barn.

Again, the topic of discussion was casting M-U spells in armor. Thieves and Druids are a tangent.

The actual class description for Druids says that metal armor spoils their magical powers. The description for MUs says no such thing. There is also to the best of my knowledge no common example of such a rationale existing in pre-D&D source fiction. Though it became common practice for people trying to use AD&D as a physics/world engine to invent such rationalizations.

A Fighter/Thief being unable to use or penalized while using Thief skills in armor is at least grounded in our common physical reality, rather than being an arbitrary imposition of a fictional rationale. Still, the AD&D penalties for use of Thief skills in armor are notoriously strict, another example of Gygax's silly zeal to handicap Thieves. Heck the UA chart for penalties for using Thief skills in Studded Leather or Elfin Chain gives penalties to skills like Open Locks and Hear Noise! Which is just obviously moronic, and people twisted themselves in knots trying to justify that nonsense. This is all still a tangent, though.

I agree some of those specific restrictions make no sense but disagree this is a tangent. That these other classes have sound explanations for their restrictions doesn't excuse that the F-MU combination is by RAW for some reason left unrestricted, which simply makes no sense

Right. You've internalized and rationalized what your table does as just "the way things are" and "how the game works". Both the parts of the rules which don't make sense but you're ok with, and the house rules that you've adopted for the parts which didn't make sense to or were un-fun for you. This can make discussions of the D&D rules with you a little challenging, because you're almost always answering from the perspective of your table rules, whether they're germane to the subject or not.

I get that you see humans as a baseline, and the 1E PH says something similar. It does also list unlimited class selection and level advancement under the human racial description. The UA human entry is even more explicit that these are their benefits, as well as the special more powerful method of ability generation introduced in that book for them.

I could predict that you use a more generous ability score generation method than the ones in the DMG because virtually everyone playing AD&D does. Especially people playing it long-term.

We use 5d6drop2, arranged.

Side story: for the campaign I currently play in, the DM tried making roll-up a bit less generous in order - I think - to cut down on the high stats people were ending up with. The end result is that the experiment has failed spectacularly; just about every all-world high-stat record is now held by a character in that game, and in some cases it's not even close!

If your crew plays more humans than most that might be a product of a strong group culture against min-maxing, or it may relate to that more generous ability score generation method making the bonuses granted by the demi-human races less significant on a percentage basis. Of course, you having other house rules like reducing the benefits of races (elves you mentioned specifically) weighs in here too. Most likely it's a combination of these factors.

You opine that if you were "hard-core optimizers" you'd see more "Part-Elf"s, as this custom race is the most powerful mechanically, but that's impossible to assess from here. Since it's a house-ruled race, I'm betting that it's a downgraded version of Half-Elf, just as your table downgraded Elves.

We broke "Half-Elf" (and "Half-Orc") into sub-gradients, to reflect that not every dual-species person is going be exactly half of each. For example, the offspring of an Elf and a Half-Elf would be a 3/4-Elf. Each gradient (from 1/8 to 7/8) has its own slightly-different mechanics, with the true "half" (i.e. 4/8) versions being fairly close to what's in the original books.

 

[Voadam]

I could predict that you use a more generous ability score generation method than the ones in the DMG because virtually everyone playing AD&D does. Especially people playing it long-term.

My long running 1e campaign from the 80s I had everybody use their choice of 1e DMG options RAW for stat generation. I think most used the 4d6 take the top 3 and arrange by choice method.

When we did B/X it was RAW 3d6 in order with the official options for lowering some stats 2-1 to bump up a prime requisite.

UA human rolls RAW was allowed once it came out though. I think three PCs used it.

 

[Mannahnin]

You get the best weapons and the worst armour. How hard is that?

It's inconsistent. The general rule of thumb for multiclassed characters is that you get to use all the benefits of all your classes. ie: Use the best save you have available, use the best weapons, best armor, best attack progression, etc.

I disagree that it's worse design at least in one direction: if unrestricted, F-MUs (or worse, R-MUs) can quickly become one-person parties, with their only serious limitation being that they can't heal themselves. This works directly against party play and character interdependence.

The obvious hole in your logic here is that Fighter/Clerics have MORE of that issue, because healing and protective spells are more essential than M-U spells.

And so, I'm fine with putting some restrictions on them - and disallowing them from casting in armour also has the happy side effect of making them work the same, setting-physics-wise, as single-class Mages.

...only for your arbitrarily invented "physics" around magic. Unless you do have a pre-D&D Appendix N fiction reference, maybe? AD&D 1E doesn't present the inability of M-Us to wear armor as an issue of physics, but one of training.

Truth be told, if I was designing from scratch I'd probably ban multi-classing altogether, and maybe design a couple of new single classes to fill holes e.g. a Swashbuckler to replace F-T. I would specifically not, however, design a class to replace any martial-arcane combinations; and martial-divine could be done by simply expanding on the already-existing Paladin class.

But that horse of precedent has long since left the barn.

Banning multiclassing and replacing it with deliberately designed and balanced hybrid classes is certainly an option, though I understand why it's intimidating. EDIT: Actually, now that I think longer on it, this is exactly what Hyperborea! (formerly Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea) does. It removes multiclassing and instead uses new hybrid function sub-classes instead.

Clerics, of course, are the original hybrid class, as they are described in OD&D.

Men & Magic page 7 said:

Clerics: Clerics gain some of the advantages from both of the other two classes (Fighting-Men and Magic-Users) in that they have the use of magic armor and all non-edged magic weapons (no arrows!), plus they have numbers of their own spells. In addition, they are able to use more of the magical items than are the Fighting-Men.

The Elf class from B/X and BECMI and the RC is such a class, and works pretty well. Its biggest weakness is of course the slow advancement. I played an OSE Advanced Half-Elf class for a while in an online campaign during the pandemic, which gets faster advancement but inferior special abilities (I really missed the immunity to Ghoul paralysis a couple of times) and slower spell progression. There were multiple times in that campaign where Lathan would have died if he were a regular Elf, though, because he'd have been lower level and had fewer HP.

The balancing factors for 1E F/MUs are reduced HP, slow advancement (worse TH and saves, fewer and lower level spells than your peers with equivalent XP), and the physical inability to do more than one thing at the same time. If it's an option, having two PCs, a Fighter and an MU, would virtually always be superior to having a single F/MU.

I agree some of those specific restrictions make no sense but disagree this is a tangent. That these other classes have sound explanations for their restrictions doesn't excuse that the F-MU combination is by RAW for some reason left unrestricted, which simply makes no sense

It makes exactly as much "sense" as in "common sense" as the 2E restrictions do. It's totally arbitrary either way. As with the Fighter/Clerics, who get to use edged weapons.

From a game balance perspective I would argue that it makes less sense to arbitrarily penalize one multi-class combo without any compensatory XP discount or something. From a fiction-emulation perspective it makes less sense to restrict the combination if inspirational characters like Elric or Tolkien's Elves are not so restricted. Which they're not.

The difference with Druid and Thief isn't the "soundness" of their restrictions.

The restriction on Thieves is grounded in real-world logic and physics, unlike the others. Gygax took it too far as usual, but at least he was attempting to simulate that it's tougher to sneak around or to hide or climb in heavy, bulky armor. That's reality. There is no reality being simulated when we talk about M-Us or Druids not being able to use armor or metal armor.

The restriction on Druids wearing metal armor is just as arbitrary as the M-U restriction on all armor. It, too, has no grounding in the real world. But it's explained in the rule book as metallic armor spoiling their powers.

Which is a totally different explanation from M-Us, for whom the rules instead explain that "Furthermore, they can wear no armor and have few weapons they can use, for martial training is so foreign to magic-use as to make the two almost mutually exclusive." With that being the basis of the restriction, obviously when a character has such training from another class, that restriction cannot apply.

We use 5d6drop2, arranged.

Side story: for the campaign I currently play in, the DM tried making roll-up a bit less generous in order - I think - to cut down on the high stats people were ending up with. The end result is that the experiment has failed spectacularly; just about every all-world high-stat record is now held by a character in that game, and in some cases it's not even close!

I'd be curious to hear what that alternate system was, and whether that was a fluke or he just didn't understand the math before he implemented it.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd be curious to hear what that alternate system was, and whether that was a fluke or he just didn't understand the math before he implemented it.

With his education and background, there's no chance whatsoever that he didn't understand the math.

Taking the best three each time:
Instead of 5d6 across the board, he made it 27d6 in total, which works out to 3 x 5d6 and 3 x 4d6, or one 6d6, 2 5s, 2 4s and a 3. Most players went with the former, the second option has been done occasionally, and I don't think I've seen anyone try any different combinations.

But then the dice took over. For whatever reason, there were - and still are! - far more extreme rolls in that game than all the others, past and present, that use 5d6 across the board. And when species-based adjusts are factored in, along with now (on average) over 10 levels worth of percentile increments, there's a rather shocking number of characters - including some of mine - sporting a 19 or 20 or 21 somewhere (and with magical help, one guy got his Wisdom up to 22). I thought it a fluke to begin with, but it's remained surprisingly persistent.

Contrast this with my game, started a year later and using 5d6 across: for a surprisingly long time there wasn't an 18 to be seen, and 17s were rare. Even now, though the average rolls have got better over time, I think there's still only ever been one 20+ in my game (a Necromancer who's got his Charisma up to 21), and that due to some serious magical help along the way.

(Strength is an oddball in all cases above, but the equivalents remain true)

I should note that in all cases, all stat rolling is done in front of others.

 

[Mannahnin]

With his education and background, there's no chance whatsoever that he didn't understand the math.

Taking the best three each time:
Instead of 5d6 across the board, he made it 27d6 in total, which works out to 3 x 5d6 and 3 x 4d6, or one 6d6, 2 5s, 2 4s and a 3. Most players went with the former, the second option has been done occasionally, and I don't think I've seen anyone try any different combinations.

But then the dice took over. For whatever reason, there were - and still are! - far more extreme rolls in that game than all the others, past and present, that use 5d6 across the board. And when species-based adjusts are factored in, along with now (on average) over 10 levels worth of percentile increments, there's a rather shocking number of characters - including some of mine - sporting a 19 or 20 or 21 somewhere (and with magical help, one guy got his Wisdom up to 22). I thought it a fluke to begin with, but it's remained surprisingly persistent.

No chance whatsoever?

So 27d6 total, allocated between the six stats however the player likes, before rolling? Or just allocated to six totals, which can then be assigned as the player likes? Your last couple of sentences muddy it a bit, but is this still only keep the highest three dice, so at generation the highest roll for any given score is still 18?

Contrast this with my game, started a year later and using 5d6 across: for a surprisingly long time there wasn't an 18 to be seen, and 17s were rare. Even now, though the average rolls have got better over time, I think there's still only ever been one 20+ in my game (a Necromancer who's got his Charisma up to 21), and that due to some serious magical help along the way.

5d6 drop lowest two, right? So a 3.55% chance of any given roll being an 18, as opposed to the usual 1.62% chance with 4d6 drop the lowest. 17s are a 7.84% chance, as opposed to 4.17%.

From an article on Anydice, 4d6 drop the lowest has a 9.34% chance of getting at least one 18 in a given set of six rolls. If I'm reading the calculation correctly, it looks like your method gives a 19.49% chance of getting at least one 18 in a set of 6 rolls. And a 51.61% chance of at least a 17.

 

[Lanefan]

No chance whatsoever?

So 27d6 total, allocated between the six stats however the player likes, before rolling? Or just allocated to six totals, which can then be assigned as the player likes? Your last couple of sentences muddy it a bit, but is this still only keep the highest three dice, so at generation the highest roll for any given score is still 18?

Yes. And in any case (and in either method) the rolls can be rearranged. Thus, if I'm after a Cleric but my rolls in order are 12-14-12-10-11-18 I can put the 18 in Wisdom.

With his method, the only difference is that instead of being locked in to 5d6drop2 for each roll, I can (and have to) vary it somewhat; 5d6 x 6 stats is 30d6 in total, where his system only allows 27.

5d6 drop lowest two, right? So a 3.55% chance of any given roll being an 18, as opposed to the usual 1.62% chance with 4d6 drop the lowest. 17s are a 7.84% chance, as opposed to 4.17%.

From an article on Anydice, 4d6 drop the lowest has a 9.34% chance of getting at least one 18 in a given set of six rolls. If I'm reading the calculation correctly, it looks like your method gives a 19.49% chance of getting at least one 18 in a set of 6 rolls. And a 51.61% chance of at least a 17.

I'll have to take your word for that - never ran those numbers. I do know the overall average when using 5d6drop2 is a shade over 13, as opposed to about 12.25 when using 4d6drop1.

And if the odds are over 50% of getting at least one 17, the stats for the early characters in my current campaign truly were awful; as 17s (and-or 18s) were about as rare as hens teeth.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yes. And in any case (and in either method) the rolls can be rearranged. Thus, if I'm after a Cleric but my rolls in order are 12-14-12-10-11-18 I can put the 18 in Wisdom.

With his method, the only difference is that instead of being locked in to 5d6drop2 for each roll, I can (and have to) vary it somewhat; 5d6 x 6 stats is 30d6 in total, where his system only allows 27.

Right. So on average it will output slightly lower values, but that's over an infinite number of trials, and your group saw outlier results.

I'll have to take your word for that - never ran those numbers. I do know the overall average when using 5d6drop2 is a shade over 13, as opposed to about 12.25 when using 4d6drop1.

Anydice puts the averages at 13.43 for your method and 12.24 for 4d6dl.

AnyDice

AnyDice is an advanced dice probability calculator, available online. It is created with roleplaying games in mind.

anydice.com

output [highest 3 of 5d6] named "5d6 drop lowest two"
output [highest 3 of 4d6] named "4d6 drop lowest"

And if the odds are over 50% of getting at least one 17, the stats for the early characters in my current campaign truly were awful; as 17s (and-or 18s) were about as rare as hens teeth.

Random numbers gonna random. If you've got 5 PCs it'd be a little under a 1/32 chance of no one rolling any stats of a 17 or higher. But closer to 1/16 of only ONE PC having a 17 or higher score, if my simplified math in my head is correct. Which isn't crazy odds. Natural 1s and nat 20s are less common.