The Case Against AD&D - Ability Scores, pt. 5

Smarts

Dungeons & Dragons has a bit of a complicated history with ability scores, and they went from having barely any mechanical effect to becoming the core of each character's abilities, over and above their class or race. Obviously, I prefer them being consistent, and consistently small in their mechanical effect, since a character's class should have more of an effect on their abilities, otherwise you wind up with incompetent characters (which admittedly can be fun in the right sort of game). The issue of competency has no more stark example than does Intelligence.

Intelligence also has implications for roleplaying, since a "smart" character can generally be assumed to be clever, logical, inventive, and a plethora of other nice sounding descriptions. The truth of the matter is, however, that the "cleverness" of a given character is poorly modeled by roleplaying game mechanics, and in general, their actual cleverness will be a confluence of the player's cleverness, and the DM's permissiveness. Take for example, the quintessential notion of using Intelligence to determine whether or not a player character can solve a puzzle, remember a clue, or come up with a tactically sound plan.

Solving a puzzle through a check sort of seems reasonable on the surface, since a "smart" character will have a greater chance to succeed. In practice, it removes any real engagement with the environment, and creates the additional problem of there being a flat chance that a "smart" character will fail to solve an extremely easy or obvious puzzle thanks to the dice.

Using Intelligence as a measure of memory also seems like it would be a good fit, but I've known plenty of otherwise smart people who have terrible recall for any number of things (grocery lists, something they just read, where they put their keys, etc.). In addition, I think it's more than fair to allow players to keep notes, and to remind them of something their character should know if the situation warrants it.

Now, a tactically sound plan on the other hand is so vague that it's completely useless. I've seen it modeled in games as bonuses to attack and defense for the side whose commander made the appropriate check, but then you get weird situations where both sides have tactically sound plans, or both sides have made blunders. Worse, a side may have rolled that it made a catastrophic blunder, but then the players make tactically brilliant moves in the actual combat play, and still manage to snag a victory. You could retcon the situation to be that the plan was poor, but they managed to adapt and improvise during the battle to eke out a win, but this is for me, unsatisfying and artificial.

In the case of a stupid player rolling Intelligence in order to "do smart things" it's literally just the DM telling the stupid player what they need to do in order to win, rather like having a grandmaster sitting next to you telling you how to beat your opponent at chess (I know, the analogy is weak - chess is competitive, D&D and most other RPGs are not). At this point, you're not actually playing the game, someone else is, and you're just going through the motions. I may be a bad person for this, but I feel that stupid players should just fail over and over again if they keep acting like an idiot. That they're incapable of doing anything else is not really my fault, or my problem.

Mechanical Effects of Intelligence

So what exactly does Intelligence actually do in AD&D 2e, aside from gauge how "smart" a character is? Well, let's take a look.

The first derived ability of a character's Intelligence is the number of languages that they can know. According to the Players Handbook, this can represent either the number of languages your character can speak, or the maximum potential languages your character can know. Additionally, it's the number of bonus non-weapon proficiencies a character can have in addition to the ones granted by their class. I'm not super fond of this (or the way it scales), but for the most part, it's reasonable that there should be a way of determining if a character knows more than just their racial or cultural languages.

Next is spell level, which is the highest level spells a character with the Wizard class can cast. This is one of my biggest gripes with AD&D, since having high enough Intelligence implies that a.) anyone can become a Wizard if they just applied themselves, and b.) that any Wizard with less than 18 Intelligence is incompetent by default. Let's examine that a bit further.

According to the table, 9 Intelligence (the minimum for being a mage of any stripe) allows you to cast up to 4th level spells. This by itself, goes the logic, should be enough to encourage anyone with any sense or ambition to be a mage or Wizard, since it allows them access to reality bending powers than can make their life easier, more interesting, and they would have access to powers that allow them to become even more powerful over time. I've seen this argument in many forms over the years, generally used for 3rd edition, but the same logic applies here. AD&D 2e still has 0-level NPCs, and 3rd edition has NPC classes, but proponents of the Intelligence = Ultimate Cosmic Power/Anyone Who Didn't Choose the Wizard Class is Retarded argument seem to ignore that in early editions, anyway, PCs are exceptional (due to training, bloodline, whathaveyou) and that magic isn't necessarily open to everyone.

But I can see where the Wizard or Bust! camp gets the idea, since the rules do in fact reflect how things work in the game world (it's one of the reasons why having the rules separate from the lore is potentially disastrous). Exceptionalism in heroes is not a new idea, and previous editions of D&D have reinforced this idea with 0-level characters. 2nd edition retains this feature, though a later splatbook, Sages & Specialists exists - and I'm not jazzed about it. It was a prelude to the stupidity of NPC classes in 3rd edition. Speaking of, 3rd edition has no clear divide between heroic characters and non-heroic ones aside from the fact that PCs are always heroic, and NPC classes are generally worse than PC ones. They're built the same way as PCs, and this adds weight to the Wizard or Bust! camp's argument (at least, for that specific edition).

Whether or not this implication is true is going to be determined by what the DM prefers and has chosen for their particular campaign world. Either way though, the DM is going to have to grapple with the this, because those assumptions are implicit in the rules, and Intelligence's role in determining spellcasting proficiency is explicit. They're going to have to have either a good explanation for why the lore doesn't match up with the rules, or players who are willing to play along.

As far as being competent or incompetent is concerned, note that in order to have the potential to cast 9th level spells, a Wizard or mage needs 18 Intelligence, the highest possible natural roll. In 3rd edition, spell level was directly a factor of Intelligence, in that the highest level of spell you could cast was determined by [(Intelligence-10) greater than, or equal to (spell level)]. This is further compounded in 3rd edition because your Intelligence modifier directly determines your spell save DCs, so higher Intelligence equals spells that are harder to resist. AD&D 2e mages and Wizards do not have this, but having a low Intelligence certainly does prevent a Wizard or mage from realizing their true potential.

Contrast all of this with Basic and retroclones: Intelligence has nothing to do with spellcasting, not even as a requirement to take the class. They're completely decoupled, and as a result, there are two things we can draw from this:

1. Intelligence has nothing to do with being a Magic User. There are smart Magic Users, and dumb ones. Maybe anyone can become a Magic User with the right training, but it's equally possible that they require some kind of special bloodline, or must transcend to a more enlightened state, or truck with dark powers beyond the mortal ken. Any or all of these can be true.
2. A Magic Users's competency is a function of their experience level rather than a single ability score.

Personally, I think this is to the system's advantage, both mechanically and for roleplaying purposes because it not only allows Magic User to be competent at their role despite rolling poorly for Intelligence, but it also allows the player and the DM to have leeway to explain what powers the Magic User's spells.

Moving on, we have the Chance to Learn Spell. This is the chance a character can successfully copy a spell from a scroll, which again, means that low Intelligence Wizards and mages are falling into that incompetency accusation. In all the retroclones that I have, scribing scrolls into spellbooks only costs money and time. In the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, this still holds true. I'm not sure about Holmes Basic, Mentzer Basic, or even OD&D, but I can ask Carlos when I get the chance.

The Maximum Spells per Level section is optional, but it limits a Wizard to a certain number of spells per each level, as advertised. There's an optional spell research rule that would allow them to bypass this, but frankly, I think that it shouldn't exist and if there's a spell research rule, you may as well require them to research any spell that they don't have a scroll to copy from.

Illusion Immunity is only relevant for gray elves and other creatures that can conceivably have a 19 in Intelligence to start with. However, that immunity is just another reason to accumulate a high Intelligence score, even for non-Wizards. Like I keep harping on, this is not a good thing, and encourages a style of play where everyone seeks every opportunity to acquire more ability score points.

Final Thoughts

While Intelligence affects more than just spellcasting, spellcasting arguably dominates any conversation you could have about Intelligence. Having an ability score that so completely determines a character's capability to perform their role in the party ends up being harmful to the game. It also has implications for how the campaign world works, which may or may not appeal.

If we consider the average roll of 4d6 drop the lowest, a 16 is not terrible. It would allow up to 8th level spells, something a Wizard won't have to worry about until 18th level (hilariously, this is one of the areas in which AD&D is superior to 3e). However, they have a 70% chance to scribe scrolls into their spellbooks, and while that seems like it would be a pretty high chance, it's still a greater than a 1 in 4 chance to fail to scribe the scroll, raising questions of the Wizard's competency.

Whether it bothers you from a mechanical, lore, or roleplaying perspective, or all three, Intelligence is an ability score that comes with a whole bunch of issues. Obviously, not everyone is bothered by the assumptions implicit in the score, but for my part, I'd rather that Intelligence be a rough roleplaying guidepost, or non-existent, rather than an integral pillar of the game's mechanics given the way it is presented in AD&D and later editions.

The Case Against AD&D - Ability Scores, pt. 4

Constitution is one of the most important ability scores in the D&D game, and I think, occasionally an underrated one. When I was first introduced to the game, the group that did so never emphasized the importance of the ability score, and I recall that they wouldn't prioritize Constitution over other ability scores (most of our play was during 3rd edition, so that may have had something to do with it, but I doubt it).

Most editions of D&D have differing hit dice values for each class, meaning that classes use a different die with a particular range. In AD&D 2e, mage classes (Wizards, Illusionists, Elementalists, etc.) use a d4, rogues (Thieves, Bards, etc.) use a d6, priests (Specialty Priests/Clerics, Druids, etc.) use a d8, and warriors use a d10. Because of this, Constitution actually benefits the smaller dice by a greater amount. In Basic Fantasy RPG, a character with a 16 Constitution would have a +2 bonus to HP. Let's do some math with that assumption.

Both BFRPG and AD&D 2e have rolled hit points at 1st level, so we can (for the sake of discussion) use the average per die. BFRPG uses slightly smaller hit dice for classes, so Fighters use d8s, Clerics use d6s, and Magic Users and Thieves use d4s.

Knowing this, a Fighter would have a range of 3-10 hp per level, and an average of 6.5. A Cleric would have 3-8, with an average of 5.5. Magic Users and Thieves would have a range of 3-7, with an average of 4.5. For Magic Users and Thieves, the +2 bonus Constitution from a 16 is an 80% increase over their average. But for Fighters, it's only a 44% increase. In the time that I've been a fan of D&D and been a part of online communities, the more math savvy have pointed out that the percentage of the increase greatly favors the smaller dice as far as the raw increase is concerned. This means that a Fighter in BFRPG has less reason to desire a high Constitution, because the bonus doesn't make as large an impact on their hit points from hit dice (however, veteran players will rightly point out that even a single extra hit point can spell the difference between victory and defeat).

Constitution and AD&D 2e

Interestingly, AD&D makes an effort to ensure high Constitution scores have a bigger impact for warrior classes. I'm not convinced it is successful, but I'll give them some credit for trying. However, I have some issues with some of the derived statistics the are tied to Constitution in AD&D. In particular are System Shock, and Resurrection Survival. System Shock is basically another form of saving throw vs. death, but it pertains to most effects that change your shape or form in some way (petrification, polymorph, and magical aging). Bizarrely, it also determines whether you survive being restored to normalcy after being subjected to a spell or effect that reverses petrification. So, you have to make a System Shock check to survive being turned to stone, then make another one to survive the reversal of the process. And it gets better.

Let's say you failed to survive being rescued from petrification and after your party pooled together their resources and possibly even performed a quest, the local priest casts a raise dead. You're then, at that time, required to roll a Resurrection Survival Check. The chance of failure is very small, but it's still possible for you fail to survive being resurrected. I continually find myself bemused that these even exist in the game, because you already have saves for death and petrification, and you don't use those saving throws for System Shock or Resurrection Survival.

Arguably, System Shock and Resurrection Survival add a particular flavor to the game's world by being present, in that dangerous magical transformations, and divine intervention to bring a person back from the clammy fist of death can turn out unfavorably for the character. In System Shock's defense, its general use is to protect PCs from things that logically should kill them (like being turned to stone) but their status as heroic figures has a chance to save them. But, that defense falls a tad flat in my personal opinion. To me it seems like an unnecessary extra roll to make players sweat, and since it can also be used to make the reversal of petrification deadly, it's the sort of rule that can sour the relationship between players and DMs.

Resurrection Survival on the other hand exists solely to make life difficult, and because it's already unlikely that PCs will be getting resurrected regularly, it seems like an added complication for little reward. What, ultimately, does Resurrection Survival bring to the game to justify its existence? In my opinion, the "world flavor" isn't enough. Worse, I don't think it's necessary for it to be tied to Constitution, it could have easily been integrated into the raise dead and resurrection spells as part of their effect. For my part, I don't think that these two derived statistics have a place in the game, and I wonder how many groups out there simply glossed over these two scores in their games because they were unnecessary or bogged down play.

The bonus to Poison saving throws is completely irrelevant to beginning characters, save elves and dwarves, since it's impossible to roll a score that provides a bonus or penalty. An elf who rolled a 3 could theoretically begin play with a Constitution score of 2. I would bet however, that the number of players who were excited to do so would be vanishingly small. A very lucky dwarf could potentially begin with a 19, but it's unlikely even a dwarf player would use an 18 for this purpose, since dwarves are generally restricted to being Fighters, Clerics, and Thieves. A Fighter would want that 18 in Strength to take advantage of exceptional strength, Clerics would want to put that into Wisdom to take advantage of bonus spells. Thieves in turn would want to place it in Dexterity to maximize their thief abilities.

Only an extremely lucky dwarf with two 18s would bother putting an 18 into Constitution, and even then, it would benefit Fighters the most (dwarves have a racial bonus to Poison saves, and there's no difference between an 18 and 19 for them where the bonus is concerned). The biggest advantage to a dwarf Fighter with 19 Constitution is the +5 bonus to hit points.

Finally, there's Regeneration, which is certainly a neat ability for those who have sufficiently high Constitution, but again, this is outside the grasp of beginning characters, thus encouraging them to find ways to attain these coveted heights.

High Constitution and Warriors

Let's delve into math once more. The only Constitution scores that are important for hit points are 15-19 for beginning characters. Nothing beyond 16 is worth having (hit points wise) for non-warrior PCs. Every single score of 16 or greater only provides a +2 bonus to HP for those classes.

Priests would have a range of 3-10, with an average of 6.5; a 44% increase.

Rogues would have a range of 3-8, with an average of 5.5; a 57% increase.

Mages would have a range of 3-6, with an average of 4.5; an 80% increase.

Warriors on the other hand, stand to benefit from scores of 17-19. 17 provides a +3 bonus, 18 provides a +4, and 19 provides a +5.

A half-elf Ranger with a 17 Constitution would have a range of 4-13, with an average of 8.5; a 55% increase.

A human Paladin with an 18 Constitution would have a range of 5-14, with an average of 9.5; a 72% increase.

A dwarf Fighter with a 19 Constitution would have a range of 6-15, with an average of 10.5; a 91% increase.

Given that it's fairly unlikely that that one will roll an 18, and that the average roll for 4d6 drop the lowest produces a high score of 16, very, very few characters are going be getting the high Constitution hit point bonuses, and only a dwarf Fighter would get the +3 for having a 17. The curve for the scores just feels underwhelming as a result, and encourages that upward dash for high scores so that one can take advantage of the vastly inflated bonuses.

But, Constitution is only particularly important for warriors, and other classes just don't draw the same benefit, so any more than 16 is a waste. However, there are multiclass and dual-class characters to consider, though the high ability scores necessary to qualify for them would make it unlikely that one would favor Constitution unless it was one of the class's requirements and they were a warrior subclass.

Final Thoughts

As I mentioned before, I find myself bemused by Constitution's unnecessary derived statistics. In an OSR game, I'd probably fold System Shock (were I to use it) into Constitution's standard bonus, and leave it at that. At absolute worst, I would make it a roll-under Constitution score style check. If I were inclined to utilize Resurrection Survival, I'd make it a part of the spells, rather than a function of Constitution. I can understand the notion that warriors should get more of a benefit from Constitution, but ultimately, this can be fixed either by giving warriors a bigger hit die, or by giving them a bonus for their class group. If ability scores are going to be used, I think it behooves the game designer to keep them neat and consistent, and Constitution fails this.

Next time, we'll take a good long gander at Intelligence.

The Case Against AD&D - Ability Scores, pt. 3

Chasing Higher Ability Scores

 I mentioned that we'd come back to this, and so it comes to pass. In AD&D 1e, Method I was 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste. It carried into 3rd edition as the standard way of generating characters. In 2e, they provided it as an option, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was the "default assumption" by the book - though doubtlessly many groups who moved on to 2e after 1e simply used the 1e Method I.

Here's what that looks like on AnyDice. Jasper Flick has a neat little examination of attribute generation using the 4d6, drop the lowest method compared to 3d6 here on AnyDice, and I recommend giving it a look see, particularly for the calculation regarding the chances of seeing a natural 18 out of six rolls.

AD&D emphasizes the importance of high ability scores in three ways that affect the manner in which AD&D is played:

1. They provide a distinct mechanical advantage in their own right by being heavily more favorable at the high end of the distribution, and even more dramatically beyond that when you take into account scores of 19-25.
2. They provide access to more powerful races.
3. They provide access to more powerful classes, which reinforces the numbers chase because after all, if you have big numbers in your ability scores, those ability scores will be put to more effective use with a class that can self-buff, or fly, or advance as a Fighter and a Mage, even opening up the more time intensive but incredibly rewarding dual-classed combo.

So, why exactly is this a bad thing? Well, it's due to the fact that it encourages players to attempt to get the best combination of race and class that their ability scores can provide, and then attempt to climb as quickly as possible to the 18+ range of ability scores because these are more effective means of power than other options (outside of spellcasting, which has always been extremely powerful and flexible).

Let's take a look at 18/00 Strength versus the Fighter's weapon specialization ability (note that we're just using the PHB, not any of the grandmastery stuff from later books):

A Fighter specializing in say, the longsword, would be getting a +1 attack adjustment and +2 damage adjustment. Let's just assume for a moment, that he has the "average" roll for 4d6 listed on Jasper's article above, so he has a 16 Strength, which provides him a damage adjustment of +1, but no attack adjustment.

That's a +1 attack adjustment, and +3 damage adjustment. Not a bad character by any stretch of the imagination.

But let's compare him to the very, very lucky Paladin with 18/00 Strength. Non-Fighters don't have the ability to specialize, but Paladins are warriors, so they get to take advantage of the exceptional Strength values. Our Fortunate Paladin is sitting pretty at the best Strength score that can be rolled.

So what are his attack and damage adjustments? +3 and +6, respectively. It's a pretty significant difference, since his base damage is double, and his attack adjustment is more than that.

Fortunately, Fighters also get an enhanced number of attacks for specialization, but it's not as as awesome as it may sound:

Our Longsword Specialist can make three attacks every two rounds (so two attacks in the first round, one attack in the second round, or one attack the first round and two in the second). Conversely, our Fortunate Paladin can only make a single attack each round. Let's assume that they both are using longswords.

The Longsword Specialist does an average of 7.5 damage per attack, and has a THAC0 of 19. The Fortunate Paladin does an average of 10.5 damage per attack and has a THAC0 of 17. Ignoring their THAC0 (let's assume they hit with every one of their attacks), the average total damage of the Longsword Specialist is going to be 22.5 over two rounds, whereas the Fortunate Paladin's is going to be 21. He's only a point and a half behind our specialist.

Assuming we choose not to ignore their THAC0s, the Fortunate Paladin is going to hit more often, thus outpacing our Longsword Specialist. If the Longsword Specialist misses even a single hit out of his three, his damage is going to drop to 15 over two rounds.

Even on critical hits, assuming that optional rule is in play, our Longsword Specialist is getting the short end of the stick. He'll do 12 damage on average (in AD&D 2e, you double the damage dice, but not adjustments to damage from Strength, specialization, or magical enhancement). The Paladin is going to do 15. Having more attacks is only ever so slightly better than just raw Strength.

Furthermore, that's basically the only combat relevant ability the Fighter gets, and it barely allows him to out damage a Paladin with superior Strength. Paladins get an assortment of other powers like enhanced saving throws, immunity to disease, healing powers, a protection aura, and at later levels, a warhorse, turn undead, and priest spells. Fighters get unlimited magic item ownership, can hoard their wealth, build a castle, hire whomever they want, and level slightly faster.

Granted, 18/00 Strength is not something the Paladin or Fighter is likely to obtain. The average roll on 4d6, drop the lowest won't even allow you to qualify for the Paladin class, since you need a 17 Charisma just to be one. But, if you can qualify, and have a 18/00 Strength score, Paladin is by far the more attractive class (mechanically speaking).

And?

Ultimately, both your Fighter and your Paladin are going to be shooting for the highest Strength score they can manage. If our Longsword Specialist had 18/00 Strength, he'd be cruising through dungeon corridors at the brisk pace of the puree setting. THAC0 of 16, average damage of 37.5 over two rounds. The only thing stopping him is that HP inconvenience. And as he levels and finds more gear, he's only only going to get stronger. And gods help his enemies if he manages to get some wishes, or a Manual of Gainful Exercise somewhere. But the Paladin is no slouch either, and while he may not be able to out damage a Fighter who obtains the coveted 18/00 Strength score, there's nothing stopping him from benefiting from wishes or the Manual. Arguably, the Paladin is going to be more flexible once he obtains spells, but that's getting into fairly high levels, even for 2e.

AD&D 2e's emphasis on high ability scores being leaps and bounds better than low ability scores creates something of a problem, where a lucky set of rolls can make the difference between competent mediocrity and nigh unstoppable juggernauts.

Take Basic Fantasy RPG for instance, where the highest ability score is 18, and the highest modifier is +3 (assuming you're not using a race that bumps it up to +4). A character with no modifier is going to do an average of 4.5 damage with a longsword. A character with an 18 will do 7.5. A particularly strong race will do 8.5. It's a little much for my tastes (I think the -2 to +2 range for ability scores is better), but it's not nearly as drastic as the difference between a 10 Strength Fighter and an 18/00 Strength Fighter in AD&D 2e (4.5 damage vs. 10.5; 6.5 vs. 12.5 if they're specialists).

Compound this with multiple attacks, magic items, and the number of wishes necessary to reach superhuman (19) Strength. Assuming he starts at 18/00, a warrior character could use the Manual of Gainful Exercise once, or 10 wishes. A Fighter who started with 16 Strength would need 20 wishes, and one use of the Manual.

Power Gamers, Optimizers, Build Enthusiasts, and
Munchkins

And this is where I have to take a moment to talk about the types of players who care about this sort of thing. Most players will take what they can get, have a good time, and try to roleplay their character as well as they can in the situations they find them in.

Munchkins, Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Build Enthusiasts on the other hand approach the game differently.

Power Gamers are not bad players by default. They just like winning, and winning means making their character as strong as possible, and never turning down an opportunity to get stronger. This is a completely valid way to play so long as the player doesn't step on the other party members to reach the heights of demigodhood. They can, in fact, be great players who help the entire party realize their potential.

Optimizers are not actually looking to make the most powerful character on the table or in the world. They care about making their character as effective as possible given the options open to them, and most of this optimization is done before play starts. They tend to plan their character's advancement far into the future, even if they never get there, because they enjoy playing around with the character numbers. Optimizers and Power Gamers are similar types of players, but Optimizers don't tend to focus on acquisition of power during play - they just try to squeeze every ounce of performance out of whatever they started with, and whatever they have on hand.

Build Enthusiasts may or may not be interested in actually optimizing their character, power gaming, or engaging in munchkinism, but they do like to explore the options and build characters to accomplish specific (sometimes broken) things. There's nothing wrong with this, and they may just use it as a thought exercise, rather than putting it into play. If they do put it into play, then they're either an Optimizer or a Power Gamer.

However, there's a fourth variety of player who is supremely disruptive to play, and AD&D 2e's focus on ability scores enables their behavior. Most roleplayers have encountered a Munchkin, even if they don't realize it. They probably call themselves an optimizer or build enthusiast, and may even go so far as to consider themselves power gamers, but the difference is that they don't care about cooperating with the party. They want to be as powerful as they can so that they can do whatever they want in the game world with as few consequences they can't overcome through raw numbers as possible. These players are generally argumentative and tend toward being rules lawyers (a rules lawyer is not a player who remembers a rule differently than the DM - they're a player who argues for favorable interpretations of a rule when it applies to them or the party, but argues for unfavorable interpretations of the same rule when applied to enemies).

Worse, they will selfishly take actions that work against the party if they feel that there is some gain in it. These are often the same kinds of problem players who hide behind alignments and loudly exclaim "It's what my character would do!" when the rest of the party calls them on their behavior. Most often, this player is the first to get super angry when others frustrate his character's plans and designs, but is also first in line to smirk and say "It's just a game, man" when they do the same to other players. Munchkins don't care about whether or not the other players are having a good time, so long as they themselves are (this usually involves having the biggest numbers in the room).

I have issues with all the mindsets geared toward playing the numbers game. I'm not innocent of it though, but in general, I'm not terribly worried about mechanical optimization, and any game where I have to worry about it more than my character's personality and history is a game I'm not going to have as much fun with. I can however tolerate Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Build Enthusiastis in my own games, but Munchkins have to go. A player who doesn't respect others isn't welcome at my table.

Unfortunately, AD&D 2e  produced a fair number of Munchkins because the rules encouraged that sort of behavior, despite developer injunctions against it. 3rd edition provided refuge for them, where they could be mistaken for Optimizers, Power Gamers, and Build Enthusiasts. When you have classes, races, alignments, and even ability scores dedicated to disruptive behavior, and then put an irresponsible, selfish oaf in the mix, you get disaster unending. It's partly why Thieves, kender, and Chaotic Neutrals are so hated.

We Get It, You Hate Munchkins

Worry not, I have a point that I'm building to. I'm just going to keep examining AD&D 2e and build my case, and then I'll focus on that rather than my rambling evidence gathering that I'm doing now. To be clear, I don't have an issue with characters getting stronger or there being a clear progression toward excellence. My issue is that the climb to paragonhood ends up being the goal, rather than the journey.

Compare BFRPG's ability score table to the two (and the future scores we'll look at) we've seen so far. Not only is the range of scores slightly more forgiving in the middle range, but it also doesn't ramp up as sharply when it approaches the higher end of the range. More importantly, it's consistent across all six ability scores, and it caps out at the highest natural roll, meaning that there is no reason to seek greater ability scores.

Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at. Stay tuned for further updates.

The Case Against AD&D - Ability Scores, pt. 2

God Stats?

It's slightly unfair to call Dexterity a god stat in AD&D, but only because it doesn't work like 5e's does where it adds to ranged weapon damage, which led to a situation in which Carlos managed to take out an entire encounter by himself by climbing a tree and playing Robin Hood. It's still a universally good ability score, and you'll want it to be as high as possible whether your wearing no armor, or wearing full plate.

Thankfully, unlike other editions, it does not add to saving throws or damage, so it's at least slightly more reasonable in that regard. But like all AD&D ability scores, it scales oddly and sharply at the extreme high end of the distribution, compounding the problem of AD&D's general policy of having ability scores define what characters can do rather than their class. The race to higher and higher ability scores does the game no favors.

A Rundown on Dexterity

There are only three mechanical benefits to Dexterity (aside from non-weapon proficiencies based on the score and raw Dexterity checks, which always benefit from a high score): Reaction adjustment, missile attack adjustment, and defensive adjustment.

Reaction adjustment is initiative. It's a useful combat ability that helps your side go first and decide the way in which combat will unfold in following rounds. At 18, it's only a +2, and there's no bizarre "scores within scores" like with Strength.

Missile attack adjustment is AD&D's rather verbose ranged attack modifier. This too is a reasonable +2 at 18 Dexterity, though you have to have a 16 or more to even qualify for a bonus, which empowers that "high scores or bust" mentality of munchkins, power gamers, optimizers, and builds enthusiasts. Only one of the play styles is terrible (munchkins), but each comes with their own attendant problems that are directly being influenced by how the game itself is built.

We'll come back to this, but just keep it in mind for now.

Defensive adjustment is the modifier to your AC. Because not everyone is familiar with how AC works in older editions, I think I'd better take a moment to explain.

Armor Class in older editions uses descending numbers to represent improved armor class, so a negative number on the chart is actually a good thing, because in this case, lower is better. I've written a up concise explanation of THAC0 since it's something I've had to explain a lot over the years, and it's actually much simpler than most would have you believe:

In any case, an 18 provides a very generous -4 adjustment to AC, which is as good as wearing brigandine, scale, or hide armor. If one had chain armor, they'd be comfortably sitting at AC 0, with the option to drop it to -1 with a shield.

Moving On

Dexterity is less insane than Strength, and is one of the more reasonable ability scores, but it still has that nagging problem of how it scales as it runs toward the high end of the natural distribution, and how it ramps up beyond that. My next post is going to discuss this feature of the system in more detail, so keep an eye out.

The Case Against AD&D - Ability Scores, pt. 1

I've done my fair share of bashing 3rd edition, but I think it's time I took a look at Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This isn't an attempt to be "fair" to 3rd edition - AD&D (1e and 2e) are far more interesting to talk about, and next to my 3rd edition collection, it's the largest amount of Dungeons & Dragons related material I have in my library.

Ability Score Insanity

In 0e and Basic, ability scores range from 1-18, and have (depending on edition) a modifier range of -1 to +1, to -2 to +2, or -3 to +3. This modifier only alters a few things, which are easily written down or remembered. Strength modifies opening doors and melee attack and damage rolls. Constitution modifies HP and Poison saves. Dexterity modifies armor class and ranged attack rolls, etc.

AD&D notes this simple and easily remembered mechanic, and chucks it out the window. And I can't for the life of me understand why. I can (somewhat) understand the use of the 1-25 range for ability scores, but not the needlessly complex way ability scores work. Of particular note is the Strength ability score, because it behaves in a way none of the others do.

A Rundown on Strength

Perusing my AD&D 2e PHB, I see that it has hit probability adjustment (attack rolls), damage adjustment, weight allowance (encumbrance), max press, open doors, and bend bars/lift gates as mechanical aspects of the game that strength modifies. All of this stuff has to be made to fit on a character sheet, and there's enough discrete things that you're unlikely to have memorized it, so that'll necessitate looking up the chart every time Strength gets modified somehow.

Hit probability and damage adjustment do not use the same number. At 18 Strength, hit probability is +1 and damage adjust is +2. Just bizarre stuff. Because these two numbers are different and progress at different rates, it'll be somewhat difficult to remember them off the cuff (though, admittedly, there's very little need to memorize anything other than your own score unless you're trying to figure out an enemy's hit/damage potential).

Weight allowance is more or less going to be a similar function of strength in various RPGs, and I don't feel the need to comment more on it aside from say that it's the least interesting way to account for encumbrance.

Max press is a mostly unnecessary number that feels somewhat arbitrary. I'm not even certain of how useful such a number would be in a dungeon delving game, since what you can lift over your head isn't likely to come up very often. If a fellow PC needs to climb onto your shoulders so they can see over a wall, you aren't lifting them. A player trapped under fallen rubble (or some other heavy thing) might need a strong person to lift said object so that they can be dragged free, but it's unlikely that you'd need to know whether or not your PC can lift said rubble over their head. Currently, my only idea for this is carrying your gear over your head (or balanced on your head) while wading armpit deep in water either in order to ford a shallow river afoot, or to traverse water underground.

Perhaps I'm just having a failure of imagination, but it seems to me that the max press score is unhelpful, really. It's just another thing to write down that may one time be relevant in a specific circumstance that will never come up again. As an aside, the "max press" is an overhead press, not a bench press as my old group told me (a claim not unique to them).

Open doors is fairly straightforward, until it reaches 18/91-99 Strength and adds extra information like the chance to open locked, barred, or magically held doors. I'm not against having a chance to open more difficult doors, but wouldn't it have made more sense to have a penalty for opening those kinds of doors? I'd imagine a locked door is easier to get into than a barred door (I've kicked in a door or two in my time), and a magically sealed door seems like a much more serious obstacle for a non-magical type character than a barred door. So, stuck doors would use the standard progression, locked doors would be say, -2, barred doors would be -6, and magically held doors -10. This would mean that a human with 10 Strength would have a 4 in 20 chance to open a locked door through brute force (a bit low in my opinion), and be unable to open barred doors or magically held doors through muscle alone. As it stands now, you have to have 18/91-99 Strength to have a meager 3 in 20 chance to open locked, barred, or held doors. Seems silly.

Bend bars/lift gates is a statistic meant to simulate great feats of strength, but bizarrely uses percentile dice to accomplish this. Non-fighters (I'll come back to this) with 18 Strength have a flat 16% chance to succeed, and it will never improve without magic. DMs are arbiters of the rules, and it would probably be fair to improve a PC's chances of accomplishing these feats of strength if they have pry bars or other tools... but then, I'm not really sure what the point of this statistic is if the players use tools and sense to overcome the challenge rather than brute strength. As well, if max press is a thing, wouldn't gates have an "effective weight" that can be compared to the PC's max press to determine whether or not they can lift it?

I'm not wholly opposed to a "mythic feat of strength" type deal for martial characters, but I don't think it should be part of the raw Strength score everyone gets in D&D. Additionally, there's the issue that it doesn't work the same way the rest of the Strength subsystem mechanics do.

Exceptional Complexity

Unlike the other ability scores, Strength has a sub-ability score that only "warriors" (an ill-defined catch-all term for Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins, multi-class Fighter/Whatevers, and later Barbarians and Gladiators) can benefit from. This "exceptional strength" acts as an additional 5 ability score points that settle in between non-warrior 18 and 19 like some kind of parasite.

I can understand wanting to make warrior-types more effective at their shtick, but putting it here in the Strength ability score means that there's an additional roll for determining Strength, and it complicates raising ability scores on the rare occasion that it happens. Yes, even an 18/01-50 is better than a straight 18 (by +1 damage, the only metric that actually matters), but it seems so damn pointless to have this here rather than give Fighters an "exceptional strength" ability at 1st level that ensures that they always have +1 or +2 to damage over and above anyone else with the same Strength score. Hit probability can be protected by giving Fighters the best damn attack bonus/THAC0 in the game.

It's also incredibly unlikely that a PC will roll 18/00 and get the coveted +3 to-hit, +6 to damage. Depending on ability score generation, they have to snag an 18, and then snag a 00 on 2d10. Those are rough odds. That +6 bothers me too, since it's a very, very large increase to base damage with every weapon, and magic items are going to further enhance this. A Fighter with 18/00 Strength is going to do 8.5 damage on average (7 minimum!) with just a dagger, and using a two-handed sword provides an average of 11.5 damage.

I'm not against subsystems or rules compartmentalization, but I think that AD&D went too far in this direction. There's too much to keep track of when simpler, more concise rules would have been better. The approach taken for Fighter/warrior role protection emphasizes the importance of ability scores over everything, which only means that the warrior-types (like Paladin and Ranger) are going to excel to the detriment of the Fighter. Specialization thus becomes their only refuge from the stronger abilities of the Paladin and Ranger, a refuge my old group stripped from them by allowing any warrior class to do it because it was more "fun".

I don't know if other groups resorted to that, but it made the Fighter a poor second to any other warrior class or multi-class Fighter. Since I'm drifting off topic now, I think I'll say some final words about Strength.

Advancing Strength, and a Conclusion

I wanted to address how advancing ability scores works generally in AD&D. Wishes at a certain point (starting with 16 I believe), only advance ability scores by a 10th of a point per application, so for a non-fighter to get 19 Strength, they'd need to have a natural 18, and then get 10 applications of wish. They wouldn't get the warrior classes' exceptional Strength, just a regular 18 with a decimal point. This is a RAW reading, though. Some DMs, I'm told, allow exceptional strength, but I personally wouldn't due to it being a benefit that the warrior classes are supposed to receive.

For warrior classes, each decimal point does improve their exceptional strength %. However, it's unclear whether or not a character with 18/00 Strength only needs a single application of wish or needs the full 10.

The fly in the ointment is that manuals such as the Manual of Gainful Exercise directly raises an ability score by a point; in this case, Strength. So, now the DM has to make a ruling: Can a non-warrior go from 18 to 19, skipping past the exceptional strength bits, or are they going to force the player to take decimal increments? Or are they going to count the five exceptional strength scores as valid ability score points between 18 and 19, but without the warrior benefits?

And what about the warriors anyhow? Do they go straight to 19 whether they have an 18/01 or an 18/00?

This hasn't even touched the insanity of having rolled an 18, playing a race with a Strength adjustment (like a half-orc) or the adjustments for age. Do they improve the score by a decimal, like a wish? Do they improve the score directly, like a manual? Do they do nothing at first level because of racial maximums? What about warriors and exceptional strength?

There's too much going on with the Strength ability score, and that'll become more apparent as this series goes on and addresses the other ability scores. When I've gotten through all six, I'll compare an OSR character sheet to an AD&D 2e one. It'll clearly demonstrate my ultimate point to all this. Until then, here's to hoping I post more regularly than I have of late.