The Final Puzzle Piece (yeah, nah, probably not final)

Last night, my son and I were going over the recent rule changes and updates to Missions & Mayhem, and I was explaining what would be different for his character. He should have been in bed already, but he said he wasn't sleepy. Well, talking about boring rules sure did the trick! He was a sleep within half an hour. 

 While we were talking, I realized something. I've taken away ability score modifiers to the proficiency checks. Like old school D&D, the ability scores have their effects but they're limited. One of the big problems with WotC's editions of D&D, for me at least, is that EVERYTHING depends on the ability scores. They're important, but shouldn't be that important. Besides, the character classes in this game already focus on one ability score each. 

Because the modifiers don't (normally*) affect the rolls, that left Intelligence as only modifying linguistic ability. And while a globe-hopping treasure hunter or superspy may need to know lots of languages, your typical 80s muscleman with machinegun or quaint New England murder detective or long-haul trucker running moonshine from Georgia probably doesn't. 

The ability scores affected these areas before last night's epiphany: 

Strength: melee combat (hit and damage), carrying capacity

Dexterity: ranged combat (hit only), AC, reflex saving throws

Constitution: hit points, fortitude saving throws

Intelligence: languages known (or limited communication ability if low)

Wisdom: bonus proficiency slots, will saving throws

Charisma: reaction checks, follower morale 

So all the scores except Int cover at least two mechanical areas. Well, I figured out what Int should do besides linguistics: bonus XP! 

Since the base classes are functional rather than professional, and multiclassing is not just easy, it's expected, it doesn't make sense for each class to get different bonuses to XP for high ability scores like D&D's prime requisites. If a Strong/Dedicated Hero has both high Str and Wis, does she get to double dip in the XP bonus? That's not good design. So I'd left it out. 

But last night, it hit me that Intelligence equals ability to learn, so that should be the general "prime requisite" ability score. 

So I'll be adding to the rules a little bit: 

"Intelligence modifies how well you learn from your experiences. Heroes with high Int learn faster, and those with low Int need to put in a little more effort." 

Int 3 to 5: -10% XP

Int 6-8: -5% XP

Int 9-12: no change

Int 13-15: +5% XP

Int 16-18: +10% XP

 

I know in previous discussions of D&D's prime requisite bonuses here and on other blogs, people have expressed the opinion that the small percentages don't really make that big of a difference. And in my opinion, that's a good thing. It's a nice little treat for a player who puts a high score in Int, and it's a small annoyance for a character who uses Int as a dump stat. But it won't have massive effects on the comparative power between PCs. And it gives me one small mechanical boost to the one ability score that didn't do very much. 

*One area where ability scores CAN modify proficiency rolls is in the Gamble mechanic. I developed this for chases, but may allow it in other areas as well. In a chase, each side rolls against the other, in a best three out of five framework. But on any particular roll, a player can try to gamble with their ability score. If they gamble, they roll 1d20, trying to get their score or lower. If they succeed, they get a +1 bonus on the chase roll for that round. If they fail, they get -1 to the roll. 

I'm considering allowing this for other areas of contested rolls, like with computer hacking. And maybe just a general rule for any Proficiency check.  

What to Roll and Which System to Use

A couple of recent posts by other bloggers got me thinking. Specifically, we're talking today about rolling ability scores, and the modifiers that you get from those scores depending on the system you use. 

It's probably no surprise that the first post that got me thinking about this was one by Alexis over at Tao of D&D: 

As a DM, I see AD&D's combat/survival structure relying on characters possessing at least two stats above 14.  There are no benefits for any stat less than 15 with regards to strength, constitution and dexterity, upon which the combat system depends.  And though spell-use can mitigate the need for these somewhat, a good mage or illusionist really needs a +1 dex bonus at minimum (in my experience), while a cleric whose going to wade in and fight needs at least some bonuses in strength or constitution.  A cleric who won't wade in hasn't a good enough spell arsenal, and is therefore useless; which is part of the reason why clerics who tried to style themselves as "healers" and not "holy fighters" ended up crying for more healing potential, as the original list doesn't allow this specialisation effectively.

Thus, adding that extra die to 3d6 increases the chance of rolling above 14 sufficiently to hit that window of "practical" character.  I know that many, many voices refuse to believe there is such a thing; that the game needs to adjust for the character, and not the reverse.  Of course I could run a softer, more gutted game for those players with mediocre stats, but having experienced the lessened potential and drooling dullness of such a game, I'm not sold on the concept.  If the reader wants me to go into that, I will, drop me an email, but for the present I'll assume most people here are aware that having bonuses makes players happy, and I like happy players.

Too, the 3d6 alternative produces too many "culls," my term for the selective slaughter of players whose stats are too obviously likely to get them killed.  The penalties for stats of 7 and less can be tolerated if they appear with rarity ... but when they're scattered among multiple players in a party, sooner or later the randomness of unfudged die rolls takes its toll.  I see no reason to roll up characters en masse for the purpose of creating an inferior stock.  No, I prefer the alternative.  A nice collection of characters whose stats average around 73 or better makes a party more likely to survive, thus producing a sustainable game.

Up front, yes, I'm one of those DMs that Alexis talks about who thinks that high scores aren't absolutely necessary for an effective character. I like it when my players roll well for their characters. I like for them to have competent characters. But I've also played enough average characters in my life to know that while that extra 5% chance to hit or avoid being hit, or the extra hit point or extra point of damage on each attack can matter, it's perfectly feasible to run a character without them. 

And this is slightly off topic, but I find it funny that a commenter on a previous post thought a 5% or 10% XP boost is really meaningless. Granted, we're talking a vastly different scale between a d20 roll to hit and the thousands of XP needed to gain levels, but a percentage is a percentage. 

Anyway, back to the topic of ability scores and how we roll them. Alexis prefers AD&D's ability modifiers which, at least for combat bonuses, don't start giving bonuses until a 15 or 16. But scores of 15 or higher are really rare on a flat 3d6 roll, so he needs to use 4d6-L to give players a decent shot at getting not just one, but two scores with bonuses, and radically reduce the number of scores that get a penalty. 

I have no problem with this. I use 4d6-L in my game these days, after experimenting with a few other options over the past few years. 

But before I go on, I need to introduce the other blogger that spurred this post, Anders H. of the Mythlands blog, who was writing about not just discrete mechanics for different tasks, but discrete bonuses for different ability scores being a feature not a bug of AD&D design: 

AD&D in general however, revels in lack of homogeneity. There's a ton of derived stats from ability scores and they are all different, with different progressions and determining the math behind the curve of progression is not at all transparent. 

I suspect there is none and that Gygax et al used a more powerful tool than mathematical progression - Deciding on modifiers based on gaming impact. And this one of the great virtues of game design that are lost with streamlined mechanics. 

Modern games, I posit, suffer from a tyranny of number harmonies and easy calculation. Everything must be transparent, easy to calculate and preferably limited to a few basic methods the recur throughout the whole gaming engine.

But does the game actually play better when STR gives the same bonus to hit as it does to damage? Or CON an equivalent bonus to hit points? Does it yield the desired results at the actual game table or simply look pleasing in the rulebook and easy to memorise?  Harmonies do not necessarily equal better game play.

I've gone on record before saying that I'm not a fan of the way AD&D does ability score bonuses. They are inconsistent across the different scores, there is way too big of a doughnut of scores with no adjustment up or down, and then there are things like Fighters getting percentile strength bonus on an 18, or only Fighters getting more than +2 hit points for a high Constitution, or the needlessly fiddly % to Know spells Int modifier for Magic-Users or Chance of Spell Failure for Clerics. 

Exactly the things Anders is praising are the things that annoy me about AD&D ability scores. I do agree with him on most of his other points, though. Clerics and Magic-Users don't need identical spellcasting power. Different rates of advancement for different classes is a good thing. Categorical saving throws are cooler and more interesting than just rolling against your ability scores. And any complex calculation that can be boiled down to a simple hard number on a not overly complex character sheet is a good thing. 

And again, let's get back to ability score adjustments and how to roll those abilities. 

Anders makes the case that the diversity of adjustments in AD&D are due to the different roles that those abilities play in the game. Alexis makes the case that a playable character should have at least two scores with a positive adjustment. 

This made me curious to compare the probabilities of rolling 4d6-L for AD&D adjustment bonuses vs. 3d6 flat for BX/BECMI adjustments. The website AnyDice.com gave me the percentage chances to roll X or higher with each rolling method (yeah, I can do the math myself, but this was faster). And this website has an ability score calculator that can show you the probabilities of getting certain scores or higher on sets of six ability scores, which is handy. 

So to recap: 

In order to get a +1 bonus to any score in Classic D&D, you need a 13 or more in that ability. That's a bonus to hit in either ranged or missile combat, a bonus to damage in melee combat, a bonus to AC, or bonus hit points per level.

In order to get a +1 bonus to any combat relevant score in Advanced D&D, you need a 15 or 16 depending on the score and the variable being adjusted. 

To get a -1 (improvement) to AC, or to get +1 hit point per level, you need a 15 to Dex or Con, respectively.

To get a +1 to damage in melee combat or to hit in ranged combat, you need a 16 in Str or Dex, respectively. 

To get a +1 to hit in melee combat, you need a Str 17. 

According to the die rollers, if you roll flat 3d6, to get a score of X or higher on any particular score, your chances are: 

13+ 25.93% [+1 to any variable in Classic, no adjustment to any variable in Advanced]

15+ 9.26% [+1 to any variable in Classic, +1 to HP or -1 AC in Advanced]

16+ 4.63% [+2 to any variable in Classic, +1 melee damage, +2 HP, +1 ranged attack, -2 AC in Advanced]

17+ 1.85% [+2 to any variable in Classic, +1 melee attack, +1 melee damage, +2(3) HP, +2 ranged attack, -3 AC in Advanced]

18 0.46% [+3 to any variable in Classic, +1 melee attack, +2 melee damage, +2(4) HP, +3 ranged attack, -4 AC in Advanced]

So about one in four rolls will get you a bonus rolling 3d6, on average you can expect one or two scores to be above average. 

If we roll 4d6 and drop the lowest, to get a score of X or higher on any particular score, your chances are: 

13+ 48.77% [+1 to any variable in Classic, no adjustment to any variable in Advanced]

15+ 23.15% [+1 to any variable in Classic, +1 to HP or -1 AC in Advanced]

16+ 13.04% [+2 to any variable in Classic, +1 melee damage, +2 HP, +1 ranged attack, -2 AC in Advanced]

17+ 5.79%  [+2 to any variable in Classic, +1 melee attack, +1 melee damage, +2(3) HP, +2 ranged attack, -3 AC in Advanced]

18 1.62% [+3 to any variable in Classic, +1 melee attack, +2 melee damage, +2(4) HP, +3 ranged attack, -4 AC in Advanced]

The 13+ on 3d6 and 15+ on 4d6-L are highlighted because they have more or less equivalent values. You've got about a one in four chance of getting at least that number on any ability score roll in either system. And while AD&D does grant a few bonuses better than 3 IF you're a Fighter and put that 18 in Con instead of Str or any character with 18 Dex, or you're a Fighter type and put that 18 in Str and roll well on the percentile dice, the Classic system is really more generous. 

If it's imperative to have multiple ability scores with bonuses for characters, you're better off going with the Classic D&D style ability score adjustments, even if that takes away from the bespoke nature of what each score represents, or specialized bonuses for certain classes and not others as in AD&D. 

One more thing. Looking at rolling an entire set of ability scores, according to the Ability Score calculator website linked above, rolling 4d6-L six times gives you a 9.34% chance to roll an 18, so about one in 11 characters should have one. If you need at least two scores of 15 or more, you have a 42.16% chance. To get at least one score of 15+ you have a 79.4% chance. So most AD&D characters rolled this way will be minimally viable, with only one in five not meeting Alexis's minimum threshold, but only 2 in 5 meeting his preferred threshold of two scores qualifying for a bonus. 

And remember, that's looking at the score of 15, which in AD&D only affects hit points and AC, not chances to hit or damage inflicted. 

Rolling 3d6, but needing only a 13+ on a single score, we get an 83.48% chance to get at least one of the six rolls to give a bonus, just slightly better than the chance to get a 15+ on 4d6-L. To get two scores with a bonus, we have a 48.79% chance, that's roughly half of all characters generated. It's not a big difference, but the difference does, I think, matter. One in two suitable characters compared to two out of five. Oh, getting at least one 18 has a 2.75% chance, or one in thirty-six characters. 

Obviously, 4d6-L provides much higher chances of rolling the numbers above the threshold for a bonus, but if you're only concerned with getting at least one or two scores above the threshold, you've got roughly even odds either way, but with a slight edge to rolling 3d6 against the lower threshold of 13. 

The biggest advantage to Classic characters, though, is the regular array of bonuses. Because you need at least a 16 or 17 for certain variables in Advanced, you really NEED to roll 4d6-L (or one of those crazy bucket-o'-dice methods from Unearthed Arcana). And for me, rolling 4d6-L but with Classic bonuses to rolls, most characters are going to turn out fine. 

As an example: Last Sunday, Jeff, who plays in my online West Marches and Star Wars games and is visiting Busan for the month, joined my face-to-face game. His highest score, rolling 4d6-L six times, was a 13. He made a Fighter, and did just fine in the session... although it was one without a lot of combat. But he didn't complain, and he put his usual effort into characterization and had a good time.

Ability Score Adjustments at Character Creation

 OD&D through BECMI uses a system of ability score adjustment where you can drop a score by 2 points to raise the Prime Requisite of your class by 1. I don't remember if AD&D does this as well. 

It's something we did from time to time back in the day, but a lot of the time we just played what we rolled. Or we did a swap of the highest rolled score for the PR of the class the player hoped to play, with no adjustments beyond that.

I didn't include it as an option in TSR, partly because of the rules I'm using for rolling scores. Players can choose to roll 3d6 six times and arrange the scores as they like. Or they can roll 4d6-L down the line. I feel like allowing players to monkey with the scores on top of that ruins the whole point of forcing players to make this choice. 

Anyway, one of my players was asking if he could do that the other day, and it got me thinking about the practice. 

I'm wondering how often players took advantage of this back in the old days. Or how often players take advantage of it today. Since there aren't a lot of mechanical effects tied to scores, it would make sense to try and bump the PR up for a character. This gets a bonus to XP and bonuses to hit/damage for Strength, bonus languages for Intelligence, bonuses to saving throws for Wisdom, and bonuses to AC and ranged combat for Dexterity. And since the rules state a score can't be dropped below 9 (average), you can't give yourself a penalty in these areas. 

I think it makes sense when rolling straight 3d6 down the line. You've probably got some scores that make you want to be a certain class, and then you can trade down scores your class doesn't benefit so much from to increase the one they do benefit from. 

I'm guessing it was intended to be used by most players, to get "more viable" PCs, but I don't have any evidence, hard or anecdotal, to back that up. Just a gut feeling. If anyone has some insight or just wants to share how you & your group(s) do it, feel free to comment.

Anyway, time to reconsider how I do ability score rolls, and see if I want to bring this back in my games. Or not.

Tyrant DM!

Talking about myself, here.  Or at least my plans for when I finally get some time to run my Gamma World/Marvel Comics mashup campaign.

Usually, I'm sort of easy-going when it comes to players rolling their ability scores.  I let them make PCs at home, so they essentially get unlimited mulligans when rolling stats.  What the DM doesn't know won't hurt him, right?

But in this new campaign, I'm thinking of taking a hard line.  Why?  Well, because I actually want to give players a choice of how they roll their stats, and need to be able to enforce it.  I'm going to give my players a choice of rolling 3d6 six times and arranging to taste, or rolling 4d6-L (or with slight differences depending on character type) but in order down the line.  This choice becomes meaningless if they just ignore the first set rolled and do it again, or roll both methods and take the better set.

Anyway, I'm thinking of possibly going so far as to suggest they tell me what PC type they want to play and which method of rolling they prefer and rolling the numbers myself.

Tyranny!

Will the players revolt against this power trip of mine?  Possibly.  And I'll be the big softy I am and let them do it how they want in the end, because playing it their way is better than not playing at all.  Besides, who cares if you've got an 18 Strength when you're facing off against a cyborg tyrannosaurus? 

Bring out your dead!

OK, no dead to bring out, but this is the sort of post that's guaranteed to bring out the trolls.  It's funny, but there are so many people on the internet apparently just waiting for someone to make a negative comment about 4th Ed. D&D so they can sweep in on their pretend moral high horse and castigate someone for having a different opinion and expressing it.  I don't go to 4E players' blogs and complain if they post something negative about Old School games...just don't see the point.  But oh well, bring it on.  I'm gonna get negative again, although there will be some positive as well.

So as I mentioned, there's a guy here in Busan who is putting together a 4E group.  Josh's Gamma World game will be finishing soon one way or the other (only another month before he leaves, and if we don't finish it next month we're never gonna...).  As I mentioned in my comments in my last post, I'm also curious about how the game plays over a longer period than what we, the Board Game Group, tried before.  My old Yamanashi Group got a good long campaign out of it, and had a lot of fun. 

So is it just the fact that a good group of people can have a good time regardless of the rule set used?  Or are my first impressions of 4E somehow skewed?  It's possible that it's the latter.  Pat had us do a few playtest encounters, then ran us through part of Keep on the Shadowfell, a module that has gotten nothing but bad press from what I've read. 

I'm gonna give it another try.  I'm creating a Half-Elf Wizard, specializing in illusions and ice magic (having read the entire Lankhmar series recently, that may be the unconscious inspiration for my guy.  No, he won't be like Khakht (or however it was spelled), but illusions and ice are his theme.

I use the word 'create' above, and bolded it, because I can't say I rolled up a character.  No dice were involved in the creation of the character.  Point buy ability scores, set hit points, pick and choose your class, race and powers.  Not even a roll for starting gold.  Everyone gets 100gp to spend.  Now, I can deal with this, but it's definitely a lot less fun than throwing in some rolls and seeing what you get (and having to work with the consequences, both good and bad).

The next stumbling block for me with character creation is one of tone.  I just can't help but laugh when the rule books give some predetermined arrays of scores that you could create with point buy, and one of the arrays leaves that low 8 as an 8.  Then it says something like, "This character is good in a few areas, but still has a significant weakness in one area."  A -1 to a few checks you likely won't use ever anyway is a  significant weakness? 

Seriously, they've done just about everything they can in this rule-set to ensure that your character really only needs three good ability scores and the rest are dump stats.  All the defenses: AC, Fortitude, Reflex and Will, are governed by two stats, take your pick of the better one.  Most of the attack powers likewise give you a choice of two or three abilities to use for hit/damage modifiers.  And if you've got a crap stat in that ability, you can pick a different power anyway.  So, as I've done, I've dropped that 8 in Strength.  I doubt I'll be doing much melee as a Wizard, and if I have to take a -1 penalty to any Athletics skill checks, so be it.  It's not crippling my character in the least.  It's a minor nuisance at best to have a slight penalty in an ability score I don't need to use.

Finally, there's the choice overload.  I'm playing a Wizard.  I still haven't looked over enough of the other classes to know if there's something I'd rather be playing.  Seriously, there's a lot of reading to be done there to make an informed decision.  Now, if I were a high school kid out on summer vacation, with plenty of time to dive into the books, sure, no problem.  As a working adult, with a wife and kid, side writing projects of my own, and just general other stuff to do, I don't have time to read through the literally hundreds of pages worth of information on all the various character classes.

Now, the good side.  I downloaded the two Essentials character books, Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Forgotten Kingdoms, and used them to build my character.  From what I did see, especially with regards to the Fighter class, Essentials cleared up some of the suck from the original set of rules.  The Fighter looks much more playable, especially since they're not trying to make it work exactly as the Wizard or Cleric (never looked at the Rogue or the other classes enough to really judge).  No Daily powers, and several general purpose At Will Utility powers at first level so the Fighter can enter each fight with some tactical options besides when to use the Encounter Powers (and hope they hit).

That leads me to the final problem I'm having.  There are tons of errata out there, and I'm not reading any of it (don't really care), but it seems like the DM might.  He's asked me several times now to subscribe to D&D Insider so I can get whatever updates and the character builder program and what not.  Sorry, Enzo, not gonna happen.  I've got better ways to spend my money, and I'm fairly happy with the character I created who mixes IMO the best stuff I could find from the two Essentials character books and the PHB1.  There may be stuff I'd enjoy using from PHB2 and 3...there is a 3, right?...but again I just don't have the time or motivation to scour through another 50 or so pages of Wizard powers just because there might be one power that is slightly more advantageous than one of the ones I already picked (and seriously, there's often not much difference between two powers of the same level, other than what minor secondary effect it might have, or energy type).

So, 4E has not won me over from its character creation stage.  Maybe playing it will grow on me.  If it doesn't, I may be out of gaming for a while.

More on the 4E D&D Essentials Rules Compendium

Reading bits and pieces of the Rules Compendium in my spare time (I have a hard time abbreviating it as RC, as to me that's the 1991 Rules Cyclopedia for Classic D&D so I'll call it the 4RC from now on).  I blogged about it earlier, here.

I finally got through Chapter 2: Adventurers and Monsters.  Here are some thoughts about it.

Monsters do not need the same sorts of stats as PCs.  This was a mistake that 3E made (although it seemed like a novel feature in 2000, it didn't really work so well).  However, monsters are basically only designed for combat, nothing else. 

Monster types from 3E have been retained, but further streamlined, although they're broken down into 'origin' and 'type' which can be combined.  This could be useful, as some 3E monsters didn't fit well into only one type (or would 'lose' a type when a certain template was added, or whatever).  Initial impression looks to be a simplification of the 3E way, and that's always a good thing.

Monsters also get a 'role' that they play in battle.  Maybe the Monster books give more than what I've heard they do, but it looks like there aren't many things for the creatures to do outside of battle.  The rules keep talking about all the non-combat stuff you can do, but then these not so subtle design choices scream "This is just one big combat game!"

Ability score bonuses work just like in 3E.  They modify slightly different things, but more or less match what earlier editions had done.  Later in the chapter, talking about generating ability scores, though, I just had to laugh.  They give 3 options: Take the default array, point buy, or roll randomly 4d6-L.  But then it says DMs should modify any random rolls back into the proper range.  [Message between the lines--your DM is a douche if he makes you do this because chances are your character will suck, and if you get lucky and roll well, he'll smack you down to normal levels so just use the default array already.]

The sample scripts suck.  Take a look at Spanish.  It has extra letters beyond the 26 in English.  Cyrillic, Greek, and other alphabetical languages don't have the exact same letters as English.  Runic languages have a lot fewer letters.  Yes, I'm a bit of a language geek, so this bothers me that the sample scripts are just different symbols for the English alphabet.  What, are we supposed to use them to pass notes in class that the teacher can't read? 

Alignments.  Why did it have to be snakes... I mean alignments?  OK, this is a hot button topic in any edition.  But the LG-G-U-C-CE breakdown seems a bit weird.  The descriptions of Good and Evil read more or less like the classic depictions of Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil, but the naming conventions made me think they would follow the Neutral Good and Neutral Evil ideas more.  They didn't.  Oh well, if they had, then it might have been more like sticking 'super-Lawful' and 'super-Chaotic' alignments onto the Classic Law-Neutrality-Chaos system.

Next we get a general rundown of character creation.  I already mentioned the ability score generation.  The rest is fairly boring, pick your feats, pick your powers, fill in the numbers, blah blah blah.

Then we get to the 'Other Character Details' part.  Gets a bit interesting here.  First a relatively useless side bar on p. 81 about adding minor details to your character to make them distinct.  Nobody's really gonna remember that you've got a birthmark like a pixie on your left cheek or that you wear outrageous clothing unless you're always mentioning it at the table the way Robert Jordan always uses his stock phrases to describe minor characters ("he rode his saddle like sack of suet"...how many times do I need to read this about the fat horse thief guy?).  Note to those playing at home--don't do this, it'll get annoying.

The rest of the advice for adding personality to your PC, on pages 81-84 aren't bad, though.  Some decent advice, especially in telling the reader that it's okay to not have a fully fleshed out 3-page background for your 1st level PC.  As Gary once said (or at least someone quoted him as saying this on the internet), "The first five levels are your back story."

Finally, we round out the chapter with some notes on how to level up your character.  Characters tend to get feats on even levels (and increases in their 1/2 level bonus), while Powers are usually gained at odd levels.  So you get something at almost every level.  For this type of game, I guess that's important.

The only other real observation I had was that leveling up in this version of the game loses quite a bit of excitement.  You're encouraged to be 'planning ahead' to what powers and feats you'd like, so there's more of a sense of accomplishment than a sense of gaining something new and different.  Also, characters gain set numbers of hit points per level, so you lose that excitement of rolling the dice when you level.  Sure, it sucks to roll a 1 on that hit point roll, but isn't it great to roll the max number for your class?  I think I'd miss that thrill if I were to play a long campaign under 4E.

Still, while I've got my criticisms of the game, there's less to hate than I expected, and some useful sections as well.  Next chapter is Powers. 

Classic D&D characters are stronger than d20 D&D characters

Sure, Classic D&D tops all ability scores at 18 (no silly percentile strength systems, or allowing demi-humans to get a 19).  d20 is theoretically limitless in how high a score can go, but usually can't start higher than 20.

But look what those scores do for you, in relation to the most common NON-COMBAT resolution systems for the systems in question.


In Classic D&D, the default is to roll 1d20 and roll lower than your score. 
In d20, you roll 1d20, plus your ability bonus, compared to a Challenge Rating set by the DM, but with guidelines given in the books.

So a character with Str 10 in Classic D&D will succeed at most Strength based checks 50% of the time.  With an 18 Str, you succeed 90% of the time.

In d20, the default CR is 15.  In order to get a 50% chance on that d20 roll at level 1, you need that maximum starting Str of 20 (+5 bonus).

Of course I'm using Strength as an example, because it's the first ability listed in both editions, making it a convenient point of reference, but this applies to all of the ability scores.

Of course, there are some sub-systems in Classic that don't follow the above pattern (2d6 Reaction rolls, with at best a +2 modifier for Charisma, for example, work on a bell-curve, but the math on that one still, I believe, favors Classic characters' chances.)

Funny.  Some people, like my friend Alex, think that a Classic character with an average score of 9-12 is worthless.  They've been deluded by AD&D, where you need a 15+ to get a bonus, and from d20 where you have no limit on your potential.  The lower scores of Classic are actually more heroic.

And on the flip side, seen from this perspective, d20 adventures now seem a lot more challenging. 
 

 

A thought experiment

Regarding some of my recent posts and ability scores, here's an idea.

Let's take some fictional characters and assign their Strength scores by the Classic D&D scale.

Score 3 Mod -3
Score 4-5 Mod -2
Score 6-8 Mod -1
Score 9-12 Mod 0
Score 13-15 Mod +1
Score 16-17 Mod +2
Score 18 Mod +3

OK, so Hercules is an 18 on this scale. Stephen Hawking is a 3. 10 is your average Joe Schmoe. There are your goal posts.

Where would you put:
Conan (have to start with him)
Fafhrd
Aragorn
Elric (when not charged up on souls thanks to Stormbringer)
Lancelot
Bilbo Baggins
Sindbad the Sailor
Kikuchiyo (that would be Mifune in 7 Samurai)
Odysseus
Abraham Van Helsing (NOT the cheesy movie with Hugh Jackman)

Curious to see how everyone rates them.