character creation l ist ed

[jk7275]

Hello

A friend of mine is going to start a D&D game 1st edition and we were discussing all the methods given for rolling stats. Is there a site that gives a good comparison of all the methods. Something that explains the reasoning behind them

[Mutazoia]

Generally, you are going to have two options to roll ability scores.

1) Roll 3D6 per score, usually placed as desired.
2) Roll 4D6, drop the lowest die roll, and place as desired.

The first option is more traditional, but can result in unplayable characters with multiple scores below average the "average" score of 10. As 1st ed classes have stat minimums, using this method means you generate your scores, then see what class(s) you qualify for.

The second option is more forgiving, and (if I recall correctly...at work so can't verify atm) wasn't introduced (officially) until 2nd ed, along with the "point buy" method. This option will allow you to pick a class, and then generate your scores, and usually results in characters with one or more scores well above the "average" score of 10.

Which method you use will, of course, be up to your DM, and depend on the style of campaign he has planned. 1st ed D&D was less about combat, encouraging players to find alternative methods to overcome encounters and use combat mostly as a last resort (mostly). With this style, the straight 3D6 method wasn't as brutal as it sounds, since the game style was more about overcoming challenges with your wits, not just hacking your way through them.

[LibraryOgre]

Generally, you are going to have two options to roll ability scores.

1) Roll 3D6 per score, usually placed as desired.
2) Roll 4D6, drop the lowest die roll, and place as desired.

The first option is more traditional, but can result in unplayable characters with multiple scores below average the "average" score of 10. As 1st ed classes have stat minimums, using this method means you generate your scores, then see what class(s) you qualify for.

The second option is more forgiving, and (if I recall correctly...at work so can't verify atm) wasn't introduced (officially) until 2nd ed, along with the "point buy" method. This option will allow you to pick a class, and then generate your scores, and usually results in characters with one or more scores well above the "average" score of 10.

For the most part, aside from the numbers, this is incorrect. The 1e DMG lays out 4d6 minus the lowest, arranged to taste, as the default, and doesn't even suggest 3d6 straight down.

The relevant section, from page 11 of the DMG

GENERATION OF ABILITY SCORES
As ADBD is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession
which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are
offered for player characters:

Method I:

All scores are recorded and arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, and the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded.

Method II:

All scores are recorded and arranged as in Method I. 3d6 are rolled 12 times and the highest 6 scores are retained.

Method III:

Scores rolled are according to each ability category, in order, STRENGTH, INTELLIGENCE, WISDOM, DEXTERITY, CONSTITUTION, CHARISMA. 3d6 are
rolled 6 times for each ability, and the highest score in each category is retained for that category.

Method IV:

3d6 are rolled sufficient times to generate the 6 ability scores, in order, for 12 characters, The player then selects the single set of scores which he or
she finds most desirable and these scores are noted on the character record sheet.

Of those, I prefer method I, partially because its the least rolling. Rather than scores of characters, you roll up one, and make them the best one you can. Unearthed Arcana had an alternate method, where you picked your class, then rolled buckets of d6s for each attribute, choosing the 3 you liked best (fighters might roll 9d6 for Strength, for example, but only 3d6 for Intelligence... numbers might be different, just illustrative).

It's also worth noting that the PH has a suggestion that every character have at least 2 15s.

[hamlet]

Method I is, typically, the default for a reason. It ends up with a slightly right shifted bell curve that creates overall useable characters just about every time without skewing too hard to one side or the other. I recommend it.

However, all of the other options work, just are more complicated.

However, I've been toying with the idea of different methods of char-gen including 2d6+6 down the line in order, you may exchange two of them. I'm a little sick of folks picking where they want their scores because they typically stick their highest in Prime Req and then parcel them out from there. I kind of like the idea of adapting to what luck/fate gave you, but with a bit of flexibility to make it more friendly. Plus, it skews a little harder right and more heroic, which means I can throw nastier things at the players.

Ask the DM is step 1. Then bargain with the DM is step 2. Horse trading is a bit of a tradition in 1e character generation.

[LibraryOgre]

Method I is, typically, the default for a reason. It ends up with a slightly right shifted bell curve that creates overall useable characters just about every time without skewing too hard to one side or the other. I recommend it.

However, all of the other options work, just are more complicated.

However, I've been toying with the idea of different methods of char-gen including 2d6+6 down the line in order, you may exchange two of them. I'm a little sick of folks picking where they want their scores because they typically stick their highest in Prime Req and then parcel them out from there. I kind of like the idea of adapting to what luck/fate gave you, but with a bit of flexibility to make it more friendly. Plus, it skews a little harder right and more heroic, which means I can throw nastier things at the players.

Ask the DM is step 1. Then bargain with the DM is step 2. Horse trading is a bit of a tradition in 1e character generation.

Hackmaster has an interesting approach.

3d6, straight down. If you have two scores 5 or below, or no scores above 13, you get to reroll entirely (bonuses are shifted a bit, so no score above 13 is different than it would be in AD&D). If you keep your scores in rolling order, you get a bonus 50 BP. If you switch two, get a bonus 25 BP. Rearrange them all? No bonus. Since the average starting character has 40 BP, it's a powerful incentive to play what you rolled, not what you dreamed.

[Mutazoia]

For the most part, aside from the numbers, this is incorrect. The 1e DMG lays out 4d6 minus the lowest, arranged to taste, as the default, and doesn't even suggest 3d6 straight down.

The relevant section, from page 11 of the DMG



Of those, I prefer method I, partially because its the least rolling. Rather than scores of characters, you roll up one, and make them the best one you can. Unearthed Arcana had an alternate method, where you picked your class, then rolled buckets of d6s for each attribute, choosing the 3 you liked best (fighters might roll 9d6 for Strength, for example, but only 3d6 for Intelligence... numbers might be different, just illustrative).

It's also worth noting that the PH has a suggestion that every character have at least 2 15s.

Yeah, it's been a while since I cracked open my 1st ed books, so was trying to work from ancient memory while at work.

[LibraryOgre]

Yeah, it's been a while since I cracked open my 1st ed books, so was trying to work from ancient memory while at work.

NP. My wife calls what I do "pedanting".

Something to add, though, is aging modifiers in 1e start with Young Adults, and can be worth looking in to. If you use them (some people only apply them after character creation), a young adult gets a +1 to Constitution and a -1 to Wisdom. A Mature Adult gets a +1 to Strength and a +1 to Wisdom (erasing the penalty for being young and stupid). Middle Age's penalty to Strength and Constitution, therefore, just strip you back to your base numbers.

[BigBadHarve]

As a DM I'm a fan of 3d6, assign as desired. I prefer playing the average, and letting the character's experiences mold him or her.

Not every character made can or should be the best at what they do, especially at the start. Once they get a few levels under their belt, even an 'average' Joe can be pretty magnificent.

Players with so-called average characters also tend to react like real people might when something like a dagger is pull against them, and consequently play smarter. 'Lookout, he's got a knife' as opposed to 'don't worry, I have 14 hit points, I'll take him' - And that makes the game far more immersive.

Also - when someone naturally rolls good stats - it's special because it's not the norm.

As an example - I got my niece into the game a few years back - she is currently running a thief. Her stats are average down the board - Str 9, Dex 11, Con 10, Int 9 Wis 8, Ch 10. Her thieving skills had some penalties, leaving the room for the other characters (not players) to make fun of her being the worst thief ever! It was a running gag. Suddenly 2 years later and she's 6th level, her skills have improved and she's important to the team... and they have some hilarious stories of many key times when her skills failed her (like trying to sneak with a move silently of 0%)... and many epic times when they didn't (locating and disarming a trap that could have killed the group)

Anyway, that's my take on the subject. I feel that playing the average is hugely rewarding in the long run.

[jk7275]

As a DM I'm a fan of 3d6, assign as desired. I prefer playing the average, and letting the character's experiences mold him or her.

Not every character made can or should be the best at what they do, especially at the start. Once they get a few levels under their belt, even an 'average' Joe can be pretty magnificent.

Players with so-called average characters also tend to react like real people might when something like a dagger is pull against them, and consequently play smarter. 'Lookout, he's got a knife' as opposed to 'don't worry, I have 14 hit points, I'll take him' - And that makes the game far more immersive.

Also - when someone naturally rolls good stats - it's special because it's not the norm.

As an example - I got my niece into the game a few years back - she is currently running a thief. Her stats are average down the board - Str 9, Dex 11, Con 10, Int 9 Wis 8, Ch 10. Her thieving skills had some penalties, leaving the room for the other characters (not players) to make fun of her being the worst thief ever! It was a running gag. Suddenly 2 years later and she's 6th level, her skills have improved and she's important to the team... and they have some hilarious stories of many key times when her skills failed her (like trying to sneak with a move silently of 0%)... and many epic times when they didn't (locating and disarming a trap that could have killed the group)

Anyway, that's my take on the subject. I feel that playing the average is hugely rewarding in the long run.

I think you make a good point about the 3d6 method. The thing about the 3d6 method that bothers me is when they introduced classes like monks or paladins where you needed stats high enough to play. Someone may love playing paladins and be very good at it too but may rarely have the chance to be one. The dice are to some degree deciding what class you are playing
I dont know if getting of stat requirements for certain classes would be a good idea

[BigBadHarve]

I think you make a good point about the 3d6 method. The thing about the 3d6 method that bothers me is when they introduced classes like monks or paladins where you needed stats high enough to play. Someone may love playing paladins and be very good at it too but may rarely have the chance to be one. The dice are to some degree deciding what class you are playing
I dont know if getting of stat requirements for certain classes would be a good idea

In my games, I offer an alternative to players in just such an instance. It's sort of a watered down version of method V from Unearthed Arcana.

If a player doesn't want to do the 3d6, assign as desired method, then they can go with option B:

Select Human as a race, select their class, then roll 3d6 IN ORDER (S, I, W, D, C, CH). After that, we look at the class minimums, and any stat below the requirement gets a boost to the minimum, which is more often than not.

What works out in the wash is this - Any players wanting a rare class can make one, but they must be human. Anyone wishing a demi-human must roll the first option. Also the lack of flexibility in reassigning stats can hurt as well. One guy in our game made a Ranger with this method and ended up with a 6 Dexterity. His other stats got boosted, but he has a small penalty. (Dex isn't a class requirement for Rangers in 1st ed)

I have found the balance works well and both options have kept my players happy.

Essentially the notion is in line with the game philosophy of humans and their unlimited potential... just like they have unlimited level advancement, Humans also have potential to be anything. And humans who work hard and dedicate themselves to a discipline will achieve it.

[Mutazoia]

I think you make a good point about the 3d6 method. The thing about the 3d6 method that bothers me is when they introduced classes like monks or paladins where you needed stats high enough to play. Someone may love playing paladins and be very good at it too but may rarely have the chance to be one. The dice are to some degree deciding what class you are playing
I don't know if getting of stat requirements for certain classes would be a good idea

If you look at it from one end, it makes sense. How many kids grow up wanting to be an astronaut, but never get the chance due to not meeting one or more of the various requirements? We get to choose our profession after we are born, we are not born astronauts. PC's are not born Paladins (except when the DM wants to use the concept as a plot hook).

[Thrudd]

If you look at it from one end, it makes sense. How many kids grow up wanting to be an astronaut, but never get the chance due to not meeting one or more of the various requirements? We get to choose our profession after we are born, we are not born astronauts. PC's are not born Paladins (except when the DM wants to use the concept as a plot hook).

Also, from a game perspective, those classes are objectively better/more powerful than the standard fighter in every way. They are essentially prestige classes that you can start with if you meet the prereqs.
Having requisites is a way of controlling PC demographics, just like having racial level limits and restricting demihuman classes. You'd have entire parties of paladins, rangers and monks if you didn't do that. They are that good in 1e.

I think these classes were meant to be rare and special. The gaming environment was also a lot different back then. It wasn't uncommon to have several characters you were playing at the same time in various campaigns.

[jk7275]

Also, from a game perspective, those classes are objectively better/more powerful than the standard fighter in every way. They are essentially prestige classes that you can start with if you meet the prereqs.
Having requisites is a way of controlling PC demographics, just like having racial level limits and restricting demihuman classes. You'd have entire parties of paladins, rangers and monks if you didn't do that. They are that good in 1e.

I think these classes were meant to be rare and special. The gaming environment was also a lot different back then. It wasn't uncommon to have several characters you were playing at the same time in various campaigns.

They may be more powerful but paladins and rangers also held to a higher standard, there is a trade off

[Mutazoia]

They may be more powerful but paladins and rangers also held to a higher standard, there is a trade off

Paladins may be held to a strict moral code, but Rangers, not so much. Still, for the power gain, holding a Paladin to a moral code isn't really a "trade off".

[Khedrac]

Do remember that 1st Ed did not have the assumption that classes should be equal. That is a 3rd edition invention.

Classes were expected to be very different in power levels - they mainly paid for it by having different experience point totals to reach for different levels.

[MeeposFire]

Do remember that 1st Ed did not have the assumption that classes should be equal. That is a 3rd edition invention.

Classes were expected to be very different in power levels - they mainly paid for it by having different experience point totals to reach for different levels.

Yes and oddly it made some classes more powerful at certain XP levels than other classes. Going by 2e I have found in most situations a well made fighter of equal XP is much more nasty than the paladin or ranger, heck even at equal levels too. 1e is not as clear on that as rangers get weapon specialization and wizard spells (also extra damage versus many creatures) and there are not as many interesting NWP and weapon styles sa in 2e.

[2D8HP]

If you look at it from one end, it makes sense. How many kids grow up wanting to be an astronaut, but never get the chance due to not meeting one or more of the various requirements? We get to choose our profession after we are born, we are not born astronauts. PC's are not born Paladins (except when the DM wants to use the concept as a plot hook).

Um..most people are born into our social class, both historically and in the contemporary United States (the heightened social mobility of the mid 20th century was an anomaly that many mistake for "normal").
Sadly pauper's are born from pauper's, prince's from prince's, as it has been, so it is, pretending otherwise (that peasants and urchins my become Lords) is part of what makes it fantasy role-playing.

[jk7275]

Do remember that 1st Ed did not have the assumption that classes should be equal. That is a 3rd edition invention.

Classes were expected to be very different in power levels - they mainly paid for it by having different experience point totals to reach for different levels.

I have played 1st Ed in the past and i am aware that classes are not equal. I am ok with that, what I am not fond of is that to some degree the dice determine what you can or can not play

[Thrudd]

I have played 1st Ed in the past and i am aware that classes are not equal. I am ok with that, what I am not fond of is that to some degree the dice determine what you can or can not play

Method III, I find, produces the highest overall scores most consistently. The drawback is that you roll them in order. But this is the method most likely to qualify for most classes.

Method V from Unearthed Arcana does pretty much ensure you get the scores required for the class you choose, but it is overkill, it tends to give all classes really high scores.

I have an alternative method that combines point buy with the premise of method V. It is meant to give the player the ability to choose in general where they want their best scores, but still has randomness for variety. - Each player has 30 d6 which they will divide between the six ability scores. No score may be assigned more than 9d6 or less than 3d6. Then roll the dice for each ability and take the best 3. If the dice are evenly distributed, it gives 5d6 best 3 for all abilities, which creates scores on the high side that will usually qualify for ranger. If a player wanted to make sure they had two particularly high scores, they could assign 9d6 to two abilities and roll straight 3d6 on the rest. That will make for an effective character in most classes. It should be easily possible to assign dice in such a manner to make sure that they can qualify for monk or paladin as well.

[etrpgb]

I assume with 1st edition you mean the classic bx/dnd[1]. This is how we do it.

Six times 4d6 drop lowest. If the sum is not at least 74, repeat.
When you have your numbers places them as you want, you can move points around but you have to lower one score of 2 to increase another of 1.


[1] you should consider http://basicfantasy.org that is quite similar but fixes the most stupid things.

Edit, it was 74 min, not 80. 74 is chosen as it is the median value. See here if you are curious.

[Mutazoia]

Um..most people are born into our social class, both historically and in the contemporary United States (the heightened social mobility of the mid 20th century was an anomaly that many mistake for "normal").
Sadly pauper's are born from pauper's, prince's from prince's, as it has been, so it is, pretending otherwise (that peasants and urchins my become Lords) is part of what makes it fantasy role-playing.

My comment had nothing to do with social classes. It was about the physical and mental traits that you are born with, that effect what career paths are open to you later in life. A person with a weak constitution will not be able to be an astronaut. Their bodies would not handle the stress of a launch. A person with a below average IQ is not going to be able to handle the higher math required. You (I hope) get the idea. I'm not sure where you get Social Classes out of physical and mental traits.

In real life, people can, and often do, change social classes, up or down. Which is how we've had several US Presidents born paupers. We've had the fabulously wealthy become paupers over night on Black Thursday.

[Jay R]

I recently did 3d6, in order, but you had two options:

1. You could put them starting in STR and going down, or starting with CHA and going up.
2. You could read the tops or the bottoms of all the dice. This is equivalent to subtracting each number from 21, so below-average array of 8, 6, 10, 12, 4, 9 becomes the above average 13, 15, 11, 9, 17, 12.

The second rule guaranteed at least an average set of rolls, and the first rule gave you some control over where they went - at the very least, doubling your chances of a high roll in a specific stat.

I was prepared to modify the rolls myself if somebody still rolled an unplayable character. (The worst possible is 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11.) But it wasn't necessary. Everybody got something they were willing to play.

[2D8HP]

I assume with 1st edition you mean the classic bx/dnd

For some reason I'm bothered when folks dont know the history of Dungeons & Dragons, and I feel compelled to share the edition history of D&D.

Probably the first hobbyist wargame in english was:
Little Wars by H.G. Well in 1913


Which led to many others including:
Chainmail by Gygax & Perren in 1971


Dave Arneson used the Man to Man combat rules of Chainmail, created a role-playing game out of it and brought the idea to E. Gary Gygax who wrote:
Dungeons & Dragons by Arneson & Gygax in 1974


The Greyhawk supplement by Gygax & Kuntz in 1975

made it the playable game we recognize today, which led to the plain English translation of D&D (AKA "Basic") by Holmes in 1977, the sublime 48 pages of the "Basic" rules:


The '77 "Basic" rules only went to level 3, you were invited to use the older rules and supplements or the upcoming Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules:

1977 Brought the first of the "1e" AD&D book The Monster Manual


1978 the "1e" Players Handbook


1979 the Dungeon Masters Guide


1981 brought a new "Basic" rules:

which along with the "Expert" etc. rules cemented the seperation of "D&D" from "AD&D".

1983 saw another revision of "Basic" D&D:


1989 saw saw the revision of AD&D into "2e AD&D without the input of Gygax, who had been exiled from TSR.



1991 saw the last seperate "Basic" rules, the easy to learn "black box":

(there was a 1994 version called "Classic" that was identical to the '91 version except for the cover and title page).

1991 also brought the "Rules Cyclopedia":

which went from levels 1 to 36.
BTW the '91 rules were once know as the "fifth edition" see here.

2000 brought the first WotC version of D&D, which they decided to call "Third Edition"?

which was soon followed in

2003 with 3.5


2008 brought 4e:


2014 brought the mightily fun "5e".


Which to play?

I'd suggest the one that has Archers, Dragons, Magic, and Swords.

Your welcome.

[Mutazoia]

[Major snip]

Which to play?

I'd suggest the one that has Archers, Dragons, Magic, and Swords.

Your welcome.

Yes....thank you Brainy Smurf

[hamlet]

NP. My wife calls what I do "pedanting".

Your wife must have met my wife . . . I get yelled at mid-ruling some sessions to stop being a pedant and just get on with it.

I have played 1st Ed in the past and i am aware that classes are not equal. I am ok with that, what I am not fond of is that to some degree the dice determine what you can or can not play

Actually a little less of a problem than one suspects. There are provisions in the rules themselves as I recall that advise the DM with an unhappy player what to do. Plus, any reasonable DM is going to work with you on your character if you're flat out unhappy with what you've rolled. Seriously, talk to the DM like he's a reasonable human being and respectfully. You'd be utterly amazed at what that can get you.

[thorr-kan]

Plus, any reasonable DM is going to work with you on your character if you're flat out unhappy with what you've rolled. Seriously, talk to the DM like he's a reasonable human being and respectfully. You'd be utterly amazed at what that can get you.

Now that's just crazy talk. Reasonable discourse among adults? What is the Internet coming to?

I second hamlet's suggestion. Worst he can do is say no.

[Khedrac]

Your welcome.

While we are "pedanting" (or is that "being pedantic) that should be "you're welcome".

[2D8HP]

While we are "pedanting" (or is that "being pedantic) that should be "you're welcome".

It also should have been H. G. "Wells" not H. G. "Well".

Comme ci comme ça.

My favorites?
To play:
1) Original plus supplements, up to 1977'.
2) TSR "Basic".
3) 1e AD&D/WotC 5e (tie).


To DM:
1) 1977 "Basic".
2) WotC 5e "Basic" & "Starter".
3) 1e AD&D.
4) WotC 5e complete.

I probably will never DM 3.x or 4e.

[hamlet]

Now now, gentlemen, there's enough room in this thread for any number of pedants!

[Mutazoia]

Now now, gentlemen, there's enough room in this thread for any number of pedants!

But....according to the rules, you can only wear one pendant or necklace at a time!