I have finally completed my project to convert the Players Handbook into a searchable, editable Word file on my computer, faithfully reproduced with the Twentieth Century font and scanned images. I've noticed quite a few typos and omissions in the text, mainly in the spells section. It also seems that near the end of the book, Gary ran out of space and had to cut short his excellent advice on dungeon (and wilderness) adventures.
However, the glaring errors occur in the spells section. Sloppy editing or just plain not bothering to re-read the spells as written, is probably to blame. But the illusionists seem to have gotten the worst of it. Besides the problems encountered in trying to DM illusions (which were poorly explained to begin with), some of the spells just don't work.
In this example, we will be looking at Color Spray:
COLOR SPRAY
Level: 1
Range: 1"/level
Duration: 1 segment
Area of Effect: ½" x 2" x 2" wedge
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 segment
Saving Throw: Special
Explanation/Description: Upon casting this spell, the illusionist causes a vivid fan-shaped spray of clashing colors to spring forth from his or her hand. From 1 to 6 creatures within the area of effect can be affected. The spell caster is able to affect 1 level or hit die of creatures for each of his or her levels of experience. Affected creatures are struck unconscious for 2 to 8 rounds if their level is less than or equal to that of the spell caster; they are blinded for 1 to 4 rounds if their level or number of hit dice is 1 or 2 greater than the illusionist; and they are stunned (cf. power word, stun, seventh level magic-user spell) for 2 to 8 segments if their level or number of hit dice is 3 or more greater than the spell caster. All creatures above the level of the spell caster and all creatures of 6th level or 6 hit dice are entitled to a saving throw versus the color spray spell. The material components of this spell are a pinch each of powder or sand colored red, yellow and blue.
The first line indicates that this spell creates a fan-shaped spray of colors from the caster's hands. Nothing special about that. It's like the fan of burning hands, but more technicolor. Then it states that 1 to 6 creatures within this area are affected. Is that supposed to be a random roll? or is it based on something? The next line states that the caster can affect 1 level/HD of creature per caster level. OK, so that limits the number of creatures to be affected I guess, sort of like the sleep spell. So long as the levels or HD are less than or equal to the caster, the affected creatures are struck unconscious for 2-8 rounds. Awesome! Sort of a burning hands effect that causes sleep!
Then the rest of the spell makes little or no sense. It seems that if the levels/HD of the affected creatures are 1 to 2 levels above the spell caster.... wait, HUH? How can that ever be? Remember that the caster can only affect a number of HD/levels equal to his caster level. So how can this EVER happen? It then goes on with another stipulation if the levels/HD affected are 3+ levels more than the caster, but this can never happen either! Something is screwy here...
As an example, lets take a look at some illusionists and creatures:
1st level illusionist -- he can affect 1 HD of creature (1 orc or normal man, or 2 kobolds)
2nd level illusionist -- he can affect 2 HD of creatures (1 gnoll, 2 orcs or men, or 4 kobolds)
3rd level illusionist -- he can affect 3 HD of creatures (1 bugbear, 3 orcs or men, or 6 kobolds)
4th level illusionist -- he can affect 4 HD of creatures (1 ogre, 2 gnolls, 4 orcs or men, or 6 kobolds*)
5th level illusionist -- he can affect 5 HD of creatures (2 gnolls + 1 man,
5 orcs or men, or 6 kobolds*)
6th level illusionist -- he can affect 6 HD of creatures (1 troll, 3 gnolls, 6 orcs or men, or 6 kobolds*)
*Remember, the number of creatures is only 1 to 6 in the area of effect, no matter their HD.
How will the illusionist ever be able to affect more HD than he has levels according to this description? Say he's a 1st level illusionist up against an ogre (mean, but it has happened). His caster level is only 1 vs. a 4 HD creature. There is only 1 ogre. But the illusionist doesn't have enough HD of effect to cause the spell to work against the ogre. So he CANNOT stun the target creature in the area of effect because he can only affect 1 HD of creatures at 1st level.
UNLESS.... the line about HD/Levels is WRONG!! perhaps it was supposed to read that the illusionist can affect 1 CREATURE per caster level in the area of effect, up to 6. That would allow the rest of the spell description to work properly. Because then the ogre in the example above would be 1 creature in the area of effect of 3+ HD above the level of the caster, and would be stunned for 2-8 segments by the spell.
Hmm, all creatures above the level of the caster and those of 6 levels or 6 HD are entitled to a save. That would never happen in the spell description as written until the caster himself is at least 6th level, because he could not ever affect more HD/Levels than his caster level, and would not be able to affect creatures of 6 HD/Levels until he is himself a 6th level caster.
There is another interpretation of the spell, but it is rather convoluted and is not really supported by the language. In this interpretation, the main effect of the spell (unconsciousness) only affects those creatures of equal to or less than the caster level of illusionist. However, if there are any creatures above and beyond this level in the area of effect, they will be either blinded or stunned, as appropriate, according to their HD/Level. No more than 6 creatures can be affected by the spell.
I'm not really sure which interpretation is correct, or if the spell is simply broken. It really makes no sense as written.Let's see some more hypothetical examples:
1) A 1st level illusionist and his party comes across a band of 7 goblins in a dungeon corridor. He casts color spray on the 1st round. What happens? Does he affect only 1 goblin? Does he affect up to 6 goblins?
2) A 5th level illusionist and his party encounters a pair of trolls in a dungeon chamber. He casts color spray on the two trolls. What happens? Does he fail to affect the trolls? Does he affect both trolls but only blinds them? Do they get saving throws?
3) A 7th level illusionist and her party encounters a mind flayer in the tunnels of the underworld. She casts color spray at the creature. What happens? Is the creature affected? If so, is it blinded if it fails it's save?
4) A 9th level illusionist and her party encounters a fire giant and a pair of large hell hounds. She casts color spray at them. Will she be able to affect more than one of the creatures? Does it affect the lower HD creatures first? Will it affect all the creatures with different results for each type? Will it affect the giant at all?
Let's go back to the original spell description in DRAGON Magazine #1:
Color Spray: A sheet of bright conflicting colors. They affect 1-6 levels of creatures, rendering them unconscious through confusion. (Note: for every 5 levels above Trickster the caster has obtained,
add one to the die roll for amount of levels, the number never to exceed 6.) The distribution of the effect if there are more target levels than spell levels is semi-random, first one creature is fully affected, then another, till all the levels are assigned, there being no more than one partially affected creature. There is no saving throw vs this spell if the creature is fully affected, if all but one level is affected, it gets a normal saving throw, for every level unaffected beyond the first, it gets an additional +2 on its saving throw, in any case, it will not affect any creature above the 6th level. Range 24”.
Well, at least that's a bit more concise. The range is ridiculous on this version of the spells, assuming that the effect begins at the caster. Then again, the range of the spell in 1st edition makes little sense, assuming that it springs from the caster's hands. How can it be 1"/level if the area of effect is a static 5' x 20' x 20' wedge? Someone didn't think this through very well.....
It appears that, as with the sleep spell, there is a hard limit of 6 HD/levels that can be affected by the spell. However, the saving throw makes more sense. Those affected FIRST by the spell are those of the least HD. Anyone of higher HD that is partially affected gets a save, otherwise, no save. For every level unaffected, the save is at a bonus of +2. Therefore, using this version of the spell, if the 1st level illusionist uses this spell on the ogre and rolls a 2 for the levels affected, the ogre gets a saving throw at +4 to avoid the effects, otherwise he is unconscious from the colors. There is no duration listed here so it's assumed that it lasts until the creature is revived somehow. There is a hard limited of 6 HD, meaning that this spell would be useless on giants, powerful dragons, etc. This makes more sense than the convoluted spell description for AD&D 1st edition. But still not very helpful.
OK, so perhaps the whole "higher HD than the illusionist" thing occurs only when an illusionist casts this on a creature not normally affected by the spell (i.e. higher than the spell's HD capacity). This would give the creature a saving throw against the effect AND only be able to blind or temporarily delay the actions of the creature. It's important to note that if the DM doesn't understand initiative, then the segments duration of the stun effect will probably be taken incorrectly or ignored. Ugh, such a confusing spell! But I can see how the original was twisted into the current AD&D version. It could have been much better explained in my opinion, since it obviously was meant to allow illusionists to keep using the spell beyond 6th level casting ability.
Friday, May 12, 2017
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
OD&D 1974 Character Creation
I was in a nostalgic mood today and decided after work that I would sit down and create a character "Old School" style. So I opened up my pdf version of Men & Magic, got out my d6 brick, and started rolling! Here's the result:
DARNOK THE ACOLYTE (Lawful)
1st level Cleric (Man), Hit Points: 4 Exp. = 0
Equipment: (Encumbrance = 830 GP WT., Move = 9"/turn)
I can use magic armor like a fighter, and non-edged magic weapons.
I have 7 GP left at the start of the game.
Although I can't cast spells yet, I can Turn Undead (Skeletons 7, Zombies 9, Ghouls 11) on a 2d6 roll.
So, not a bad character! He needs to be in a large party in order to survive. Those 4 Hit Points are not gonna do him much good I'm afraid. One good hit and he will drop like a sack of potatoes. Since his Con is slightly below average I'm giving him a hacking cough which he acquired after fasting and praying in nothing but a thin linen robe for a week in penance. Although he is pious and faithful, his studies have fallen to the wayside. He is competent enough to hold his own in weapons practice though, and he gets along well with his fellows at the monastery. Not sure about religion in OD&D though. It seems like the implied religion here is Christian-like -- no doubt because of the presence of holy crosses and other aspects. I would assume, however, that this character does NOT exist in an Earth-like world at all (since this is D&D and magic & monsters exist). Let's assume that this character actually exists in the old Greyhawk campaign -- and let's assume that he is a worshipper of St. Cuthbert (a somewhat Christian-like deity). Beyond this, I don't think I need to go into any more detail than I already have. The character is complete!
I doubt 7 GP will be enough to hire many henchmen. Perhaps he should just try and get some men-at-arms to accompany him on his first adventure. For 4 GP he can hire two light foot men-at-arms for a month. I assume they are dressed in leather armor, with or without shield, and with light weapons like spears and short swords. If Darnok has to equip these men then he can't afford to hire them!
With my new guardsmen, Darnok is ready to find others willing to locate and enter a dungeon! Now if only I knew of a Dungeon Master who still ran OD&D....
- Strength 11
- Intelligence 11
- Wisdom 12
- Constitution 8
- Dexterity 8
- Charisma 12
DARNOK THE ACOLYTE (Lawful)
1st level Cleric (Man), Hit Points: 4 Exp. = 0
- Strength 11
- Intelligence 9
- Wisdom 13 (+5% earned Exp.)
- Constitution 8 (50% survival chance)
- Dexterity 8 (-1 missiles)
- Charisma 12 (4 henchmen max.)
Equipment: (Encumbrance = 830 GP WT., Move = 9"/turn)
- Chain Mail Armor (30 GP)
- Shield (10 GP)
- Helmet (10 GP)
- Mace (5 GP)
- 50' Rope (1 GP)
- 2 Small Sacks (2 GP)
- Silver Cross (25 GP)
- Holy Water (25 GP)
- 1 Week Std. Rations (5 GP)
I can use magic armor like a fighter, and non-edged magic weapons.
I have 7 GP left at the start of the game.
Although I can't cast spells yet, I can Turn Undead (Skeletons 7, Zombies 9, Ghouls 11) on a 2d6 roll.
So, not a bad character! He needs to be in a large party in order to survive. Those 4 Hit Points are not gonna do him much good I'm afraid. One good hit and he will drop like a sack of potatoes. Since his Con is slightly below average I'm giving him a hacking cough which he acquired after fasting and praying in nothing but a thin linen robe for a week in penance. Although he is pious and faithful, his studies have fallen to the wayside. He is competent enough to hold his own in weapons practice though, and he gets along well with his fellows at the monastery. Not sure about religion in OD&D though. It seems like the implied religion here is Christian-like -- no doubt because of the presence of holy crosses and other aspects. I would assume, however, that this character does NOT exist in an Earth-like world at all (since this is D&D and magic & monsters exist). Let's assume that this character actually exists in the old Greyhawk campaign -- and let's assume that he is a worshipper of St. Cuthbert (a somewhat Christian-like deity). Beyond this, I don't think I need to go into any more detail than I already have. The character is complete!
I doubt 7 GP will be enough to hire many henchmen. Perhaps he should just try and get some men-at-arms to accompany him on his first adventure. For 4 GP he can hire two light foot men-at-arms for a month. I assume they are dressed in leather armor, with or without shield, and with light weapons like spears and short swords. If Darnok has to equip these men then he can't afford to hire them!
With my new guardsmen, Darnok is ready to find others willing to locate and enter a dungeon! Now if only I knew of a Dungeon Master who still ran OD&D....
Monday, May 1, 2017
Hopeless Characters
I've been looking over a few posts on other web sites in the past few weeks regarding characters with low ability scores, or "Hopeless" characters. This sentiment has been around for a while now, even appearing in the rules for AD&D and Basic/Expert D&D back in 1979/1980. The thing about it is that I don't think that a character is truly hopeless unless the PLAYER thinks it is.
The premise of the original D&D game appears to be that of a bunch of people who have apprenticed in a chosen profession (class) heading off to a dungeon to recover treasure and make a name for themselves. Along the way they face terrible monsters, deadly traps, and devious puzzles. Those that overcome these become rich and famous. Those that don't...? Well, they become dungeon dressing to be found by those who later enter said dungeon in search of their own glory.
But here's the thing... abilities are MEANT to be random. If they weren't, then why roll the dice at all? If you won't play a character with any score lower than 10, why even roll the dice? It's statistically possible to have a character with all 3's. The same probability exists to roll a character with all 18's. But it's more likely that your score will fall in the 9-12 range.
Let's face it. No one wants to play someone JUST LIKE THEM in real life. No one who plays D&D or AD&D wants to play the couch potato with the huge gut who can barely lift a sword, no less swing one. No one wants to be the bumbling klutz or the moron who can't remember where he left his glasses (which are on his head...). No one wants to be known as the guy who foolishly agreed to some plan suggested by an NPC, just because he wasn't savvy enough to realize he was being duped. No, everyone wants to be the god-like hero of myth, the mighty warrior who gets all the girls, the powerful magic-user able to routinely hold dozens of spells in his memory at once, or the wise cleric who can see through deceit and resist the most potent charms. Let's face it, no one wants to play themselves in their fantasy.
But, I have to tell you, playing the foibles of lackluster characters is sometimes fun. Our most memorable characters were not the ones with 18 percentile strength, but rather the weakling mage who can't even hold his own cat familiar without becoming tired; or the fighter whose wisdom was so low that she could be convinced of just about anything; or the charismatic fighter who really wanted to be a paladin but just could not cut it. These low scores that "prevent" us from enjoying a character really give the character personality and background. However, this is not for everyone.
One of my friends once put this in terms I could understand. Superman is invulnerable, he's the fastest hero around, he's the strongest hero around, he has a computer-like brain, and he's dashing and charismatic. However, the character is boring as hell. Even the writers couldn't figure out how to write good stories about him. However, his bumbling sidekick Jimmy Olsen, or not-so-wise love Lois Lane (always getting into trouble) were much more interesting to write about. And so, although Superman could be said to have 18s in all his stats, he was still just a ho-hum character. You always knew he would save the day. There was no doubt about it. And when something becomes an absolute, when there's no chance of failure, the action becomes routine and boring.
Some players yearn to be Superman from 1st level. They want to win all the time. They need to succeed and be the best. They hate losing. Low stats means they have lost or aren't good enough. There is a section in the beginning of the Players Handbook regarding such a thing. In fact, later versions of the game assume that the characters are a cut above the rank and file of humanity (or dwarf-, elf-, and halfling-kind). But this is not how swords & sorcery fantasy should be. Everyone has to start somewhere. The game assumes that you are beginning at the ground floor and working your way up to fame and fortune, power and prestige. If you START at the top, as the saying goes, there's nowhere to go but down.
The definition of "hopeless character" has changed over time. Original D&D had no such thing. But if you look at the way the game played, ability scores were not very important. Basic D&D, which is based on OD&D, stated that characters whose ability scores were all under 9 were unplayable, but this was the first time that minimum scores were stated in the rules for each class. Before this, you could be a fighter with a 7 strength, or a magic-user with a 5 intelligence. You wouldn't be very good, but you could still exist. By AD&D, all the major classes needed at least a 9 in their "prime requisite" to qualify for a class. It was recommended that you have at least two scores of 15 or higher and no more than one score in the very low range (3-6).
The reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm trying to figure out why people hate 3d6 rolled in order as a method of generating characters. To me it makes little difference. But there are some people who adamantly despise this method of rolling. It seems that it boils down to two real ideologies here:
Call me a grognard, but I think that everyone should try and play a 3d6-straight rolled character at least once. Old style gaming can be a real fun time if everyone is on the same page. Just for kicks, I rolled up three characters using 3d6 rolled in order. These are my stats
For example: It was assumed that players would seek out NPCs to assist them in their adventures. The concept of hirelings and henchmen has been around since the beginning. Of course, the terms "meat shield" or "red-shirts" have also, unfortunately, been around for that long as well. Let's face it - adventuring is risky business; you're going to get hurt and will most likely die unless you are very careful. The more targets there are, the less likely a casualty will be a player character. It's not a very heroic concept, sacrificing others so that you can survive. Then again, the premise of the game is not very heroic either - entering dank dungeons and stealing away with treasure that belonged to someone else (or guarded/protected by magic and traps). These are things that THIEVES are meant to do. They sneak into bad places and steal away with treasure, hopefully without any harm coming to themselves. So, in essence, ALL characters are really thieves (or "murder-hobos" as some refer to them). And the typical depiction of a thief is a rough-and-tumble scrawny guy who lies, cheats, and wheedles his way through life, avoiding combat when possible, and making out with as much treasure as he can carry. THIS is the way the game was envisioned by the creator(s). It didn't matter much what your strength, intelligence, wisdom, or dexterity were. What mattered is that you lived - by any means possible!
But back to "hopeless characters." We can now see that "heroic" characters were made to cater to individual desires. They were not meant to be adventurers in the original D&D sense. But let's face it, when you think medieval society, you assume knights, dragons, and damsels in distress. Enter the paladin. I believe that this sub-class was created to cater to those who needed to be the superhero. They needed high stats and a moral code. Strangely enough, no one I knew back in the day wanted to play a paladin as Lawful and Good. All they really wanted were the stats. And who wants to play a lowly fighter when you can play a demi-god of holy prowess? Eventually, sub-classes came to rule the D&D landscape. Since they needed higher scores to qualify, people started seeing 3d6 as "not good enough." So alternate methods were devised. Looking at the characters I generated above, I don't think any of them qualifies to be a sub-class (perhaps #3 could be an assassin?). And if your only goal in the game is to "be the best" or, more disturbingly, "be better than everyone else playing the game," then 3d6 isn't going to cut it. The added character classes and races in Unearthed Arcana continued this disturbing trend with barbarians, cavaliers, dark elves, duergar, etc. The new method of rolling characters (Method V) had players rolling multiple dice for certain key stats and taking the best 3 rolls. If you wanted to play a human fighter, you got to roll 9d6 and take the highest 3 rolls. Soon, if you were a fighter without percentile strength you were "doing it wrong."
To me, no character is truly hopeless. The lack of a stat does not mean that the character is worthless. In a truly randomly-rolled game, there is just as much chance of your 18/00% Strength fighter dying as there is my 10 Strength fighter. That 9 Intelligence magic-user may not know as many spells as your 18 Intelligence magic-user, but the game plays the same regardless. What needs to be addressed BEFORE THE GAME BEGINS is which type of characters the players prefer. Once a consensus is achieved, the Method of rolling can be established and the game can proceed. The DM also should establish guidelines for when a character may be scrapped because scores are not high enough for survivability; but even this can be waived if the player really wants to play such a character. They can be just as much fun, and usually more memorable, than those with god-like stats. Remember that magic items typically enhance abilities, and once the characters are beyond 1st level ability scores take a back seat to class mechanics.
My rule of thumb for "Hopeless Characters" is if you have more penalties than bonuses, you probably should rethink your character's chance to survive or even perform adequately in the chosen class. In the above examples, character #1 has 4 scores below 10. In Basic D&D one of these (strength) would result in a -1 penalty to hit and damage. But this is balanced by the +1 bonus gained from Constitution. In AD&D Strength of 7 would only cause a -1 to hit. This is a perfectly valid character, although some people see the lack of bonuses as a problem. After all, thieves don't really NEED strength to perform as thieves. Character #2 is dead average - he could qualify for any of the base classes (fighter, magic-user, cleric, or thief). Again, this is a valid character. However, the lack of bonuses seems to turn some people off. Character #3 is an amazing example of the randomness of rolling 3d6. This character would make a powerful magic-user.... or would it? What benefit does a Basic D&D magic-user gain from such high Intelligence? They can still only cast a limited number of spells, same as a 9 Int M-U. Sure, they can speak 3 extra languages, but this doesn't affect their survivability all that much. In AD&D, that magic-user has a better chance of knowing more spells, and has more spells in their spellbook, and will likely level faster thus getting the character out of danger of dying too soon. However, they can still only cast ONE of those spells for the day, regardless of Intelligence. So you see, a high score is only desirable in the mind of the player. The game doesn't care WHAT your score is. The only classes that really suffer from low scores are fighters and clerics. Fighters with lackluster Strength can't kill things very fast, and may miss more often than one with high Strength. Low Wisdom clerics in Basic D&D have no real penalties; however, those with low wisdom (9-12) in AD&D have a chance of miscasting their spells! Thieves in D&D are not terribly impacted by average or high Dexterity in their class abilities; however, it provides a penalty or bonus to thief abilities in AD&D and high Dex may improve the chances of survival in combat by lowering AC in either system.
Comparing the ability bonuses in Basic D&D and AD&D, one can see that in Basic D&D, bonuses and penalties occur immediately beyond the average 9-12 range. In AD&D it depends on the ability score; some gain penalties/bonuses at very low/high numbers and some give benefits a bit above average. But generally speaking, in AD&D you want scores of 15+ to gain the bonuses provided on the charts. And this is the reason why Gygax made that statement of wanting at least two scores in the 15+ range. Also, if you peruse the charts in the Players Handbook, you will see that if an ability score is lower than a 6, it locks you into a particular class. For instance, a character with a 5 or lower strength can ONLY be a magic-user. It doesn't matter what your intelligence is (so long as it is 9 or higher). If you had scores of Str 5 and Int 8, then that would truly be a hopeless character. In the examples above, the only character with a score of 5 or lower is #3. That character has a Charisma of 5. Sure enough, consulting the PHB states that this character can ONLY be an assassin! However, the character has an 11 Dex and needs a 12 to qualify for assassin. Interestingly enough, this character is considered HOPELESS according to the rules since he cannot qualify for ANY class based on those stats. The DM would require the player to reroll, despite having rolled an 18 in Intelligence!! If the player wanted to still run the character, the DM would likely enforce the need to be an assassin and have the player run an elf to get the Dexterity up one point. However, elves must have a minimum Charisma of 8 so this character is unplayable!! The only way this character could work is if the DM made an exception to the rules, something the other players may not agree with as it seems as if the DM is playing favorites (especially if they are settling for a character they didn't really want to play based on their stats). The same does not apply to Basic D&D characters. Character #3 could be an intelligent fighter, a strong magic-user, or an elf character with no problems. It could also be a thief character (with good strength and great intelligence). The charisma in Basic D&D really has no effect on character choice at all.
So, as you can see, "hopeless" characters are really dependent on the version of the game you are playing, the rules/guidelines being used by the DM, and the desires/needs of the players. A 3d6-straight character is no more or less valid than any other method of rolling. The only way to get a character you truly want to play with the stats desired is pretty much selecting from a given array or selecting the class and rolling ranges between the minimums and maximums. For example, monks are one of the hardest classes to qualify for in AD&D. They require 15 Str, 15 Wis, 15 Dex and 11 Con. Rolling that with 3d6 is really hard - it's even pretty tough with 4d6 drop the lowest. Some DMs allow a player to choose their class before rolling dice, then roll ability scores. For example, a DM might allow a player to choose monk, then have them roll 1d4+14 for Str, Wis, and Dex, and 1d8+10 for Con while all other stats are rolled using the normal method. Again, it is the DMs prerogative and the player's desires which drive this. The rules used are not "lame", "broken," or antiquated, they simply have evolved over time to suit different needs.
The premise of the original D&D game appears to be that of a bunch of people who have apprenticed in a chosen profession (class) heading off to a dungeon to recover treasure and make a name for themselves. Along the way they face terrible monsters, deadly traps, and devious puzzles. Those that overcome these become rich and famous. Those that don't...? Well, they become dungeon dressing to be found by those who later enter said dungeon in search of their own glory.
But here's the thing... abilities are MEANT to be random. If they weren't, then why roll the dice at all? If you won't play a character with any score lower than 10, why even roll the dice? It's statistically possible to have a character with all 3's. The same probability exists to roll a character with all 18's. But it's more likely that your score will fall in the 9-12 range.
Let's face it. No one wants to play someone JUST LIKE THEM in real life. No one who plays D&D or AD&D wants to play the couch potato with the huge gut who can barely lift a sword, no less swing one. No one wants to be the bumbling klutz or the moron who can't remember where he left his glasses (which are on his head...). No one wants to be known as the guy who foolishly agreed to some plan suggested by an NPC, just because he wasn't savvy enough to realize he was being duped. No, everyone wants to be the god-like hero of myth, the mighty warrior who gets all the girls, the powerful magic-user able to routinely hold dozens of spells in his memory at once, or the wise cleric who can see through deceit and resist the most potent charms. Let's face it, no one wants to play themselves in their fantasy.
But, I have to tell you, playing the foibles of lackluster characters is sometimes fun. Our most memorable characters were not the ones with 18 percentile strength, but rather the weakling mage who can't even hold his own cat familiar without becoming tired; or the fighter whose wisdom was so low that she could be convinced of just about anything; or the charismatic fighter who really wanted to be a paladin but just could not cut it. These low scores that "prevent" us from enjoying a character really give the character personality and background. However, this is not for everyone.
One of my friends once put this in terms I could understand. Superman is invulnerable, he's the fastest hero around, he's the strongest hero around, he has a computer-like brain, and he's dashing and charismatic. However, the character is boring as hell. Even the writers couldn't figure out how to write good stories about him. However, his bumbling sidekick Jimmy Olsen, or not-so-wise love Lois Lane (always getting into trouble) were much more interesting to write about. And so, although Superman could be said to have 18s in all his stats, he was still just a ho-hum character. You always knew he would save the day. There was no doubt about it. And when something becomes an absolute, when there's no chance of failure, the action becomes routine and boring.
Some players yearn to be Superman from 1st level. They want to win all the time. They need to succeed and be the best. They hate losing. Low stats means they have lost or aren't good enough. There is a section in the beginning of the Players Handbook regarding such a thing. In fact, later versions of the game assume that the characters are a cut above the rank and file of humanity (or dwarf-, elf-, and halfling-kind). But this is not how swords & sorcery fantasy should be. Everyone has to start somewhere. The game assumes that you are beginning at the ground floor and working your way up to fame and fortune, power and prestige. If you START at the top, as the saying goes, there's nowhere to go but down.
The definition of "hopeless character" has changed over time. Original D&D had no such thing. But if you look at the way the game played, ability scores were not very important. Basic D&D, which is based on OD&D, stated that characters whose ability scores were all under 9 were unplayable, but this was the first time that minimum scores were stated in the rules for each class. Before this, you could be a fighter with a 7 strength, or a magic-user with a 5 intelligence. You wouldn't be very good, but you could still exist. By AD&D, all the major classes needed at least a 9 in their "prime requisite" to qualify for a class. It was recommended that you have at least two scores of 15 or higher and no more than one score in the very low range (3-6).
The reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm trying to figure out why people hate 3d6 rolled in order as a method of generating characters. To me it makes little difference. But there are some people who adamantly despise this method of rolling. It seems that it boils down to two real ideologies here:
- The camp that believe that all characters should be a "cut above" and be heroic in all ways. They believe that such characters should have no flaws, because weakness is no fun to play (for them). These people already know exactly what character they want to play.
- The other camp seems to like organic character creation. These folks have no idea what they want to play and allow the dice to tell them what they can play. They don't go into the game needing to play a certain type of character, but rather learn about what character they just rolled.
Call me a grognard, but I think that everyone should try and play a 3d6-straight rolled character at least once. Old style gaming can be a real fun time if everyone is on the same page. Just for kicks, I rolled up three characters using 3d6 rolled in order. These are my stats
- Str 7, Int 7, Wis 9, Dex 12, Con 14, Cha 8 (possible thief)
- Str 10, Int 11, Wis 12, Dex 9, Con 11, Cha 14 (any base class, leaning towards cleric)
- Str 15, Int 18(!), Wis 9, Dex 11, Con 13, Cha 5 (likely fighter/magic-user, or MU at least)
For example: It was assumed that players would seek out NPCs to assist them in their adventures. The concept of hirelings and henchmen has been around since the beginning. Of course, the terms "meat shield" or "red-shirts" have also, unfortunately, been around for that long as well. Let's face it - adventuring is risky business; you're going to get hurt and will most likely die unless you are very careful. The more targets there are, the less likely a casualty will be a player character. It's not a very heroic concept, sacrificing others so that you can survive. Then again, the premise of the game is not very heroic either - entering dank dungeons and stealing away with treasure that belonged to someone else (or guarded/protected by magic and traps). These are things that THIEVES are meant to do. They sneak into bad places and steal away with treasure, hopefully without any harm coming to themselves. So, in essence, ALL characters are really thieves (or "murder-hobos" as some refer to them). And the typical depiction of a thief is a rough-and-tumble scrawny guy who lies, cheats, and wheedles his way through life, avoiding combat when possible, and making out with as much treasure as he can carry. THIS is the way the game was envisioned by the creator(s). It didn't matter much what your strength, intelligence, wisdom, or dexterity were. What mattered is that you lived - by any means possible!
But back to "hopeless characters." We can now see that "heroic" characters were made to cater to individual desires. They were not meant to be adventurers in the original D&D sense. But let's face it, when you think medieval society, you assume knights, dragons, and damsels in distress. Enter the paladin. I believe that this sub-class was created to cater to those who needed to be the superhero. They needed high stats and a moral code. Strangely enough, no one I knew back in the day wanted to play a paladin as Lawful and Good. All they really wanted were the stats. And who wants to play a lowly fighter when you can play a demi-god of holy prowess? Eventually, sub-classes came to rule the D&D landscape. Since they needed higher scores to qualify, people started seeing 3d6 as "not good enough." So alternate methods were devised. Looking at the characters I generated above, I don't think any of them qualifies to be a sub-class (perhaps #3 could be an assassin?). And if your only goal in the game is to "be the best" or, more disturbingly, "be better than everyone else playing the game," then 3d6 isn't going to cut it. The added character classes and races in Unearthed Arcana continued this disturbing trend with barbarians, cavaliers, dark elves, duergar, etc. The new method of rolling characters (Method V) had players rolling multiple dice for certain key stats and taking the best 3 rolls. If you wanted to play a human fighter, you got to roll 9d6 and take the highest 3 rolls. Soon, if you were a fighter without percentile strength you were "doing it wrong."
To me, no character is truly hopeless. The lack of a stat does not mean that the character is worthless. In a truly randomly-rolled game, there is just as much chance of your 18/00% Strength fighter dying as there is my 10 Strength fighter. That 9 Intelligence magic-user may not know as many spells as your 18 Intelligence magic-user, but the game plays the same regardless. What needs to be addressed BEFORE THE GAME BEGINS is which type of characters the players prefer. Once a consensus is achieved, the Method of rolling can be established and the game can proceed. The DM also should establish guidelines for when a character may be scrapped because scores are not high enough for survivability; but even this can be waived if the player really wants to play such a character. They can be just as much fun, and usually more memorable, than those with god-like stats. Remember that magic items typically enhance abilities, and once the characters are beyond 1st level ability scores take a back seat to class mechanics.
My rule of thumb for "Hopeless Characters" is if you have more penalties than bonuses, you probably should rethink your character's chance to survive or even perform adequately in the chosen class. In the above examples, character #1 has 4 scores below 10. In Basic D&D one of these (strength) would result in a -1 penalty to hit and damage. But this is balanced by the +1 bonus gained from Constitution. In AD&D Strength of 7 would only cause a -1 to hit. This is a perfectly valid character, although some people see the lack of bonuses as a problem. After all, thieves don't really NEED strength to perform as thieves. Character #2 is dead average - he could qualify for any of the base classes (fighter, magic-user, cleric, or thief). Again, this is a valid character. However, the lack of bonuses seems to turn some people off. Character #3 is an amazing example of the randomness of rolling 3d6. This character would make a powerful magic-user.... or would it? What benefit does a Basic D&D magic-user gain from such high Intelligence? They can still only cast a limited number of spells, same as a 9 Int M-U. Sure, they can speak 3 extra languages, but this doesn't affect their survivability all that much. In AD&D, that magic-user has a better chance of knowing more spells, and has more spells in their spellbook, and will likely level faster thus getting the character out of danger of dying too soon. However, they can still only cast ONE of those spells for the day, regardless of Intelligence. So you see, a high score is only desirable in the mind of the player. The game doesn't care WHAT your score is. The only classes that really suffer from low scores are fighters and clerics. Fighters with lackluster Strength can't kill things very fast, and may miss more often than one with high Strength. Low Wisdom clerics in Basic D&D have no real penalties; however, those with low wisdom (9-12) in AD&D have a chance of miscasting their spells! Thieves in D&D are not terribly impacted by average or high Dexterity in their class abilities; however, it provides a penalty or bonus to thief abilities in AD&D and high Dex may improve the chances of survival in combat by lowering AC in either system.
Comparing the ability bonuses in Basic D&D and AD&D, one can see that in Basic D&D, bonuses and penalties occur immediately beyond the average 9-12 range. In AD&D it depends on the ability score; some gain penalties/bonuses at very low/high numbers and some give benefits a bit above average. But generally speaking, in AD&D you want scores of 15+ to gain the bonuses provided on the charts. And this is the reason why Gygax made that statement of wanting at least two scores in the 15+ range. Also, if you peruse the charts in the Players Handbook, you will see that if an ability score is lower than a 6, it locks you into a particular class. For instance, a character with a 5 or lower strength can ONLY be a magic-user. It doesn't matter what your intelligence is (so long as it is 9 or higher). If you had scores of Str 5 and Int 8, then that would truly be a hopeless character. In the examples above, the only character with a score of 5 or lower is #3. That character has a Charisma of 5. Sure enough, consulting the PHB states that this character can ONLY be an assassin! However, the character has an 11 Dex and needs a 12 to qualify for assassin. Interestingly enough, this character is considered HOPELESS according to the rules since he cannot qualify for ANY class based on those stats. The DM would require the player to reroll, despite having rolled an 18 in Intelligence!! If the player wanted to still run the character, the DM would likely enforce the need to be an assassin and have the player run an elf to get the Dexterity up one point. However, elves must have a minimum Charisma of 8 so this character is unplayable!! The only way this character could work is if the DM made an exception to the rules, something the other players may not agree with as it seems as if the DM is playing favorites (especially if they are settling for a character they didn't really want to play based on their stats). The same does not apply to Basic D&D characters. Character #3 could be an intelligent fighter, a strong magic-user, or an elf character with no problems. It could also be a thief character (with good strength and great intelligence). The charisma in Basic D&D really has no effect on character choice at all.
So, as you can see, "hopeless" characters are really dependent on the version of the game you are playing, the rules/guidelines being used by the DM, and the desires/needs of the players. A 3d6-straight character is no more or less valid than any other method of rolling. The only way to get a character you truly want to play with the stats desired is pretty much selecting from a given array or selecting the class and rolling ranges between the minimums and maximums. For example, monks are one of the hardest classes to qualify for in AD&D. They require 15 Str, 15 Wis, 15 Dex and 11 Con. Rolling that with 3d6 is really hard - it's even pretty tough with 4d6 drop the lowest. Some DMs allow a player to choose their class before rolling dice, then roll ability scores. For example, a DM might allow a player to choose monk, then have them roll 1d4+14 for Str, Wis, and Dex, and 1d8+10 for Con while all other stats are rolled using the normal method. Again, it is the DMs prerogative and the player's desires which drive this. The rules used are not "lame", "broken," or antiquated, they simply have evolved over time to suit different needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
D&D Basic: Entering Hommlet
Well, it has been a while since I've published anything on this blog. To be honest, I've been dabbling in D&D 5e and trying to...
