AD&D Character Creation Rules for 5th Ed

[Anonimicon]

Okay, so. My GM wants to start making it so all of our characters follow the old adnd rules in character creation. By this I mean rolling out the stats and placing them down in the order rolled, then seeing which classes and races your character is applicable for. He told me to find out how to do this for all of the classes and races in 5th ed since not all of them were available in adnd. So I was hoping someone on here could help me find it somewhere out there on the internet (i have looked for about 30 minutes as of this post).

If this is not the right area to post this thread, I apologize. I admit I'm not really a forum person and the etiquette for such things allude me.

[Oscredwin]

There are no race or class stat restrictions in this edition.

[Anonimicon]

There are no race or class stat restrictions in this edition.

Yes, I know. My GM is specifically wanting to make that a homebrew rule but we don't know how to go about doing that and were hoping to find someone who already had.

[Oscredwin]

Yes, I know. My GM is specifically wanting to make that a homebrew rule but we don't know how to go about doing that and were hoping to find someone who already had.

Then you might want to try the homebrew forum.

[Scirocco]

Look at the multi-classing page; there are attribute requirements to multiclass into various classes though the numbers are not particularly high.

[Anonimicon]

Then you might want to try the homebrew forum.

Okay, thank you.

[Thrudd]

Okay, so. My GM wants to start making it so all of our characters follow the old adnd rules in character creation. By this I mean rolling out the stats and placing them down in the order rolled, then seeing which classes and races your character is applicable for. He told me to find out how to do this for all of the classes and races in 5th ed since not all of them were available in adnd. So I was hoping someone on here could help me find it somewhere out there on the internet (i have looked for about 30 minutes as of this post).

If this is not the right area to post this thread, I apologize. I admit I'm not really a forum person and the etiquette for such things allude me.

So you want to know if someone out there has already made a house rule for 5e assigning minimum ability score requirements for the races and classes? That, I think, you will not find.
Or you want to know what the requirements were in 1e? That is easy

Minimum Ability Scores for classes:

Fighter: 9 Str, 5 or lower Int can only be a fighter
Magic User: 9 Int, 5 or lower Str can only be a magic user
Cleric: 9 Wis (13 for multiclass), 5 or lower Dex can only be a cleric
Thief: 9 Dex, 5 or lower Wis can only be a thief
Druid: 12 Wis, 15 Cha
Ranger: 13 Str, 13 Int, 14 Wis, 14 Con
Paladin: 12 Str, 9 Int, 13 Wis, 9 Con, 17 Cha
Illusionist: 15 Int, 16 Dex
Assassin: 12 Str, 11 Int, 12 Dex, 5 or lower Cha can only be assassin
Monk: 15 Str, 15 Wis, 15 Dex, 11 Con

Minimums and Maximums for races (Racial bonuses can be applied in order to meet the minimum score):

Elf: 8 Int, 7 Dex, 6 Con, 8 Cha
Dwarf: 8 Str, 17 Dex Max, 12 Con, 16 Cha Max
Halfling: 6 Str, 17 Str Max, 6 Int, 17 Wis Max, 8 Dex, 10 Con
Gnome: 6 Str, 7 Int, 8 Con
Half Elf: 4 Int, 6 Dex, 6 Con
Half Orc: 6 Str, 17 Int Max, 14 Wis Max, 14 Dex Max, 13 Con, 12 Cha Max

You know that almost everything is different between 1e and 5e. So really, this info won't be of much use as-is. Your GM should know that what he wants are house rules which will require a fair amount of consideration. Maybe you guys just want to play 1e AD&D, since the system is already designed to do this?

[Eslin]

So you want to know if someone out there has already made a house rule for 5e assigning minimum ability score requirements for the races and classes? That, I think, you will not find.
Or you want to know what the requirements were in 1e? That is easy

Minimum Ability Scores for classes:

Fighter: 9 Str, 5 or lower Int can only be a fighter
Magic User: 9 Int, 5 or lower Str can only be a magic user
Cleric: 9 Wis (13 for multiclass), 5 or lower Dex can only be a cleric
Thief: 9 Dex, 5 or lower Wis can only be a thief
Druid: 12 Wis, 15 Cha
Ranger: 13 Str, 13 Int, 14 Wis, 14 Con
Paladin: 12 Str, 9 Int, 13 Wis, 9 Con, 17 Cha
Illusionist: 15 Int, 16 Dex
Assassin: 12 Str, 11 Int, 12 Dex, 5 or lower Cha can only be assassin
Monk: 15 Str, 15 Wis, 15 Dex, 11 Con

Minimums and Maximums for races (Racial bonuses can be applied in order to meet the minimum score):

Elf: 8 Int, 7 Dex, 6 Con, 8 Cha
Dwarf: 8 Str, 17 Dex Max, 12 Con, 16 Cha Max
Halfling: 6 Str, 17 Str Max, 6 Int, 17 Wis Max, 8 Dex, 10 Con
Gnome: 6 Str, 7 Int, 8 Con
Half Elf: 4 Int, 6 Dex, 6 Con
Half Orc: 6 Str, 17 Int Max, 14 Wis Max, 14 Dex Max, 13 Con, 12 Cha Max

You know that almost everything is different between 1e and 5e. So really, this info won't be of much use as-is. Your GM should know that what he wants are house rules which will require a fair amount of consideration. Maybe you guys just want to play 1e AD&D, since the system is already designed to do this?

What happens if you roll a character with 8 strength and 5 int?

[jkat718]

What happens if you roll a character with 8 strength and 5 int?

Reroll? :smalltongue:

[Thrudd]

What happens if you roll a character with 8 strength and 5 int?

Yeah, the DM lets you reroll. In fact, most of the ability score generation methods include rolling more than just six times, or let you arrange the scores as you want, so that getting an unusable character is not likely. For instance, one method is to roll the 3d6 in order, but you roll six times for each ability and keep the best one. Another is to roll 3d6 in order, but roll enough for twelve characters and keep the set of scores you want.

[Valefor Rathan]

Look at the multi-classing page; there are attribute requirements to multiclass into various classes though the numbers are not particularly high.

This.

As for the minimum/maximum stats per race, that seems silly.

[randomodo]

I've never actually done the math, but under 1e rules, I think the odds of even qualifying for MAD characters like rangers and druids are so bad that your DM might as well just dictate that everybody has to play a fighter, magic user, cleric or thief.

It's his (or her) game, and his (or her) rules. But to my mind, one of the best things that 3e did (mirrored in subsequent editions) was to get rid of race/class/ability score restrictions.

[Eslin]

I've never actually done the math, but under 1e rules, I think the odds of even qualifying for MAD characters like rangers and druids are so bad that your DM might as well just dictate that everybody has to play a fighter, magic user, cleric or thief.

It's his (or her) game, and his (or her) rules. But to my mind, one of the best things that 3e did (mirrored in subsequent editions) was to get rid of race/class/ability score restrictions.

With the usual character creation rules, your odds of qualifying for monk are 0.04%. That's 4 in 10,000.

Qualifying for a bard, which required Str 15, Int 12, Wis 15, Dex 15, Con 10, Cha 15 and 5 levels of fighter and 5 levels of thief had a 0.0017% chance of happening with straight 3d6, which is seventeen in a million.

Worst of all is the Unearthed Arcana paladin, which required Str 15, Int 10, Wis 13, Dex 15, Con 15, Cha 17 - expect two out of every million characters to qualify.

[Perseus]

The first time I played AD&D my DM used the arrays the 2e PHB gives you for the paladin as stat generation.

Took all the trouble out of everything.

[Jlooney]

So you want to know if someone out there has already made a house rule for 5e assigning minimum ability score requirements for the races and classes? That, I think, you will not find.
Or you want to know what the requirements were in 1e? That is easy

Minimum Ability Scores for classes:

Fighter: 9 Str, 5 or lower Int can only be a fighter
Magic User: 9 Int, 5 or lower Str can only be a magic user
Cleric: 9 Wis (13 for multiclass), 5 or lower Dex can only be a cleric
Thief: 9 Dex, 5 or lower Wis can only be a thief
Druid: 12 Wis, 15 Cha
Ranger: 13 Str, 13 Int, 14 Wis, 14 Con
Paladin: 12 Str, 9 Int, 13 Wis, 9 Con, 17 Cha
Illusionist: 15 Int, 16 Dex
Assassin: 12 Str, 11 Int, 12 Dex, 5 or lower Cha can only be assassin
Monk: 15 Str, 15 Wis, 15 Dex, 11 Con

Minimums and Maximums for races (Racial bonuses can be applied in order to meet the minimum score):

Elf: 8 Int, 7 Dex, 6 Con, 8 Cha
Dwarf: 8 Str, 17 Dex Max, 12 Con, 16 Cha Max
Halfling: 6 Str, 17 Str Max, 6 Int, 17 Wis Max, 8 Dex, 10 Con
Gnome: 6 Str, 7 Int, 8 Con
Half Elf: 4 Int, 6 Dex, 6 Con
Half Orc: 6 Str, 17 Int Max, 14 Wis Max, 14 Dex Max, 13 Con, 12 Cha Max

You know that almost everything is different between 1e and 5e. So really, this info won't be of much use as-is. Your GM should know that what he wants are house rules which will require a fair amount of consideration. Maybe you guys just want to play 1e AD&D, since the system is already designed to do this?

There were also racial limits on classes. A human and gnome are the only ones that could be an illusionist (which was a wizard that only knew illusion spells) but you also had to have a 16 dex to qualify for the class. However, if you have 16+ in both attributes (in this case dex and int) you gained a +10% experience boost.

In the same vein, Humans are the only ones that could dual class, which is you go to class level x, start a new class (back to 0 exp) and only got exp if you didn't use anything from your first class (other than HP and I think saves) until your new class outleveled your original class. After that you are free to use all abilities.

Demi-humans could take more than one class at once. Elves as a race back in the basic rules are multi classed fighter/mage/clerics. They divide all exp by 3 and evenly distribute the Exp amongst the three classes. Yes, this cause some classes to level at different times. (if anyone else wants to know more you can ask)

However an elf could only reach level 17 wizard. Many classes had that restriction. the only race that could to level 20 in any class was human.

I love 2nd edition.

[Jlooney]

With the usual character creation rules, your odds of qualifying for monk are 0.04%. That's 4 in 10,000.

Qualifying for a bard, which required Str 15, Int 12, Wis 15, Dex 15, Con 10, Cha 15 and 5 levels of fighter and 5 levels of thief had a 0.0017% chance of happening with straight 3d6, which is seventeen in a million.

Worst of all is the Unearthed Arcana paladin, which required Str 15, Int 10, Wis 13, Dex 15, Con 15, Cha 17 - expect two out of every million characters to qualify.

If you were using the unearthed arcana, and seeing as only human could qualify for bard, you got a special variant of dice rolling. You got 6d6 to roll for charisma and 4d6 for Str and things like that.

[Eslin]

There were also racial limits on classes. A human and gnome are the only ones that could be an illusionist (which was a wizard that only knew illusion spells) but you also had to have a 16 dex to qualify for the class. However, if you have 16+ in both attributes (in this case dex and int) you gained a +10% experience boost.

In the same vein, Humans are the only ones that could dual class, which is you go to class level x, start a new class (back to 0 exp) and only got exp if you didn't use anything from your first class (other than HP and I think saves) until your new class outleveled your original class. After that you are free to use all abilities.

Demi-humans could take more than one class at once. Elves as a race back in the basic rules are multi classed fighter/mage/clerics. They divide all exp by 3 and evenly distribute the Exp amongst the three classes. Yes, this cause some classes to level at different times. (if anyone else wants to know more you can ask)

However an elf could only reach level 17 wizard. Many classes had that restriction. the only race that could to level 20 in any class was human.

I love 2nd edition.
...why? I mean rolling for stats is a silly method of doing it in the first place, it ensures some players are permanently ahead of others for no good reason, but why would you reward them for having an unearned permanent advantage with an experience boost?

[Fwiffo86]

With the usual character creation rules, your odds of qualifying for monk are 0.04%. That's 4 in 10,000.

Qualifying for a bard, which required Str 15, Int 12, Wis 15, Dex 15, Con 10, Cha 15 and 5 levels of fighter and 5 levels of thief had a 0.0017% chance of happening with straight 3d6, which is seventeen in a million.

Worst of all is the Unearthed Arcana paladin, which required Str 15, Int 10, Wis 13, Dex 15, Con 15, Cha 17 - expect two out of every million characters to qualify.

Pretty sure its 5 levels (5 but before you get to 7) of fighter, then 7 levels of thief (but before you get to 9, then class change again to druid. where you get your powers finally.

[Jlooney]

...why? I mean rolling for stats is a silly method of doing it in the first place, it ensures some players are permanently ahead of others for no good reason, but why would you reward them for having an unearned permanent advantage with an experience boost?

There is no answer to your question that you will accept. From all the posts you've made it's simply optimization > fun.

Also only humans got this rolling method as they are crap compared to EVERY other race.

[Eslin]

There is no answer to your question that you will accept. From all the posts you've made it's simply optimization > fun.

Also only humans got this rolling method as they are crap compared to EVERY other race.

Having some players have worse characters than others because of complete luck is fun?

[Jlooney]

Having some players have worse characters than others because of complete luck is fun?

Ok, let me put it this way. A Halfling gets theif skills. Period. Elves have a 90% chance to resist charm and sleep. Both had racial stat adjustments and can dual class. A human doesn't get any of that.

[Eslin]

Ok, let me put it this way. A Halfling gets theif skills. Period. Elves have a 90% chance to resist charm and sleep. Both had racial stat adjustments and can dual class. A human doesn't get any of that.

From the sound of things they probably aren't balanced, but I'm willing to assume that every race is perfectly balanced against each other - that doesn't stop having some characters be randomly better than others fun. Power should be earned, not randomly assigned.

[Beleriphon]

Having some players have worse characters than others because of complete luck is fun?

Keep in mind that stats had limited to no impact on characters except with exceptionally high stats. A 16 in strength for example provided a whopping +1 to hit and damage.


From the sound of things they probably aren't balanced, but I'm willing to assume that every race is perfectly balanced against each other - that doesn't stop having some characters be randomly better than others fun. Power should be earned, not randomly assigned.

They weren't and assuming as much will only end in pain. Mind you the idea that "balanced" classes or races hadn't really come up at the time the games were designed, so nobody really noticed or cared. The fact that the fighter had a 2/3 (that's not two-thirds; thats two then three) attack rotation compared to wizards casting time stop and other spell also didn't seem to bother most people so much. For the most part stats were largely irrelevant to game play beyond carrying capacity (if you used that rule) and how much additional AC you gained while wearing full plate. Don't look at 1E/2E AD&D as anything other than what it is, an older game with weird rules that don't make much sense to people that started play with more modern game design conceptions.

[randomodo]

There are a few ways to get the flavor of what the DM seems to want without building overly-complex house rules. For example:

The mere act of rolling randomly for stats and placing the numbers in the order rolled will in and of itself result in many players (probably even most players) picking a class that is compatible with their rolls. You won't have the "the rules won't allow you to be a fighter with a strength less than 9" thing, but let's be honest, if a player rolls a 7 for strength and a 17 for intelligence, he's probably not going to play a fighter anyway.

On race, there are a couple ways to manage it. I once was in a game in which the DM said "My world is predominately human, if you want to play a demi-human, you've got to beat my roll on a d20." That cut down notably on the number of scimitar-weilding dark elves in the party (this was the early 90s).

Another fairly simple way is to do the random rolls/place in order, then compare it to the bonuses for the races in the 5e PHB. Say that anyone can pick a human character, but if you want to play one of the other races, then you have to pick one where your highest stat matches a stat for which that race gets a bonus.

Thus, in our example above, if the player's highest stat was a 17 in intelligence, he'd have to play either a human, or a race that gets an INT bonus (which is...hmm...high elf or gnome, I think. Not quite sure how to manage half-elves).

That, I think, meets the spirit of what the OP's DM wants without bogging things down.

Just my 2cp...

[Thrudd]

I like Dungeon Crawl Classics' solution. Each player starts play with three or four level 0 characters who each have completely random ability scores, races and professions (no classes yet). Whichever of these characters can survive a few encounters and earn XP enough to get to level 1 will gain a class. There will be variation in scores, but overwhelmingly characters will have mediocre scores with small or no bonuses and penalties. In the rare chance that someone is insanely lucky and rolls multiple high scores, they will have their choice of classes, but that is pretty much where the advantage ends, the differences in bonuses and the occasions to use those bonuses are fairly low.

5e is probably the wrong edition for this sort of thing. Ability scores have more of an impact on the game than they do in AD&D and similar rule sets. In older editions, they mainly serve to determine what class you qualify for. There were no skills based on abilities, saving throws were based completely on class and level, thief abilities were based on level. High scores gave relatively low bonuses compared to 3e and 5e and were applied to fewer things.
The rules were not developed with balance in mind, at least not at first. The rules for D&D haphazardly evolved over years, with things being added here and there and not all with the same design goals. Many rules were included for verisimilitude/simulation purposes, not for the purpose of making sure everything was fair and equal for all the players. If you get lucky and roll really high on your abilities, good for you! You might qualify for a few extra-cool classes like Ranger, Paladin, or Monk. Each of those classes is objectively better than the others in some ways, and to compensate they have some restrictions.

[Person_Man]

Random generation of ability scores, treasure, monsters, etc, was a big part of AD&D. (At least in my numerous childhood experiences). Death occurred very, very often. Races and classes with higher requirements were intentionally better then classes with lower requirements, because it was assumed that you would only play those classes rarely. Humans sucked, and were only worth playing if you happen to roll well enough to be a Paladin or wanted to risk attempting duel classing (which sucked at low levels, but was awesome at high levels). Similarly, Magic-users/Wizards/etc were intentionally terrible at low levels and amazing at high levels, because it was assumed that the vast majority of them would die at low levels, and you had to "pay for" their high level awesomeness by sucking so much for most of your career. The game was much more about careful resource management and decision making, and much less about roleplaying or character customization.

Frankly, random generation or minimum ability score requirements for anything does not fit very well with the current edition of D&D, or modern RPG in general. Randomly generated roguelike (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Roguelike) games are much better suited to computer games, which can handle all of the randomly generated stuff much more easily.

[ProphetSword]

What happens if you roll a character with 8 strength and 5 int?

You play a Cleric or Thief? Neither of these scores keep you from playing either of those classes.

You would also meet the requirements for a Dwarf or Half-Elf. So, embrace those negative values, friend!

[thepsyker]

Pretty sure its 5 levels (5 but before you get to 7) of fighter, then 7 levels of thief (but before you get to 9, then class change again to druid. where you get your powers finally.
Actually you would then go into Bard, where you get your Bard powers, the different Druid powers and access to some Druid spells.

It is also worth pointing out that straight 3d6 in order wasn't among the recommended Character Generation methods for AD&D, although it was used with different twists as mentioned earlier and many people did choose to carry it over from Basic.


Ok, let me put it this way. A Halfling gets theif skills. Period. Elves have a 90% chance to resist charm and sleep. Both had racial stat adjustments and can dual class. A human doesn't get any of that.
Halflings getting thief abilities was a Basic thing where they were their own class. Halflings and elves did get bonuses to hiding if operating on their own out of armor and they did get racial bonuses to thief skills if they played a thief, as did most of the other demi-humans. Elves also got bonuses to hit with certain weapons and halflings got bonuses to save vs magic along with other special abilities. Also dual classing was the Human only ability to switch to a second class after character creation, Halflings and other demi-humans could choose to multi-class at character creation, which would let them advance in two, some times three, classes simultaneously splitting xp equally between the classes equally.

[FaerieGodfather]

This thread warms my heart.

Just to have something useful to say, my advice to your DM is not to worry about ability prerequisites-- roll the stats, then let the players choose their classes normally. Chances are, they're going to play along with what they rolled, anyway.

[Shining Wrath]

I recommend to your DM that he use roll 4, choose 3. Even in 2nd edition that was an option.

[Safety Sword]

...why? I mean rolling for stats is a silly method of doing it in the first place, it ensures some players are permanently ahead of others for no good reason, but why would you reward them for having an unearned permanent advantage with an experience boost?

Classes had different numbers of experience points to gain levels too.

It was a mess, but I'm really fond of my Ranger with 18/87 Strength.. good times

[Knaight]

There is no answer to your question that you will accept. From all the posts you've made it's simply optimization > fun.

The dichotomy between optimization and fun is nonsense to begin with, and the idea that random generation is fun for people who don't favor optimization ludicrous - I don't favor optimization, but I do generally favor having some influence over what kind of character I play, particularly if the game is long running.

[Safety Sword]

The dichotomy between optimization and fun is nonsense to begin with, and the idea that random generation is fun for people who don't favor optimization ludicrous - I don't favor optimization, but I do generally favor having some influence over what kind of character I play, particularly if the game is long running.

I appreciate the choice people have now, the freedom to have a character concept first and realise that through character creation.

However, I loved the fact that you turned up on the day, rolled your scores and that shaped a character. It was fun just to get the party started.

My first character ever (the aforementioned Ranger) made it to retirement age. The campaign was epic, fun and I will always remember it. I think because I had no preconceived ideas of what roleplaying had to be I was open to everything. I think not knowing what your character was going to be was part of the wonder of it all.

But games are a little more sophisticated now. D&D is fun for people in different ways. And I think that is a great strength (18/00) of the whole thing.

[thepsyker]

I recommend to your DM that he use roll 4, choose 3. Even in 2nd edition that was an option.

That was method 1 in 1st edition as well. If memory, and a quick Google search, serves, it was:
1. 4D6 drop the lowest assign as desired.
2. Roll 3d6 12 times take the best 6 results assign as desired.
3. Roll 3d6 for each stat in order 6 times, pick the best roll for each stat.
4. Roll 12 stat blocks with 3d6 in order, pick the stat block you like best.
(Special)5. Only available to humans, pick class roll an appropriate number of dice for each attribute according to a chart, keep the three highest rolls. If you fail to meet a minimum stat requirement raise said stat to the minimum.

[Sudokori]

...why? I mean rolling for stats is a silly method of doing it in the first place, it ensures some players are permanently ahead of others for no good reason, but why would you reward them for having an unearned permanent advantage with an experience boost?

Really? I think you're thinking this from a stat wise stand-point instead of a logical standpoint. Okay so that experience boost of 10%? That's a trivial issue and is entirely waved by most slightly lenient DMs. And who cares if the cleric's wisdom score of 16 gives him 2 extra level 1 spells per day if all those spells are going to is get him two extra healing spells to make sure the party stays alive. The party's fighter with 17 strength? Plus 1 to hit and plus 2 damage with melee weapons, that's not going to make him too powerful that it ruins the fun. And besides, it isn't going to ruin anyone's day when the fighter uses the +2 damage to kill a dire displacer beast that was about to kill the party wizard who ran out of spells.

Stop looking at everything in DnD as if it was only a game of numbers and stats. The 16 Dex thief ain't gonna outshine your cleric when all he does is what his class is supposed to do, just slightly more successfully (16 DEX gives like a +5% on a few skill rolls and a +1 to AC).

[Oscredwin]

Really? I think you're thinking this from a stat wise stand-point instead of a logical standpoint. Okay so that experience boost of 10%? That's a trivial issue and is entirely waved by most slightly lenient DMs. And who cares if the cleric's wisdom score of 16 gives him 2 extra level 1 spells per day if all those spells are going to is get him two extra healing spells to make sure the party stays alive. The party's fighter with 17 strength? Plus 1 to hit and plus 2 damage with melee weapons, that's not going to make him too powerful that it ruins the fun. And besides, it isn't going to ruin anyone's day when the fighter uses the +2 damage to kill a dire displacer beast that was about to kill the party wizard who ran out of spells.

Stop looking at everything in DnD as if it was only a game of numbers and stats. The 16 Dex thief ain't gonna outshine your cleric when all he does is what his class is supposed to do, just slightly more successfully (16 DEX gives like a +5% on a few skill rolls and a +1 to AC).

In previous editions I've run into trouble when my finesse TWF with a 14 str, 16 dex, and 13 con (decent stats and I was happy with them) was sitting next to a rogue with 16 str, 18 dex, and 16 con. It's not always an issue of how high your main stat is, but if your secondary stats are comparable with my primary stat it does become "everything you can do I can do better."

[eastmabl]

With the usual character creation rules, your odds of qualifying for monk are 0.04%. That's 4 in 10,00.

So what you are saying is that not everyone was kung fu fighting, regardless of the elemental speed of their fists?

[Valefor Rathan]

So what you are saying is that not everyone was kung fu fighting, regardless of the elemental speed of their fists?

You're my favorite person on the forums today.

[KorbeltheReader]

See kids, this is why point buy > rolling for ability scores.

Personally, I think this particular house rule brings back 2 of the worst things about 2nd ed: rolling for scores and score limits/benchmarks for races and classes. And despite the nostalgia (don't get me wrong; I feel it too sometimes) there were a lot of really bad ideas in 2nd ed.

[Demonic Spoon]

I mentioned this in the analogous thread in the Homebrew forum, but, you could always use the standard array and create a point buy array, and then randomize which value goes in which attribute.

[randomodo]

As I get older, I have less patience for the randomization thing in character creation.

When I was in high school, with the ability to play a million hours each weekend, it was fine for me to just figure out a way to make it work with whatever random stats I rolled. Didn't much matter, since as a percentage of my total play time, I wasn't likely to have that character for a hugely long time.

As an adult, with a wife and kid and job and limited time to play, I'd like to play the kind of character that I want to play, not whatever the dice will allow me to play.

ymmv, of course. not saying the DM of the OP is wrong, I'm just saying I wouldn't want to play in his campaign.

[Thrudd]

In previous editions I've run into trouble when my finesse TWF with a 14 str, 16 dex, and 13 con (decent stats and I was happy with them) was sitting next to a rogue with 16 str, 18 dex, and 16 con. It's not always an issue of how high your main stat is, but if your secondary stats are comparable with my primary stat it does become "everything you can do I can do better."

Yeah, that's a problem with design of the classes in 3e and some earlier editions. Not giving fighters things that make them stick out and generally homogenizing rather than specializing the classes (giving the different classes access to too many of the same things), as well as having ability scores affect so many aspects of gameplay. In games with random scores, it makes more sense for the scores to have less impact than the choice of class. Pre 3e D&D editions were more along those lines, though still extremely high scores would make life a lot easier. Random scores are most appropriate when the bonuses and penalties from the scores are low and do not tie into too many aspects of gameplay. 3e and later are all about the ability scores, and it makes sense that people would feel that point buy or standard arrays are more appropriate and fair for those games.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, that's a problem with design of the classes in 3e and some earlier editions. Not giving fighters things that make them stick out and generally homogenizing rather than specializing the classes (giving the different classes access to too many of the same things), as well as having ability scores affect so many aspects of gameplay. In games with random scores, it makes more sense for the scores to have less impact than the choice of class. Pre 3e D&D editions were more along those lines, though still extremely high scores would make life a lot easier. Random scores are most appropriate when the bonuses and penalties from the scores are low and do not tie into too many aspects of gameplay. 3e and later are all about the ability scores, and it makes sense that people would feel that point buy or standard arrays are more appropriate and fair for those games.

Ability scores in 2nd edition were hugely important. Any wizard who rolled lower than 18 on Int could never, ever cast 9th level spells no matter how high he leveled. With a poor Int he might be restricted to 4th level spells. 5E is more lenient, which is probably a good thing overall for gameplay.

Correction: age eventually boosted your Int, so if you rolled 16 on In you'd have an 18 Int when you were a hundred years old.

[jkat718]

So what you are saying is that not everyone was kung fu fighting, regardless of the elemental speed of their fists?

May I sig this? It's fantastic.

[SiuiS]

Check out the older editions section, a playgrounder made a nifty AD&D character energy or which already incorporated all the rules.

[Thrudd]

Ability scores in 2nd edition were hugely important. Any wizard who rolled lower than 18 on Int could never, ever cast 9th level spells no matter how high he leveled. With a poor Int he might be restricted to 4th level spells. 5E is more lenient, which is probably a good thing overall for gameplay.

Correction: age eventually boosted your Int, so if you rolled 16 on In you'd have an 18 Int when you were a hundred years old.

I don't think it's really that big a deal. The chances that your character would ever reach the levels required for 9th level spells are pretty small. Getting 9th level spells would be a special and rare event, not something you expect when you start building your character. You also got spells randomly at character creation and in loot, and only get to choose one on each level. So a magic user's power is really dictated more by fate and how successful an adventurer they have been, rather than by their Int score. Even if their max spell level is four or five, if they have collected and learned enough spells they would still be pretty powerful, besides whatever magic items they will have accumulated
Yes, the lower the intelligence, the lower the level of spells they can cast. Another way AD&D is preferable for some to 3e, in which mid-high level wizard characters are generally regarded as being powerful enough that they break the game. I don't mind more leniency as long as the game addresses the potential rise in power in other ways. 5e does a better job than 3e at this.

[MaxWilson]

I don't think it's really that big a deal. The chances that your character would ever reach the levels required for 9th level spells are pretty small. Getting 9th level spells would be a special and rare event, not something you expect when you start building your character. You also got spells randomly at character creation and in loot, and only get to choose one on each level.

I don't remember you ever getting to choose spells on level-up at all. It's been a long time though.

The reason it's a big deal is because it makes you excited when you roll an 18 Int, because this is a potential archmage you're looking at! Even if he has Str 3 and Con 8, you're still excited and invested. And therefore you are all the more disappointed when he dies to a flowfiend in the phlogiston at level 4. Such is life.

Some people don't care about long-term potential, so YMMV.


Even if their max spell level is four or five, if they have collected and learned enough spells they would still be pretty powerful, besides whatever magic items they will have accumulated
Yes, the lower the intelligence, the lower the level of spells they can cast.

I know. One of my favorite NPCs was a 20th level wizard with an Int of 9. He was really, really good at casting the few spells that he knew.

4th and 5th level spells in AD&D2 were pretty awesome. Magic Jar for example, and Polymorph/Polymorph Self. One of my pet peeves was people underestimating spells because they weren't 9th level awesomeness.

[Person_Man]

Ability scores in 2nd edition were hugely important. Any wizard who rolled lower than 18 on Int could never, ever cast 9th level spells no matter how high he leveled. With a poor Int he might be restricted to 4th level spells. 5E is more lenient, which is probably a good thing overall for gameplay.

Correction: age eventually boosted your Int, so if you rolled 16 on In you'd have an 18 Int when you were a hundred years old.

Minor quibble: There were also magic items in one of the splat books that set your Intelligence higher, similar to the Gauntlets of Ogre Strength/Girdle of Giants Strength in the 2E DMG. Also, most Ability Scores didn't provide you with a bonus or penalty to anything important unless you had ability scores higher then 15 or lower then 8. So while having a high Ability Score could be really potent, most players ended up with most of their Ability Scores being mediocre (ie, few bonuses or penalties) to most things most of the time.

In general, you're correct though. You're not playing a 2E Wizard unless you can get Intelligence 18ish somehow or the other, a Thief without high Dex, etc. If you rolled poorly across the board, you played a mediocre Fighter and hoped to be killed.

[Sudokori]

In general, you're correct though. You're not playing a 2E Wizard unless you can get Intelligence 18ish somehow or the other, a Thief without high Dex, etc. If you rolled poorly across the board, you played a mediocre Fighter and hoped to be killed.

Or you could just, you know, re-roll your stats? Any good Dm will see that the player won't have fun and will try to get killed at the earliest opportunity, generally ruining the RP aspect of the game for everyone. There's a house rule at my table that if none of your ability scores are at least a 16 or higher then you either get a 16 in the desired stat or you rolled two stats again. There was no "oh I got nothing higher than a 12, I'll play a fighter and jump off a cliff" nonsense. And having 16 as a highest stat ain't bad. I once had a fighter with a stat set something like 16,10,9,9,12,11 and I still kicked ass and had fun.

[Eslin]

Yeah, that's a problem with design of the classes in 3e and some earlier editions. Not giving fighters things that make them stick out and generally homogenizing rather than specializing the classes (giving the different classes access to too many of the same things), as well as having ability scores affect so many aspects of gameplay. In games with random scores, it makes more sense for the scores to have less impact than the choice of class. Pre 3e D&D editions were more along those lines, though still extremely high scores would make life a lot easier. Random scores are most appropriate when the bonuses and penalties from the scores are low and do not tie into too many aspects of gameplay. 3e and later are all about the ability scores, and it makes sense that people would feel that point buy or standard arrays are more appropriate and fair for those games.

Huh, that explains a lot. I'd wondered why so many older players thought rolling for stats was a good idea, hadn't realised that the amount they affected had increased.

[Raxxius]

Huh, that explains a lot. I'd wondered why so many older players thought rolling for stats was a good idea, hadn't realised that the amount they affected had increased.

Oh yeah it was a huge change going from 2nd to 3rd in terms of stats arrays.

A fighter with a str of 17 had a mere +1 to hit and damage, it wasn't until you had a warrior with 18 str where he could roll percentile damage, and even then the chances of getting a really game changing numbers were small.

Cons hp bonus was limited to +2 for non warrior classes (Fighter Paladin Ranger) giving them a edge

You needed at least 15 in a stat before you saw mechanical gain in any stat (not quite true for Cha, but that was a real dump stat for most classes), this was rare in 3d6 rolls and you almost always had negative stat modifiers.

Wizards were also clipped not only by never being able to learn spells (although truth be told there are numerous ways to improve your int score, only the uncreative would be stuck) but also by having max numbers of spells they could learn per level and % fail chance to learn a spell. It was more a suck it and see and less a 'shop around for the broken combos'.

What stat rolling did was give you really unique characters who were defined in part by their stats, not purely by the fluff. With homogenization of stats and stat arrays the roll system is less useful.

[eastmabl]

May I sig this? It's fantastic.

Be my guest.

[eastmabl]

What stat rolling did was give you really unique characters who were defined in part by their stats, not purely by the fluff. With homogenization of stats and stat arrays the roll system is less useful.

I will second this, at least from a 3rd edition standpoint. My favorite characters didn't have the greatest stats, but often had the 6, 7 or 8 that for through rolling. You'd put it into your dump stat, but then it felt like your dump stat meant something.

The blackguard with 6 Dex. The wizard with 7 strength. These are things you don't get with point buy.

Would I go back? I don't think so. But do I remember it with a faint glimmer in my eye? Yep.

[Knaight]

I will second this, at least from a 3rd edition standpoint. My favorite characters didn't have the greatest stats, but often had the 6, 7 or 8 that for through rolling. You'd put it into your dump stat, but then it felt like your dump stat meant something.

The blackguard with 6 Dex. The wizard with 7 strength. These are things you don't get with point buy.

You don't get them with the point buy systems currently in use, but that's hardly an argument for rolling. Plenty of other point buy systems allow them and can be imported in easily.

[MaxWilson]

I will second this, at least from a 3rd edition standpoint. My favorite characters didn't have the greatest stats, but often had the 6, 7 or 8 that for through rolling. You'd put it into your dump stat, but then it felt like your dump stat meant something.

The blackguard with 6 Dex. The wizard with 7 strength. These are things you don't get with point buy.

Would I go back? I don't think so. But do I remember it with a faint glimmer in my eye? Yep.

Even more interesting than having a low dump stat is having your highest ability in something other than your primary stat. E.g. the wizard with 17 STR and 16 INT. Point-buy will give you dump stats, but it will never, ever give you a character who spends a 17 in the "wrong" place. In fact, this isn't just restricted to primary stats--in 5E, you'll never even see a wizard who has a STR higher than his CON (STR 13, CON 9, INT 16: a wizard built like an aging wrestler gone to fat).

In some ways that's a good thing, but if you start to feel like all 5E wizards are the same, moving to rolled stats is one way to do it. A highly-recommended method is 4d6 drop 1, in order. Then optionally pick one of your stats and reroll it once (must keep the new result). Finally, swap any two stats.

Example: let's say I roll

15 15 12 14 17 9

Let's say I want to be a monk. I've already got a 17 in Wisdom, and a 15 in Dexterity, so I probably don't want to risk rerolling either of those. I decide to reroll my Charisma. 10 is the result. If I had gotten something higher than 12 I would have swapped Con (12) with Charisma (>12), but instead I'll leave Charisma as-is and swap it Con and Str. Final result:

ST 12 DX 15 CN 15 IN 14 WS 17 CH 9

Tada! An unusually-brawny and -brainy monk.

[Knaight]

Even more interesting than having a low dump stat is having your highest ability in something other than your primary stat. E.g. the wizard with 17 STR and 16 INT. Point-buy will give you dump stats, but it will never, ever give you a character who spends a 17 in the "wrong" place. In fact, this isn't just restricted to primary stats--in 5E, you'll never even see a wizard who has a STR higher than his CON (STR 13, CON 9, INT 16: a wizard built like an aging wrestler gone to fat).

This sort of thing comes up fairly frequently when people start with a more esoteric concept. Maybe that's a quirk of my group (it has come up in a number of different games, such as the player who made a pilot with lousy piloting skill, an amazing bluff skill, and a copy of "Spaceship Piloting for Dummies"), but I doubt it's anywhere near unique to it.

[Shadow]

Yeah, the system change in the way that stats work from 3e onward makes it so that point buy is absolutely superior in my opinion. But I really really do miss the days when you gor great rolls for the class you wanted to make, but your dump stat was tanked beyond belief and you RPd that to the hilt. That doesn't happen anymore.

Drax the Destroyer and his too literal, no metaphor nature? My buddy had an horrible wisdom score on a fighter and basically played Drax in a campaign about twenty years ago, to give you an example.

[Raxxius]

Another thing to remember about 1st and 2nd ed is they weren't remotely fair, nor did they even try to be. Stats don't mean a lot when you're a dice roll from death regardless.

Survival rates with a RAW DM were atrocious at most levels; with the chunk of the game being set around low levels purely due to the chances being you'd get dead. Magic had a tendency to horribly screw you over if you miss used it, and some spells had serious costs making for interesting desperate power moments. The whole game really had a different 'sword and sorcery' feel which pitched you vs the odds and no kid gloves. Quirkiness of characters and personnel flaws related in stats added to that rawness of the era.

One character I remember most was a wizard with just above average int (13 or 14) and a terrible con score (6). He became a sickly albino necromancer looking at ways of cheating death and becoming more than he was given by life. The pure drive of the character was amazing, yearning towards improving his int by dark arts/ion stones, before finally ascending to lichdom. Yes he wasn't a nice character, but his evilness was totally believable. The character was great because he wasn't going to get his 9th level spells just because, he was going to have to sacrifice and earn for that. You simply can't get that in the later versions because everything is distilled down.

I'm not saying new versions are bad, but the concept from 3 on-wards is very much 'you should get through this', compared to 'have a few character concepts in your head... just incase'.

Point buy is better for this edition, unless you plan on doing a throwback. At which point; MORE MEAT FOR GRINDER!

[Safety Sword]

One character I remember most was a wizard with just above average int (13 or 14) and a terrible con score (6). He became a sickly albino necromancer looking at ways of cheating death and becoming more than he was given by life. The pure drive of the character was amazing, yearning towards improving his int by dark arts/ion stones, before finally ascending to lichdom. Yes he wasn't a nice character, but his evilness was totally believable. The character was great because he wasn't going to get his 9th level spells just because, he was going to have to sacrifice and earn for that. You simply can't get that in the later versions because everything is distilled down.


Except for the average intelligence bit, it's a Raistlin thing.

If you don't know what I'm talking about then please (please, please, please, please) get your hands on the Dragonlance Chronicles series and read on through.

Spoiler: The events in the books were largely written after the roleplaying experiences of the writers. It is amazing to think that they played that story through.

[MaxWilson]

Another thing to remember about 1st and 2nd ed is they weren't remotely fair, nor did they even try to be. Stats don't mean a lot when you're a dice roll from death regardless.

Especially when death is permanent. In 5E you can bring someone back from the dead with a 3rd level spell, as many times as you want. In AD&D Resurrection/Raise Dead spells weren't guaranteed to work, cost you 1 permanent point of Constitution (and therefore could only be used a finite number of times), and Raise Dead didn't work at all on elves. Raising someone from the dead without the Con drain required a Wish spell, which aged the caster 5 years permanently.

[JAL_1138]

Especially when death is permanent. In 5E you can bring someone back from the dead with a 3rd level spell, as many times as you want. In AD&D Resurrection/Raise Dead spells weren't guaranteed to work, cost you 1 permanent point of Constitution (and therefore could only be used a finite number of times), and Raise Dead didn't work at all on elves. Raising someone from the dead without the Con drain required a Wish spell, which aged the caster 5 years permanently.

Making resurrection difficult and painful for everyone involved has the added benefit of not requiring an explanation for why death isn't just seen as a slap on the wrist for anyone who can afford the services of a mid level cleric.

[Shadow]

Making resurrection difficult and painful for everyone involved has the added benefit of not requiring an explanation for why death isn't just seen as a slap on the wrist for anyone who can afford the services of a mid level cleric.

This.
And in my games, even in 3e & 4e (and now in 5e), any spell which raised or resurrected the dead was restricted to ritual type ceremonies so that it couldn't be done on the fly.
That ceremony was not cheap or easy to find.

[Sudokori]

Along with the point buy thing. I don't neccisarilly like point buy because it opens the flood gates for min/maxing and over optimizing. Also I dont really like how in 3e you can make a wizard, get him killed, and make a wizard with the exact same stats and stuff and get him killed, only to make the same wizard, and nobody blinks an eye at the three wizard clones who just died in the same dungeon.