Wednesday, June 29, 2022

AD&D vs. OD&D: Ability Score Adjustments

Lately I've been doing some character creation. No, I'm not currently playing in any games and have no immediate plans to do so. However, I have been creating parties of characters to perform solo campaigning for "research." I've noted some peculiarities regarding AD&D vs. Original (Basic/Expert) D&D that I think should be noted.

While creating characters, I've noticed that there are some interesting methods in place for creating starting characters (not applicable to characters necessarily created at higher level or for one-shot tournament adventures). Everyone knows that the original D&D method of character creation involved rolling 3d6 for each ability score, and placing them in order: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma. This basically meant that you would be forced to play whatever character classes your scores allowed you to choose. This is not to say that you couldn't choose a class for which you were ill-suited, but there might be a penalty to earned experience if the prime requisite was below the threshold of 9 minimum (for most classes). The demi-humans all needed minimum scores to be selected (Dwarves needed a Constitution of 9, Elves needed an Intelligence of 9, and Halflings needed a 9 in both Dexterity and Constitution). However, the prime requisites of the demi-human classes were Strength for Dwarves, Strength and Intelligence for Elves, and Strength and Dexterity for Halflings. Therefore, if you decided to play a dwarf, your Strength score could be below 9 and you could still play the character, but you would be losing experience points until you could bring that prime requisite up. Lowering one score to raise another was done away with in AD&D - most methods allowed one to arrange their scores however they wanted so this mechanic was no longer necessary.

In OD&D, beginning characters were able to adjust scores in their prime requisites in order to raise their ability scores for XP bonuses or to avoid penalties. The character had to choose their class first in order to determine what their prime requisite(s) would be. Then points could be taken from others stats on a 2 for 1 basis to raise their prime requisite. One could not, however, reduce a score below 9 in order to raise a prime requisite. And remember, this was only to raise a prime requisite, not get a bonus in an ability score outside one's prime requisite. Therefore, a halfling could not raise Wisdom by lowering Intelligence, since Wisdom is not a prime requisite for that class. However, an elf could raise Intelligence or Strength since these are both prime requisites for this class. Also, there were rules as to which classes could reduce certain abilities. Strength could be lowered by magic-users and clerics only. Intelligence could be lowered by any class except magic-user or elf. Wisdom could be lowered by any class except cleric. Dexterity could not be lowered, but could be raised if a prime requisite (thus only thieves and halflings could raise their Dex in this manner). Constitution and Charisma could not be raised or lowered - the roll stood for these stats. Most players would end up lowering a score they did not need in order to gain an XP bonus in their prime requisite.

The same could not be said for Advanced D&D. But the method of rolling ability scores varied from campaign to campaign, and there were other ability score adjustments that few considered or were even aware of in the DMG. Most DMs I know used Method I from the DMG - 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange as desired. This is the most popular method and still used in modern games of D&D. The extra die acted as a buffer against lower rolls and tended to get scores in the 13-15 range easier than the 3d6 method. This is beneficial to the PCs since most ability score bonuses started in the 15+ range. This is different in Basic/Expert D&D where bonuses start in the 13-15 range. However, penalties in Original D&D started at 8 or lower, while in AD&D penalties usually started in the 6 or lower range. Having a 7 Strength in OD&D was detrimental, but not as bad in AD&D.

AD&D was stated to encourage at least 2 scores of 15 or greater for survival (PHB, page 9). Of course, this depended on class and which two scores were selected. Having a 15+ in Intelligence and Charisma is not really all that beneficial to characters, whereas a 15+ in Dexterity and Constitution is vital for survival, allowing reduced chances of being hit and surviving blows due to increased hit points. OD&D had degrees of bonus experience points for prime requisite scores. Generally speaking, a prime requisite of 13-15 gained +5% to earned experience, while a score of 16-18 gained +10% (Elves and Halflings tended to be different since they had 2 prime requisites). The increased number of experience points gained allowed the characters to increase in level faster, thus removing them from the delicate state of being low level with minimal hit points. AD&D did away with the +5% and only gave the XP bonus to those with scores of 16+ in their principal attribute. However, demi-humans were required to sometimes have higher scores and minimums in order to become certain classes. For example, human and multi-classed half-orc clerics only needed a 9 minimum in Wisdom, whereas multi-classed half-elves needed a 13 to be a cleric. AD&D was also the first time that minimums were required for the base classes of cleric, fighter, magic-user, and thief, and the first time that minimum scores in other abilities would dictate what class a character could be. For example, if a character was unlucky enough to have a score of 4 in Dexterity, that character could only be a cleric. If they did not qualify to be a cleric, then they would have to reroll the character (or assign scores differently) depending on the DM and what rolling methods were used.

Additionally, the section on character age in the AD&D DMG allowed for the adjustment of one's ability scores at the start of the game. A random roll allowed the DM to assign starting ages to the characters. Under the heading of AGING, it states, "When age category is established, modify ability scores accordingly, making each change progressively from young adulthood, all additions and subtractions being cumulative." What does this mean? Well, if your character is in the young adult category, you start the game with -1 Wisdom and +1 Constitution. This sucks for clerics, but is great for added survivability. If you rolled an age in the mature category, you would first subtract 1 from Wisdom and add 1 to Constitution, then add 1 point to Strength and 1 point to Wisdom. I believe that the oldest a human can be as a starting characters is 40 years old (magic-user with the highest roll), which is still considered mature. However, 1 game year later, that magic-user becomes middle-aged and has to subtract 1 point of Strength and Constitution, but adds 1 point of Intelligence and Wisdom. Human fighters begin the game at age 16-20 and are the youngest of the characters other than half-orc fighters who begin at age 14-17. Note that adjustments cannot raise abilities beyond racial maximums (or 18 for humans).

The other strange concept added to AD&D was ability score minimums and maximums for demi-humans and different genders of all races. In OD&D you could be a female dwarf with an 18 Str; in AD&D you could have no higher than a 17 Str. Halflings now had 4 ability score minimums that they had to be aware of (Str, Int, Dex, Con), other than the two listed in OD&D (Str and Dex). Some of these were quite demanding - 13 minimum Con to be a half-orc, for example. On the flip side, some character races allowed ability scores to raise above 18, something that never occurred in OD&D. Dwarves, halflings and half-orcs could achieve 19 in Constitution, and Elves could achieve 19 in Dexterity. So what if the character had a score lower than the minimum required based on race and gender? Then they could not be a demi-human character and had to select human. Racial adjustments could only modify the score after the minimums were met. And one cannot forget the racial adjustments for dwarves, elves, half-orcs and halflings on page 14 of the PHB.

So, although AD&D had more modifiers to the ability scores, and allowed greater choice when it came to arranging scores to be the class the player preferred, there were still other factors that contributed to limiting the choices one could play. OD&D was a bit more forgiving by giving out bonuses for lower scores and allowing classes to be played without many ability requirements, but there were only 4 human classes and 3 demi-humans to select from. AD&D mixed race and age into the ability score determination for a starting character. OD&D allowed for some adjustment of scores based on prime requisite and class, but rolls were based on 3d6 so scores were generally lower, with more in the single digit range that was detrimental to character survivability (especially with lower hit dice being used for the classes).

No comments:

Post a Comment

D&D Premises: Heroes vs. Villagers

 I find that most D&D players are firmly entrenched in two different camps when it comes to adventurers: you either believe that adventu...