The Case Against AD&D - Ability Scores, pt. 8

After a bit of a hiatus, I'm back with the final word on ability scores in AD&D 2e. I've been dealing with a situation at home that's been something of a disaster, and been having to make time for physical therapy appointments, so less time for examining a roleplaying game older than I am.

Ability Score Requirements

We've talked about the ability scores themselves, but we've only briefly touched on ability score requirements, which will inevitably lead into my examination of the races and classes, but let's just talk about the requirements for those for now. Personally, I'm not a fan, and I'm not a fan because  they made humans the default with unlimited potential, but with higher ability scores you can play something right now that starts more powerful and won't actually have to pay the price for it unless you somehow manage to actually get to the racial maximums.

So, if you're fortunate enough to roll good ability scores, there's not really a reason not to play a better race or class, or combination thereof is there? 

 

Racial Minimums

Well, let's take a look at racial minimums. Taking into account the average roll for 4d6 drop the lowest (16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9), you can see that in general, there's no race you can't qualify for with that array. This is genuinely to the good. However, things get more complicated as we go along.

Class Minimums

 Here we have the class minimums, which throw a big ol' wrench into the process of picking a race and class.

With the average array, you can't qualify for Paladin or Ranger. You would also be required to sacrifice your highest ability score in order to play most of the Mage specialist classes, leaving you with a significantly less impressive 14 for your prime requisite, Intelligence.

For a further wrinkle, there are just some class and race combos you can't choose at all. But, let's do a bit of an experiment.

We have the average array (16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9), and we want to play an elf. Thus, we can add a +1 to Dexterity and a -1 to Constitution to the final ability scores. In this case, we could qualify for the Ranger class, so long as we put our 16 in Constitution, our 12 in Dexterity, our 14 in Wisdom, and our 13 in Strength. The 9 can go to Intelligence, and the 10 to Charisma, our "dump stats". Either way, we're stuck with a max level of 15 as a Ranger unless optional rules are in play (level restrictions were the way in which the game "balanced" the superior starting abilities of demihumans - which is to say, not at all in any realistic sense).

On the other hand, we could have played a generalist Mage and put that 16 into Intelligence. Or a Fighter and had the 16 in Strength. Another option (which I think is superior) is to play a Fighter/Wizard, placing 16 in Strength, 13 in Intelligence, and 14 (now a 13) in Constitution. This is because elves can multiclass, gaining all the benefits of the two classes at the cost of having to level both classes by splitting XP between them. They only need to qualify for the classes to do this (though they're restricted to Fighter/Mage, Fighter/Thief, and Mage/Thief combinations).

A human character with the same array is unable to qualify for Ranger at all, and can't multiclass.

Comparing Characters

I should save some of this for my comparison of the races, but I think it illustrates the point I'm getting at. Without going into huge amounts of detail about racial abilities, let's start off by stating that humans have no advantages and no weaknesses. They are a blank slate. Their largest "advantage" which is more like a remote option, is that they are the only race that can take the Paladin class (I'm sure some Planescape fan is waving their arms and saying "But-!" But nothing. Save it. We're talking just the PHB here, and have been since the beginning. I may touch on campaign settings at some future date, but not right now).

Elves, on the other hand, are all but immune to sleep and charm effects, they get a small bonus (+1) to fighting with bows (but not crossbows) and small and long swords. They can surprise enemies if not wearing metal armor. They can see in darkness up to 60 feet. They have a better chance to detect secret doors in dungeons. And lastly, as I discussed above, elves get a +1 to Dexterity and a -1 to Constitution (maximum is still 18, despite many house rules I've encountered over the years). They also have level restrictions according to the table above, if you want to consider that a true limitation.

So, keeping this in mind, you can play a human Fighter with 16 Strength, 14 Constitution and the other stats distributed how you like, or an elf Fighter/Wizard with 16 Strength, 13 Con, and 13 Intelligence. Or you could play a Ranger, and be really cool, because the human can't even qualify for it. Rangers, if you're not aware, get dual-wielding (a melee weapon in each hand), better attacks with bows, animal companions, and eventually, druid spells. They also have a bunch of skills directly related to "solving" wilderness encounters. Straight Fighters really only have weapon specialization going for them (which is again, another reason why you shouldn't take it away from them and give it to all the warrior classes. You could call it "Fighters Now Suck" the house rule).

Do I even have a conclusion?

To answer the question, yes, I do have a conclusion. Looking back on all of my ruminations on the ability scores, I'm of the opinion that how AD&D approaches them is flawed. It has made them way, way more important than they should be, and restricts interesting class options behind a wall of requirements that almost ensures your character is going to "suck" compared to someone who picked a more straightforward class and put their highest ability scores into the prime requisite.

On the other hand, there's combos like the elf Fighter/Wizard that basically screams "I'm the best option you'll get at 1st level!" You can fight well, and you can cast spells, have superior senses, and are practically immune to common spells and effects that can shut down an entire encounter. The XP splitting could potentially be considered a crippling disadvantage, except of course, you now have more tools in your toolbox to solve problems with, and can resort to just Fighting your way out if you have to. Sounds to me like the elf Fighter/Wizard has a strong chance to live to see the fruits of all that XP gathered.

By making ability scores as important as they are (in particular high ability scores), the AD&D game creates this tiny niches for characters to fall into. Our average array human will never get to play a Paladin or Ranger. The elf can only be certain classes, and while one of them is potentially interesting to play, it's clearly an inferior option to the Fighter/Wizard. Moreover... the level limit doesn't actually matter at all at 1st level, or even 10th level. If you managed to reach 12th level as a Fighter/Wizard, then (and only then) does it become a potential issue. But, bear in mind that this is 1,750,000 XP. A single classed Ranger is 13th level, a single classed Fighter is 15th, and a single classed Mage is 14th level. Not as huge a difference as it seems.

Inevitably, AD&D 2e has a propensity to encourage higher ability scores, both for qualifying for classes, but also for races, and then taking those and combining them to the strongest effect. This is exacerbated by the occasionally nonsensical ability score progressions (exceptional strength), or the bizarre upward scaling of the post 18 scores.

I've known and encountered plenty of players who either played 2e or ran 2e games, and almost universally, they ignore things like level limits, racial restrictions, and ability score requirements. For my part, I can't blame them. However, there is something charming about playing a game as it was intended to be played, rather than "fixing" it because we don't agree with some of the choices that were made. It would be akin to "fixing" chess by removing the knight's ability to move over pieces in it's path.

As for me, if I didn't like the knight's abilities, I'd just play a different game. Which is exactly what I already do with D&D. I prefer Basic and its variants to AD&D's maddening exceptions and obtuse subsystems. But if you like AD&D, more power to you. I'm not here to attack your choice of game, merely to present the case of why I in particular abandoned the system in my quest for the flavor of Dungeons & Dragons that would satisfy me.

The Case Against AD&D - Ability Scores, pt. 7

Dump Stat?

Charisma has an interesting history, and depending on the edition, had the most mechanical effect, or the least. It was also the most likely of the ability scores to be forgotten during play. In Basic D&D, Charisma determined NPC reactions, the morale of henchmen, and in some iterations, the maximum number of henchmen that could be hired. It changed very little with AD&D, but AD&D 2e's focus on story XP rewards and fighting monsters instead of hauling treasure (relegating that rule to an option in the DMG), it became less important for the PCs to hire henchmen. Additionally, the more immediate gains of exceptional Strength and high Constitution or high Intelligence and Wisdom meant that players were less likely to want to share treasure and XP with henchmen.

A Rundown on Charisma

So what exactly does Charisma do in AD&D 2e? Let's take a look.

The first derived score we have on the chart is the maximum number of henchmen. Henchmen in AD&D are essentially adventurers of lower level who are attracted to the PC's reputation. They are paid in shares (half a share) of treasure. There's a bunch of assumptions in there that are key to how all of this works, and before I move on to the other components of Charisma I'd like to talk about them.

First off, shares. Shares of treasure, specifically. In older editions, XP is determined by treasure being removed from dungeons and other adventuring locations, and brought back to civilization (some groups have a variant of this where you have to spend the treasure on frivolities to get XP out of it). How does a group go about dividing the treasure among themselves and their NPC staff? There are some guidelines in both editions of AD&D, but the simplest is to divide treasure into equal shares among the PCs. Henchmen would get either a full share, or half a share, and retainers and hirelings would get paid their wage (some classes attract retainers, warriors and others attracted to the charisma and reputation of the PC, but not as reliable or capable as henchmen; hirelings are just that, hired help. They could be laborers, guards, or specialists like sages and smiths. They too are paid a wage).

So, you can see how in an older edition like the various flavors of Basic or even AD&D 1e, where treasure equals XP, divvying up the XP to NPCs can seem like a blow. In 2e however, it becomes mostly a case of losing some cash and moving on. Since being introduced to OSR, my opinion on treasure as XP has changed. I had been aware that it was used in AD&D 1e, and that 2e had an optional rule, but I had been against the whole idea because it seemed to unnecessarily focus on treasure and its acquisition.

But, like all things, if you dig a bit deeper there's usually more to it than that.

Treasure as XP is a fast and fair method of determining risk vs. reward. Since monsters generally give less XP in systems that use treasure as XP, the reward for the risk is very poor. But, retrieving treasure without fights or without tripping traps can provide a great deal of wealth and XP. Interestingly enough encumbrance becomes more important where treasure as XP is used, since it not only constricts your ability to bring tools to deal with challenges in the adventuring location, but it also restricts your ability to bring treasure out without getting into fights (the longer you spend in the dungeon, the higher the chance you'll encounter hostile wandering monsters).

So, henchmen, retainers, and hirelings can alleviate this situation somewhat, at the cost of having to pay wages and shares. But, with more hands, you can carry more tools and carry more treasure. It also potentially spreads damage among the party. All of this interacts, and if you remove one portion of it, as AD&D 2e does, it causes the other portions to have a smaller, less impactful role in the rule set. Without treasure as XP, it's less important to have more hands to retrieve treasure. With more XP for fighting monsters, there's less reason to avoid them and more reason to ambush them with the intent to kill them for the XP. There's thus, less reason to bring XP and treasure siphoning NPCs along for the ride.

Bloody minded players might say "Yes, but you don't have to pay wages or shares to dead NPCs", but that leads directly into the discussion of the remaining derived scores.

Loyalty Base determines the bonus to the morale score of any given NPC. Morale checks are made by rolling 2d10 and anything below the NPC's morale score is a successful check (in other words, they don't panic or run or fail to do what they were ordered to do). Obviously, some roleplaying should inform how this works, but that's the quick and dirty of it. So, as you've likely surmised by this point, treating NPCs badly or putting them into suicidal situations will generally cause their morale to deteriorate until they fail a check and either balk, or flee.

Which in turn will harm the PC's reputation, leading to henchmen being less likely to seek employment under them. I suppose, yes, you could kill henchmen and NPCs who balk or attempt to flee, thus preventing them from spreading their stories of the PC's cruelty and insanity, but mysterious deaths and the fact that few if any people come back from expeditions involving that PC or party is going to be grist for the rumor mill.

The final derived score is Reaction Adjustment, and although carrying the same name with Dexterity's Reaction Adjustment, it applies to rolls similar to morale and loyalty checks, but it affects how NPCs react to the PCs. Rolling low is better, but there's no score you have to roll under, and it isn't a simple pass/fail. In specific, Reaction Adjustment is not for general PC/NPC interactions, but specifically for dungeon encounters. Even then, it's not always necessary to roll, since some NPCs are going to be hostile regardless (for example, if the PCs desecrated a temple as we did in one of Carlos' games).

Final Words

I dislike how it scales (what else is new?) and it doesn't follow any sort of internal logic that I can discern. Particularly where the number of henchmen are concerned, there's an enormous gap between the 10 of 17 Charisma, and the 15 of 18 Charisma. Reaction Adjustment and Loyalty Base also scale rapidly at the high end of the range.

The scores over 18 scale in a regular and predictable fashion, but they scale to heights that are in a word, absurd. You end up with 50 henchmen at 25 Charisma, Loyalty Base becomes 20, which effectively means none of your followers can ever fail a morale or loyalty check, and the Reaction Adjustment ensures that it will almost always be the most favorable outcome depending on the PC's behavior.

Granted, these scores are meant for gods, but it is possible for PCs to attain them, either through magical items or spells.

So, here we are, at the end of the ability scores. But is this series done? No. Not quite yet. I've got some more things to say, and that'll be saved for Part 8. After that, I intend to take a look at the classes, but there might be a break in between for catching up on stories I've related before.

The Case Against AD&D - Ability Scores, pt. 6

Getting Wise

Piety. Serenity. Willpower. Perception. Wisdom has always had something of a broad collection of things attributed to it, and it hasn't always made a huge amount of sense. Something that has stayed true though is that Wisdom generally allows a character to resist spells, whether it be all spells, or just mind control.

As an ability score, Wisdom has nearly always felt like an appendage, but in AD&D 2e, it has something of a redundant grab bag of subabilities, some of which that are only relevant if you have a higher score than can be rolled on the dice. So, let's talk about them.

Navel Gazing

 The first derived statistic or subability is Magical Defense Adjustment, which modifies saving throws against spells that attack the mind (the examples given in the book are beguiling, charm, fear, hypnosis, possession, suggestion, and etc.). This is fairly consistent with most editions of D&D, generally modifying the Spell save (in 3rd edition and beyond, it would modify the Will save). In AD&D, this bonus only applies at the highest scores of the ability score. You can see where I'm going with that if you've been following this series, but I will say that it's one of the more acceptable progressions among the six.

The second is Bonus Spells, and the entries on the table are cumulative. This is a derived statistic that would be carried over to 3rd edition, though it would take a different form, and apply to all spellcasting classes. In both AD&D 1e and 2e, this applies only to Clerics and priests. A starting Cleric with an 18 would be entitled to two 1st level, two 2nd level, one 3rd, and one 4th level spell slots in addition to their normal slots per day. Considering that they would need to wait until 7th level to make use of these, it doesn't seem like it would help much. But, at 1st level, it more than doubles their available spell slots. Note that Paladins do not gain extra spells for high Wisdom.

The third is Chance of Spell Failure. I do understand why there are failure percentages below 9 Wisdom (the minimum for the Cleric class), but what I don't understand, is why this exists at all. Essentially, any Cleric or priest with a 13 or lower Wisdom is extremely unattractive to play, though I wouldn't go so far as to say unplayable. It does though beg the question: Why discourage players from playing Clerics? Clerics have always been powerful and versatile, able to wear heavy armor and cast spells, and being capable of fighting well and surviving on the front line with their decent hit points. However, they already have a rather slow spell progression. You'll notice that the previous derived statistic, Bonus Spells, also doesn't bring benefits until 13 Wisdom.

To me, it really does discourage anyone with less than 13 Wisdom. Furthermore, it can't be to discourage Paladins, because Paladins are required to have a minimum of 13 in Wisdom. Ultimately, there's a narrow range between 9 and 12 where the Cleric is playable, but is handicapped by a spell failure chance. I'm baffled as to why this is, and it's one of the things I would drop were I interested in running 2e.

Spell Immunity is the final category, and it only applies to scores over 18. Personally, I feel like this is doing double duty, since there's already a bonus to saving throws, but ultimately, I know exactly why this exists, and it's to protect deities from these spells by granting them complete immunity. There's a lot I could say about gods and the folly of statting them out, but that isn't the focus of this series. For the most part, I just think it's a waste and that it's unnecessary since gods could just be immune based on their status as Lesser, Intermediate, or Greater.

Curiously, the only two categories that increase or change after 18 are bonus spells and the spell immunity. Bonus spells are fairly important advantages, and being immune to various spells that can take control of your character is attractive. So, once again, chasing higher ability scores is encouraged by these boons.

Enlightenment?

  

Wisdom as an ability score leaves a lot to be desired. While I'm happy that the spell save modifier doesn't increase past 18, we're still left with needless fat like the spell failure chance that only applies to a handful of potential characters. The spell immunity is messy and unnecessary for player characters. Bonus spells are a powerful advantage, but it scales in a strange way that complicates book keeping.

If spell immunity is necessary for NPCs or deities, then it would have made far more sense to have guidance for NPCs and a separate quality for immunity for deities. Bonus spells scale bizarrely, and I'm of the opinion that they're unnecessary and could have just been scaled better in the Cleric/priest class's spell progression. As far as spell failure is concerned? It shouldn't exist. It only applies to a small percentage of beginning characters, and even taking ability damage into account, I find myself at a loss to find a reason for it to exist and be tracked. It's extra book keeping for no reward.