Of all the editions of Dungeons & Dragons, pre-Greyhawk OD&D (1974) made the least use of ability scores. They provide, in most cases, minimal mechanical benefit and they play no role in limiting entry into a particular class or race. Greyhawk not only introduces expanded utility for Strength, Intelligence, Dexterity, and Constitution, it also ties level advancement for demihuman races to high scores. For example, dwarves with less than 17 Strength are limited to 6th level as fighting men, while those with 17 can achieve 7th level, and those with 18 8th level. Paladins are also introduced into the game by Supplement I and a fighting man must have a Charisma score of 17 or more to qualify for this new class. This innovation is followed in subsequent supplements, with new classes, like the monk and the assassin, likewise requiring above average ability scores.
Holmes (1977) hews relatively closely to pre-Greyhawk OD&D with regards to ability scores, as we've discussed earlier. However, in one respect, Holmes goes beyond what's even in Supplement, by introducing minimum scores to play a certain type of character. In Holmes, dwarves have a minimum Constitution of 9, while halflings have that same requirement, as well as a minimum Dexterity of 9. Do these minimum requirements appear anywhere else beforehand? My suspicion is that they're the result of meddling by TSR, which, at some point in the process of editing and producing the 1977 Basic Set decided that it should serve as an introduction to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.
AD&D contains a plethora of ability score minimums, both for races and classes. Other than human, there is no race that does not have at least two ability score minimums and some, elves and halflings, have four. Similarly, all character classes have ability score minimums in at least one ability score, even the four "basic" classes of cleric, fighter, magic-user, and thief (in the case of the fighter and the MU, there are, in fact, two minimum scores). The table below clearly illustrates the requirements by class.
|
STR |
INT |
WIS |
DEX |
CON |
CHA |
Cleric |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
Druid |
- |
- |
12 |
- |
- |
15 |
Fighter |
9 |
- |
- |
- |
7 |
- |
Paladin |
12 |
9 |
13 |
- |
9 |
17 |
Ranger |
13 |
13 |
14 |
- |
14 |
- |
Magic-User |
- |
9 |
- |
6 |
- |
- |
Illusionist |
- |
15 |
- |
16 |
- |
- |
Thief |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
- |
Assassin |
12 |
11 |
- |
12 |
- |
- |
Monk |
15 |
- |
15 |
15 |
11 |
- |
It's precisely because of the stringent ability score requirements that I prefer to generate stats in order in AD&D. None of this arrange-to-taste business in my campaign: that way lieth the player feeling entitled to special sub-classes like paladin and monk.
ReplyDeleteGranted, in AD&D games, I allow the player to roll each score twice on 3d6 and take the better roll — I feel like AD&D is just tougher overall, and you need to give the players something — but rolling 3d6 twice doesn't give quite as much of a bump as 4d6k3 does — which a quick trip to anydice will demonstrate.
The high stat requirements make sense to me for the classes that really are "elite" versions of the normal classes - paladins, rangers, assassins, and monks (and bards) - but druids and illusionists are (at least as I see them) just specifically-flavored variations on clerics and magic-users so it seems weird for them to have higher stat minimums.
DeleteAlso, maybe it's too much later-edition influence but I like the idea that if a standard fighter or thief increases their stats during play enough to qualify for one of the elite classes that they could switch over mid-game; i.e. if a good-aligned human or half-elf fighter with a 12 Wis somehow (by drinking from a magic fountain or whatever) gets a +2 to their Wis score they could become a ranger at that point even if they've already gained a few fighter levels, rather than having to qualify on day one at 1st level.
>Also, maybe it's too much later-edition influence but I like the idea that if a standard fighter or thief increases their stats during play enough to qualify for one of the elite classes that they could switch over mid-game
DeleteYeah, I'd definitely allow that if circumstances permitted and it was something the player wanted.
Amusingly, even if you rolled 3d6 six times and allowed players to arrange the scores in any order, about one in 4000 characters would qualify for no class.
ReplyDeleteWhat classes are most difficult to qualify for? Gut instinct says monk, ranger, paladin, illusionist, but the order's not clear and I'm too lazy to crunch the numbers properly..
DeleteI just did a rough calculation of how often six scores of 8 or less would be rolled. For your question, it depends on whether scores are rolled in order or not. It would be easy enough to code up if there’s sufficient interest.
DeleteI've always found the ranger surprisingly hard to qualify for. It doesn't need any really high scores, but it does need 4 out of 6 above average (and that 14 Wis is a real pain because when assigning stats to taste you usually have to place one of your best rolls there instead of in Str or Dex where you'd rather have it).
DeleteOne of the more head-scratching bits of AD&D, no two ways about it. Never registered on younger me how weird and limiting all those requirements really are, but decades later it just looks dreadfully nitpicky.
ReplyDeleteMost of the angst regarding ability scores would go away if abilities could be raised straightforwardly (though not necessarily easily).
ReplyDeleteT&T took that approach. Their leveling system pretty much consists of picking a stat to improve and becoming a bit better at saves unless you can cast spells (which will also unlock higher levels of magic you can cast)
DeleteThat's how Black Hack works. You go up and that's your only real benefit but the whole thing works on a roll under your ability score so its a pretty decent benefit.
Delete5E boosts ability scores at some levels as well.
I think the different approaches in ability scores also reflect a shifting view towards character creation. Is a character a persona in the game world you happen to generate and play with as any other figure in your (wargaming) army, but can die quickly and thus is expandable? Or is it a personal creation of the player, and truely an avatar you will control (and nothing else) for long campaigns?
ReplyDeleteI'd contend there's a third option: My PC is a role in the cooperatively told story that I'm interested in exploring. If the twists and turns of the campaign lead to a short life that at least grants a poignant death that's just as good as a long career and years to develop the character. I might even voluntarily retire a PC if their personal story feels played out to me and adopt a new role if there's an opportunity to so without disrupting the overall game.
DeleteI'm not interested in being a faceless replaceable grunt (which may be why I don't get the appeal to funnel scenarios at all) and I'm equally unwilling to identify with my PC to the degree that they become just me-in-the-game-world.
Well, unless the campaign is some weird isekai thing where the PCs are literally us-in-the-game-world. That's not a particularly appealing pitch, but I might be willing to give it a shot.
Phil: "different approaches in ability scores also reflect a shifting view towards character creation"
DeleteShifting or competing? It's been a while since I bought a completely new game; is it all just point-build creation now, no more random-determination of stats?
@DominusCaveaVulpa Looking back, I can't recall buying a game with random stat generation that wasn't explicitly marketed as an OSR product in well over ten years. I haven't bought everything in that period, obviously, but yeah, it's become the dominant design model. "Rolling stats" as a primary approach or even a serious option might be a defining feature of OSR at this point.
DeleteThere are some modern games that use random lifepath approaches to stats and skills (eg Forbidden Lands) but they're optional, and they still produce exactly the same total stats at the end of the day.
The AD&D classes each state certain minimum attributes, but in a feat of poor organisation each of the attribute tables also has an entry stating that a character with a 5 or lower may only be of a certain class.
ReplyDeleteMy favourite is Charisma -- "Here or lower the character can only be on assassin" -- as if to say your character is so unlikeable that their only career option is killing people for money.
Those racial minimums for dwarves and hobbits are present in the Holmes Manuscript for the Basic rulebook, so they were put there by Holmes rather than added by TSR/Gygax. It is possible that it is something that Holmes discussed with Gygax prior to writing the manuscript, but as I noted in the Manuscript series, the 1975 Warlock OD&D supplement also uses minimums for non-humans. It's more complicated than in Holmes - for example, a hobbit must have Str of 9, Dex of 11 & Con of 11 - but it's easy to see how Holmes may have been influenced by this concept, particularly since it's well-established he used these rules when starting out. It's then interesting to speculate whether this had any impact on Gygax's more extensive set of minimums in the Players Handbook.
ReplyDeleteThis is useful. Thanks for letting us know.
DeleteI think the minimums in AD&D are a result of the cultural playstyle clash Gygax and staff experienced from the feedback they got. With some of the early version like with Holmes and 3rd party stuff I get more of a sense of "This is how X works in the setting or genre". Hobbits having mins STR 9, Dex 11, Con 11 probably makes sense to him as being that how hobbits are.
ReplyDeleteHowever the more punitive minimums and the commentary in Dragon and other sources I think are in essence a knee jerk reaction in attempt to control the chaos they were experienced from being bombarded from calling or writing in.
Just think about your own reaction to some of the things you consider "way out there" as a result of being told, overheard or witnessed being done. Now add to that the power that goes with being the publisher and IP holder.
For me AD&D is one part genius, one part "that sounds good" (but doesn't work in actual play, one part "That bullshit, I will make rules making sure it doesn't happen with OFFICAL AD&D".
And this post which is about 4d6 drop lowest
ReplyDeletehttps://muleabides.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/you-must-be-this-lucky-to-play-part-2/
James wrote:
ReplyDelete"Greyhawk not only introduces expanded utility for Strength, Intelligence, Dexterity, and Constitution, it also ties level advancement for demihuman races to high scores. For example, dwarves with less than 17 Strength are limited to 6th level as fighting men, while those with 17 can achieve 7th level, and those with 18 8th level."
This isn't tying level advancement to ability scores so much as it is providing an additional mechanical benefit to high ability scores: dwarves in OD&D were limited to 6th level fighting ability, elves to 4th level fighting and 8th level magic. With Greyhawk, Gygax is providing additional benefit (and thus additional importance) to a character's abilities.
Much of the evolution of abilities found in Greyhawk feel (to me) to be born of complaints and frustrations voiced by players. "Why don't I receive some advantage for my high strength?" "Why does my 18 dexterity not give me a leg up over the guy with 15?" "How come my elf is limited to 8th level magic-use?" Etc.