S&W:WB only has -1/0/+1 for stats. Roll 7 or less, -1; roll 14 or more +1. It's simple and keeps stats tight and less important. However, it also means there's a 10% difference between Conan the Barbarian and Conan O'Brien for Strength and Constitution.

Back in the early 80s, my crew ditched the AD&D stat charts for the Basic D&D charts because we liked 3D6 down the line (or 63 point spread). Our choice actually spread to several other game clubs in the Bay Area to the point of teen argument at the local convention about which club did it first!

These days, I think the last Gamma World may have found the best solution. You get an 18 in your prime, a 16 in your secondary and 3D6 for the rest.

I get why new editions do the array. It's fast, its balanced, its varied enough, and it results in a canonized final decision against the whining bitches.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;954261Anecdote: AD&D Paladins were not rare, they were non-existent.  They weren't worth the good rolls that you got.  Also fun note, you could have all six stats at 16 in AD&D and you STILL couldn't be a Paladin.  Cuz in AD&D the only stat they needed high was Charisma which was 17.  Which did nothing, other than modify Henchmen likely hood, which Paladins couldn't really get because any minion gained HAD to be Lawful Good.

If the referee and the player can't figure out what to do with a 17 or 18 Charisma other than by the rules holding them by the hands perhaps they should be not playing tabletop roleplaying. You are right that characteristics in OD&D don't do in much terms of actual mechanics. There going to be a world of difference in my ruling between a character with a 15 strength trying to portage a rowboat around some rapids and a player with a 5 strength trying to do the same thing despite the lack of any formal mechanic to handle this in OD&D.

Is my ruling going to be as detailed as the one I make with the GURPS rules for the same situation. Not of course not. But it will do the job and regardless of whether it was GURPS or OD&D the characters to wind up in the same situation at the end of the portage. Except with GURPS you can calculate exactly how fatigued the characters are and how long it will take them to recover. With OD&D will be a similar result but more of a guessimate. But neither way is "superior" or more "evolved". The problem is that your responses are condensing and dismissive particularly when it comes to older editions of D&D versus newer edition.

For the Majestic Wilderlands RPG, I use the following charte


3-5: -2
6-8: -1
9-11: +0
12-14: +1
15-17: +2
18: +3


I don't like d20/4e/5e +/-1 per 2 as it stack up too quickly.
I think OD&D's -1/+0/+1 is too coarse.
AD&D take too put too much of a premium on rolling a 15 or better stat.

I used it successfully for a decade to run campaigns. Which makes it superior for me. For anybody else it may or not work but if you do try it you know it been used in actual play and wasn't pulled out of my ass.

Your Majestic Wilderlands chart is a good one, its minimizes the negatives and accentuates the positives starting at 12 which is easy enough to roll. Do you do 3D6 down the line or some other method?

I use the Basic D&D chart:

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

Quote from: estar;954281If the referee and the player can't figure out what to do with a 17 or 18 Charisma other than by the rules holding them by the hands perhaps they should be not playing tabletop roleplaying. You are right that characteristics in OD&D don't do in much terms of actual mechanics. There going to be a world of difference in my ruling between a character with a 15 strength trying to portage a rowboat around some rapids and a player with a 5 strength trying to do the same thing despite the lack of any formal mechanic to handle this in OD&D.

That is because you are a) arguing in good faith and b) smart enough to shit unassisted.
 
CB's only purpose in this thread is to show us, once AGAIN, where random stats touched his character in a bad way.

Quote from: cranebump;954277True, but I'm aiming for uniformity in resolution (high =good, low=bad). Just a preference. I think adding stat to d20 with target of 20 is essentially the same effect though, right?

The target should be 21, other than that, you're right. That's what I'm using in Low Fantasy RPG:).

And for random, I prefer my method of "assign 24d6 to the six stats, between 3 and 6 dice to a stat, then rol and keep the best 3 in all cases".

Charisma isn't a dump stat in OD&D because of the reaction table and mercenaries. A high CHA PC is badass RAW because on 2D6 reaction charts, a +2 is very meaningful. Also, hirelings pumped with CHA infused bravery were not only extra HP, they are extra attacks and extra pack mules to loot the dungeon.

Quote from: AsenRG;954301And for random, I prefer my method of "assign 24d6 to the six stats, between 3 and 6 dice to a stat, then rol and keep the best 3 in all cases".

That's good stuff. It's a nice combo of random chance and a sense of control.

Quote from: Trond;954266.......which wasn't what he said anyway.

Let's review.

Quote from: Voros;954105I seriously doubt most people did the 3d6 in order chargen as if they did Paladins and Bards would have been rarer than hen's teeth in 1e.

Yes, they would've been rare in 1e if you didn't, y'know, understand that 3d6 was specifically not recommended for use with 1e.

If I gave an extra fraction of a fuck I'd dredge up the quote from the 1e PHB about characters having at least two attribute scores of 15 or more, but it's Voros, so it's teaching a pig to sing already.

Quote from: Spinachcat;954303That's good stuff. It's a nice combo of random chance and a sense of control.

Yeah, it would work better for some games, and worse for others:).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;954179I've been the guy in a couple of D&D games in which I couldn't actually play with random because my stats had to be bumped up to be able to QUALIFY for a class.  And another player had two 16 and nothing under 12.)

In what D&D? In O and BX your stats dont disqualify you from a class and in AD&D low stats just disqualify you from certain classes and with r4h3 its less likely to get enough low stats to disqualify you from every class. In which case you just re-roll as the rules say to. Heres a quick set. 5, 10, 14, 12, 13, 12. The 5 limits me to a Magic User, Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Illusionist or Assassin and the other rolls arent good enough to qualify for an Illusionist so that eliminates that class. Still five available. Wouldnt be an exactly great Cleric past level 10, but could be a passable magic user to level 15. Fighter and Thief and Assassin are good to go. Id probably go Assassin as havent played one yet in AD&D.

Quote from: cranebump;954240If you're playing a D&D version with a wider range of stats mods, I think you almost have to use it, to give folks a shot at not being nerfed by bad rolls. Plus, if THEY build the stats, then they can't bitch about it.

That said, I prefer random rolls. And I haven't really had many players that mind them.

The bell curve, especially in AD&D means getting alot of low rolls is relatively rare. And you can assign those to unimportant stats and live with it and probably try to avoid situations where that stat/s gets used alot. That Assassin I rolled up above is going to be letting someone else do the negotiating since I had to drop that 5 into charisma. (3 if opted for Half Orc)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;954261Anecdote: AD&D Paladins were not rare, they were non-existent.  They weren't worth the good rolls that you got.  Also fun note, you could have all six stats at 16 in AD&D and you STILL couldn't be a Paladin.  Cuz in AD&D the only stat they needed high was Charisma which was 17.  Which did nothing, other than modify Henchmen likely hood, which Paladins couldn't really get because any minion gained HAD to be Lawful Good.

Also, in AD&D you got no stat bonus until 16 (except for Dex which started at 15, I think.  Don't have the books in reach.)  I think they also needed a 12?  13?  In Strength and Wisdom, and 9? in everything else, so all that, when if you roll a 16, in any stat, save for Charisma (Unless you want small army at your beck and call...  HYPERBOLE!) meant you got at the very least an XP bonus (I think it was 10%?) and either a bonus to certain saves and in the case of Dexterity or Strength, a bonus to hit with certain weapon types.  That's better than anything that the Paladin gave.

1: Correct that paladins needed a 17 CHA. But that 17 CHA also got you a +30% reaction bonus on encounters/negotiations so potentially less hostiles to deal with. As for henchmen you got a +30% loyalty too. And why cant they get LG henchmen? They are just as likely to show up as any other alignment.

2: Actually a Cleric needs at least a 17 WIS to cast 6th level spells. 18 to cast 7th level. Magic Users need an 18 INT to cast 9th level spells.
16 in a stat gets you... +1 to hit melee, 65% chance to be able to learn a MU spell, 2 extra 1st & 2nd level cleric spells, +1 initiative, and ranged attacks and +2 AC, +2 HP, and lastly fairly good loyalty and reaction/negotiation.

Quote from: cranebump;954270What I was getting at is that the mod spread in 3 through 5E sorta mandates higher scores.

Not really. You can do just fine with dead average stats and no bonuses at all. But the magic classes will likely want to start pumping their primary stat if only so opponents arent resisting so frequently or their spells missing alot. Melee types can get by if they can lay hands on magic items. But might want to bump up their primary too at some point.

Which is one of 5e's strengths in that even with average rolls you can eventually top out most characters primary at the very least. (unless you somehow rolled all 8s or less. In which case just re-roll.)

Quote from: DavetheLost;954273"Here or lower the character can only be a Fighter" Note on the Intelligence table. IIRC in that edition Fighters were the only class without minimum attribute scores.

A STR of 5 or lower and you could only be a MU, Fighters needed at least a 9 STR. An INT of 5 or lower and you could only be a Fighter, MUs needed a 9 INT. WIS 5 or lower and it was Thief only, Clerics needed a 9. DEX 5 or lower and only a Cleric, MUs needed a 6 and Thiefs needed a 9. CON 5 or lower and only Illusionist allowed, Fighters needed a 7. CHA 5 or lower and only assassin allowed.

Dont have 2e handy so not sure if they did away with that or not?

Quote from: Omega;954317Not really. You can do just fine with dead average stats and no bonuses at all. But the magic classes will likely want to start pumping their primary stat if only so opponents arent resisting so frequently or their spells missing alot. Melee types can get by if they can lay hands on magic items. But might want to bump up their primary too at some point.

Which is one of 5e's strengths in that even with average rolls you can eventually top out most characters primary at the very least. (unless you somehow rolled all 8s or less. In which case just re-roll.)

I'll take your word for it here, since my experience of 5E, after release, is about 5 sessions. And speaking only for me, I could play with whatever hand I was dealt. I'm just not sure that's what players think when they actually sit down to play 3,4 or 5E. I say this because you have stat bumps seems to indicate that the expectation is that you will end up with at least one high number. I also think that the spread difference -- +0 for average score (if "average" means a 10 or 11) and +5 for being at the pinnacle-- also indicates that the system expects, and pushes, high scores. In fact, what is "low" in modern play is an altogether different animal than what it used to be. I can't prove it, but I am willing to bet you have a high percentage of adherents who would consider 12-13 "low" (and anything below 10 as unplayable). because, again, the expectation seems to indicate you'll be pushing at least a couple of stats to 16 or higher, in the long run.

Or, I'll put it this way. I can recall, at one time, being ecstatic with a character who had all scores ranging between 12 and 15, indicating they were a sort of badass (especially on the 18=+3 scale). I feel like such a character now might be considered slightly above average. Neither here nor there. Just shows differences in expectations/perspective.

This is why I think we should just give up, start all stats at 10, and then roll d6 or something to add to each stat. Otherwise, the frowny faces come out at having to play a character with a negative.:-/