AD&D Character Creation Rules for 5th Ed

[Safety Sword]

...why? I mean rolling for stats is a silly method of doing it in the first place, it ensures some players are permanently ahead of others for no good reason, but why would you reward them for having an unearned permanent advantage with an experience boost?

Classes had different numbers of experience points to gain levels too.

It was a mess, but I'm really fond of my Ranger with 18/87 Strength.. good times

[Knaight]

There is no answer to your question that you will accept. From all the posts you've made it's simply optimization > fun.

The dichotomy between optimization and fun is nonsense to begin with, and the idea that random generation is fun for people who don't favor optimization ludicrous - I don't favor optimization, but I do generally favor having some influence over what kind of character I play, particularly if the game is long running.

[Safety Sword]

The dichotomy between optimization and fun is nonsense to begin with, and the idea that random generation is fun for people who don't favor optimization ludicrous - I don't favor optimization, but I do generally favor having some influence over what kind of character I play, particularly if the game is long running.

I appreciate the choice people have now, the freedom to have a character concept first and realise that through character creation.

However, I loved the fact that you turned up on the day, rolled your scores and that shaped a character. It was fun just to get the party started.

My first character ever (the aforementioned Ranger) made it to retirement age. The campaign was epic, fun and I will always remember it. I think because I had no preconceived ideas of what roleplaying had to be I was open to everything. I think not knowing what your character was going to be was part of the wonder of it all.

But games are a little more sophisticated now. D&D is fun for people in different ways. And I think that is a great strength (18/00) of the whole thing.

[thepsyker]

I recommend to your DM that he use roll 4, choose 3. Even in 2nd edition that was an option.

That was method 1 in 1st edition as well. If memory, and a quick Google search, serves, it was:
1. 4D6 drop the lowest assign as desired.
2. Roll 3d6 12 times take the best 6 results assign as desired.
3. Roll 3d6 for each stat in order 6 times, pick the best roll for each stat.
4. Roll 12 stat blocks with 3d6 in order, pick the stat block you like best.
(Special)5. Only available to humans, pick class roll an appropriate number of dice for each attribute according to a chart, keep the three highest rolls. If you fail to meet a minimum stat requirement raise said stat to the minimum.

[Sudokori]

...why? I mean rolling for stats is a silly method of doing it in the first place, it ensures some players are permanently ahead of others for no good reason, but why would you reward them for having an unearned permanent advantage with an experience boost?

Really? I think you're thinking this from a stat wise stand-point instead of a logical standpoint. Okay so that experience boost of 10%? That's a trivial issue and is entirely waved by most slightly lenient DMs. And who cares if the cleric's wisdom score of 16 gives him 2 extra level 1 spells per day if all those spells are going to is get him two extra healing spells to make sure the party stays alive. The party's fighter with 17 strength? Plus 1 to hit and plus 2 damage with melee weapons, that's not going to make him too powerful that it ruins the fun. And besides, it isn't going to ruin anyone's day when the fighter uses the +2 damage to kill a dire displacer beast that was about to kill the party wizard who ran out of spells.

Stop looking at everything in DnD as if it was only a game of numbers and stats. The 16 Dex thief ain't gonna outshine your cleric when all he does is what his class is supposed to do, just slightly more successfully (16 DEX gives like a +5% on a few skill rolls and a +1 to AC).

[Oscredwin]

Really? I think you're thinking this from a stat wise stand-point instead of a logical standpoint. Okay so that experience boost of 10%? That's a trivial issue and is entirely waved by most slightly lenient DMs. And who cares if the cleric's wisdom score of 16 gives him 2 extra level 1 spells per day if all those spells are going to is get him two extra healing spells to make sure the party stays alive. The party's fighter with 17 strength? Plus 1 to hit and plus 2 damage with melee weapons, that's not going to make him too powerful that it ruins the fun. And besides, it isn't going to ruin anyone's day when the fighter uses the +2 damage to kill a dire displacer beast that was about to kill the party wizard who ran out of spells.

Stop looking at everything in DnD as if it was only a game of numbers and stats. The 16 Dex thief ain't gonna outshine your cleric when all he does is what his class is supposed to do, just slightly more successfully (16 DEX gives like a +5% on a few skill rolls and a +1 to AC).

In previous editions I've run into trouble when my finesse TWF with a 14 str, 16 dex, and 13 con (decent stats and I was happy with them) was sitting next to a rogue with 16 str, 18 dex, and 16 con. It's not always an issue of how high your main stat is, but if your secondary stats are comparable with my primary stat it does become "everything you can do I can do better."

[eastmabl]

With the usual character creation rules, your odds of qualifying for monk are 0.04%. That's 4 in 10,00.

So what you are saying is that not everyone was kung fu fighting, regardless of the elemental speed of their fists?

[Valefor Rathan]

So what you are saying is that not everyone was kung fu fighting, regardless of the elemental speed of their fists?

You're my favorite person on the forums today.

[KorbeltheReader]

See kids, this is why point buy > rolling for ability scores.

Personally, I think this particular house rule brings back 2 of the worst things about 2nd ed: rolling for scores and score limits/benchmarks for races and classes. And despite the nostalgia (don't get me wrong; I feel it too sometimes) there were a lot of really bad ideas in 2nd ed.

[Demonic Spoon]

I mentioned this in the analogous thread in the Homebrew forum, but, you could always use the standard array and create a point buy array, and then randomize which value goes in which attribute.

[randomodo]

As I get older, I have less patience for the randomization thing in character creation.

When I was in high school, with the ability to play a million hours each weekend, it was fine for me to just figure out a way to make it work with whatever random stats I rolled. Didn't much matter, since as a percentage of my total play time, I wasn't likely to have that character for a hugely long time.

As an adult, with a wife and kid and job and limited time to play, I'd like to play the kind of character that I want to play, not whatever the dice will allow me to play.

ymmv, of course. not saying the DM of the OP is wrong, I'm just saying I wouldn't want to play in his campaign.

[Thrudd]

In previous editions I've run into trouble when my finesse TWF with a 14 str, 16 dex, and 13 con (decent stats and I was happy with them) was sitting next to a rogue with 16 str, 18 dex, and 16 con. It's not always an issue of how high your main stat is, but if your secondary stats are comparable with my primary stat it does become "everything you can do I can do better."

Yeah, that's a problem with design of the classes in 3e and some earlier editions. Not giving fighters things that make them stick out and generally homogenizing rather than specializing the classes (giving the different classes access to too many of the same things), as well as having ability scores affect so many aspects of gameplay. In games with random scores, it makes more sense for the scores to have less impact than the choice of class. Pre 3e D&D editions were more along those lines, though still extremely high scores would make life a lot easier. Random scores are most appropriate when the bonuses and penalties from the scores are low and do not tie into too many aspects of gameplay. 3e and later are all about the ability scores, and it makes sense that people would feel that point buy or standard arrays are more appropriate and fair for those games.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, that's a problem with design of the classes in 3e and some earlier editions. Not giving fighters things that make them stick out and generally homogenizing rather than specializing the classes (giving the different classes access to too many of the same things), as well as having ability scores affect so many aspects of gameplay. In games with random scores, it makes more sense for the scores to have less impact than the choice of class. Pre 3e D&D editions were more along those lines, though still extremely high scores would make life a lot easier. Random scores are most appropriate when the bonuses and penalties from the scores are low and do not tie into too many aspects of gameplay. 3e and later are all about the ability scores, and it makes sense that people would feel that point buy or standard arrays are more appropriate and fair for those games.

Ability scores in 2nd edition were hugely important. Any wizard who rolled lower than 18 on Int could never, ever cast 9th level spells no matter how high he leveled. With a poor Int he might be restricted to 4th level spells. 5E is more lenient, which is probably a good thing overall for gameplay.

Correction: age eventually boosted your Int, so if you rolled 16 on In you'd have an 18 Int when you were a hundred years old.

[jkat718]

So what you are saying is that not everyone was kung fu fighting, regardless of the elemental speed of their fists?

May I sig this? It's fantastic.

[SiuiS]

Check out the older editions section, a playgrounder made a nifty AD&D character energy or which already incorporated all the rules.

[Thrudd]

Ability scores in 2nd edition were hugely important. Any wizard who rolled lower than 18 on Int could never, ever cast 9th level spells no matter how high he leveled. With a poor Int he might be restricted to 4th level spells. 5E is more lenient, which is probably a good thing overall for gameplay.

Correction: age eventually boosted your Int, so if you rolled 16 on In you'd have an 18 Int when you were a hundred years old.

I don't think it's really that big a deal. The chances that your character would ever reach the levels required for 9th level spells are pretty small. Getting 9th level spells would be a special and rare event, not something you expect when you start building your character. You also got spells randomly at character creation and in loot, and only get to choose one on each level. So a magic user's power is really dictated more by fate and how successful an adventurer they have been, rather than by their Int score. Even if their max spell level is four or five, if they have collected and learned enough spells they would still be pretty powerful, besides whatever magic items they will have accumulated
Yes, the lower the intelligence, the lower the level of spells they can cast. Another way AD&D is preferable for some to 3e, in which mid-high level wizard characters are generally regarded as being powerful enough that they break the game. I don't mind more leniency as long as the game addresses the potential rise in power in other ways. 5e does a better job than 3e at this.

[MaxWilson]

I don't think it's really that big a deal. The chances that your character would ever reach the levels required for 9th level spells are pretty small. Getting 9th level spells would be a special and rare event, not something you expect when you start building your character. You also got spells randomly at character creation and in loot, and only get to choose one on each level.

I don't remember you ever getting to choose spells on level-up at all. It's been a long time though.

The reason it's a big deal is because it makes you excited when you roll an 18 Int, because this is a potential archmage you're looking at! Even if he has Str 3 and Con 8, you're still excited and invested. And therefore you are all the more disappointed when he dies to a flowfiend in the phlogiston at level 4. Such is life.

Some people don't care about long-term potential, so YMMV.

Even if their max spell level is four or five, if they have collected and learned enough spells they would still be pretty powerful, besides whatever magic items they will have accumulated
Yes, the lower the intelligence, the lower the level of spells they can cast.

I know. One of my favorite NPCs was a 20th level wizard with an Int of 9. He was really, really good at casting the few spells that he knew.

4th and 5th level spells in AD&D2 were pretty awesome. Magic Jar for example, and Polymorph/Polymorph Self. One of my pet peeves was people underestimating spells because they weren't 9th level awesomeness.

[Person_Man]

Ability scores in 2nd edition were hugely important. Any wizard who rolled lower than 18 on Int could never, ever cast 9th level spells no matter how high he leveled. With a poor Int he might be restricted to 4th level spells. 5E is more lenient, which is probably a good thing overall for gameplay.

Correction: age eventually boosted your Int, so if you rolled 16 on In you'd have an 18 Int when you were a hundred years old.

Minor quibble: There were also magic items in one of the splat books that set your Intelligence higher, similar to the Gauntlets of Ogre Strength/Girdle of Giants Strength in the 2E DMG. Also, most Ability Scores didn't provide you with a bonus or penalty to anything important unless you had ability scores higher then 15 or lower then 8. So while having a high Ability Score could be really potent, most players ended up with most of their Ability Scores being mediocre (ie, few bonuses or penalties) to most things most of the time.

In general, you're correct though. You're not playing a 2E Wizard unless you can get Intelligence 18ish somehow or the other, a Thief without high Dex, etc. If you rolled poorly across the board, you played a mediocre Fighter and hoped to be killed.

[Sudokori]

In general, you're correct though. You're not playing a 2E Wizard unless you can get Intelligence 18ish somehow or the other, a Thief without high Dex, etc. If you rolled poorly across the board, you played a mediocre Fighter and hoped to be killed.

Or you could just, you know, re-roll your stats? Any good Dm will see that the player won't have fun and will try to get killed at the earliest opportunity, generally ruining the RP aspect of the game for everyone. There's a house rule at my table that if none of your ability scores are at least a 16 or higher then you either get a 16 in the desired stat or you rolled two stats again. There was no "oh I got nothing higher than a 12, I'll play a fighter and jump off a cliff" nonsense. And having 16 as a highest stat ain't bad. I once had a fighter with a stat set something like 16,10,9,9,12,11 and I still kicked ass and had fun.

[Eslin]

Yeah, that's a problem with design of the classes in 3e and some earlier editions. Not giving fighters things that make them stick out and generally homogenizing rather than specializing the classes (giving the different classes access to too many of the same things), as well as having ability scores affect so many aspects of gameplay. In games with random scores, it makes more sense for the scores to have less impact than the choice of class. Pre 3e D&D editions were more along those lines, though still extremely high scores would make life a lot easier. Random scores are most appropriate when the bonuses and penalties from the scores are low and do not tie into too many aspects of gameplay. 3e and later are all about the ability scores, and it makes sense that people would feel that point buy or standard arrays are more appropriate and fair for those games.

Huh, that explains a lot. I'd wondered why so many older players thought rolling for stats was a good idea, hadn't realised that the amount they affected had increased.

[Raxxius]

Huh, that explains a lot. I'd wondered why so many older players thought rolling for stats was a good idea, hadn't realised that the amount they affected had increased.

Oh yeah it was a huge change going from 2nd to 3rd in terms of stats arrays.

A fighter with a str of 17 had a mere +1 to hit and damage, it wasn't until you had a warrior with 18 str where he could roll percentile damage, and even then the chances of getting a really game changing numbers were small.

Cons hp bonus was limited to +2 for non warrior classes (Fighter Paladin Ranger) giving them a edge

You needed at least 15 in a stat before you saw mechanical gain in any stat (not quite true for Cha, but that was a real dump stat for most classes), this was rare in 3d6 rolls and you almost always had negative stat modifiers.

Wizards were also clipped not only by never being able to learn spells (although truth be told there are numerous ways to improve your int score, only the uncreative would be stuck) but also by having max numbers of spells they could learn per level and % fail chance to learn a spell. It was more a suck it and see and less a 'shop around for the broken combos'.

What stat rolling did was give you really unique characters who were defined in part by their stats, not purely by the fluff. With homogenization of stats and stat arrays the roll system is less useful.

[eastmabl]

May I sig this? It's fantastic.

Be my guest.

[eastmabl]

What stat rolling did was give you really unique characters who were defined in part by their stats, not purely by the fluff. With homogenization of stats and stat arrays the roll system is less useful.

I will second this, at least from a 3rd edition standpoint. My favorite characters didn't have the greatest stats, but often had the 6, 7 or 8 that for through rolling. You'd put it into your dump stat, but then it felt like your dump stat meant something.

The blackguard with 6 Dex. The wizard with 7 strength. These are things you don't get with point buy.

Would I go back? I don't think so. But do I remember it with a faint glimmer in my eye? Yep.

[Knaight]

I will second this, at least from a 3rd edition standpoint. My favorite characters didn't have the greatest stats, but often had the 6, 7 or 8 that for through rolling. You'd put it into your dump stat, but then it felt like your dump stat meant something.

The blackguard with 6 Dex. The wizard with 7 strength. These are things you don't get with point buy.

You don't get them with the point buy systems currently in use, but that's hardly an argument for rolling. Plenty of other point buy systems allow them and can be imported in easily.

[MaxWilson]

I will second this, at least from a 3rd edition standpoint. My favorite characters didn't have the greatest stats, but often had the 6, 7 or 8 that for through rolling. You'd put it into your dump stat, but then it felt like your dump stat meant something.

The blackguard with 6 Dex. The wizard with 7 strength. These are things you don't get with point buy.

Would I go back? I don't think so. But do I remember it with a faint glimmer in my eye? Yep.

Even more interesting than having a low dump stat is having your highest ability in something other than your primary stat. E.g. the wizard with 17 STR and 16 INT. Point-buy will give you dump stats, but it will never, ever give you a character who spends a 17 in the "wrong" place. In fact, this isn't just restricted to primary stats--in 5E, you'll never even see a wizard who has a STR higher than his CON (STR 13, CON 9, INT 16: a wizard built like an aging wrestler gone to fat).

In some ways that's a good thing, but if you start to feel like all 5E wizards are the same, moving to rolled stats is one way to do it. A highly-recommended method is 4d6 drop 1, in order. Then optionally pick one of your stats and reroll it once (must keep the new result). Finally, swap any two stats.

Example: let's say I roll

15 15 12 14 17 9

Let's say I want to be a monk. I've already got a 17 in Wisdom, and a 15 in Dexterity, so I probably don't want to risk rerolling either of those. I decide to reroll my Charisma. 10 is the result. If I had gotten something higher than 12 I would have swapped Con (12) with Charisma (>12), but instead I'll leave Charisma as-is and swap it Con and Str. Final result:

ST 12 DX 15 CN 15 IN 14 WS 17 CH 9

Tada! An unusually-brawny and -brainy monk.

[Knaight]

Even more interesting than having a low dump stat is having your highest ability in something other than your primary stat. E.g. the wizard with 17 STR and 16 INT. Point-buy will give you dump stats, but it will never, ever give you a character who spends a 17 in the "wrong" place. In fact, this isn't just restricted to primary stats--in 5E, you'll never even see a wizard who has a STR higher than his CON (STR 13, CON 9, INT 16: a wizard built like an aging wrestler gone to fat).

This sort of thing comes up fairly frequently when people start with a more esoteric concept. Maybe that's a quirk of my group (it has come up in a number of different games, such as the player who made a pilot with lousy piloting skill, an amazing bluff skill, and a copy of "Spaceship Piloting for Dummies"), but I doubt it's anywhere near unique to it.

[Shadow]

Yeah, the system change in the way that stats work from 3e onward makes it so that point buy is absolutely superior in my opinion. But I really really do miss the days when you gor great rolls for the class you wanted to make, but your dump stat was tanked beyond belief and you RPd that to the hilt. That doesn't happen anymore.

Drax the Destroyer and his too literal, no metaphor nature? My buddy had an horrible wisdom score on a fighter and basically played Drax in a campaign about twenty years ago, to give you an example.

[Raxxius]

Another thing to remember about 1st and 2nd ed is they weren't remotely fair, nor did they even try to be. Stats don't mean a lot when you're a dice roll from death regardless.

Survival rates with a RAW DM were atrocious at most levels; with the chunk of the game being set around low levels purely due to the chances being you'd get dead. Magic had a tendency to horribly screw you over if you miss used it, and some spells had serious costs making for interesting desperate power moments. The whole game really had a different 'sword and sorcery' feel which pitched you vs the odds and no kid gloves. Quirkiness of characters and personnel flaws related in stats added to that rawness of the era.

One character I remember most was a wizard with just above average int (13 or 14) and a terrible con score (6). He became a sickly albino necromancer looking at ways of cheating death and becoming more than he was given by life. The pure drive of the character was amazing, yearning towards improving his int by dark arts/ion stones, before finally ascending to lichdom. Yes he wasn't a nice character, but his evilness was totally believable. The character was great because he wasn't going to get his 9th level spells just because, he was going to have to sacrifice and earn for that. You simply can't get that in the later versions because everything is distilled down.

I'm not saying new versions are bad, but the concept from 3 on-wards is very much 'you should get through this', compared to 'have a few character concepts in your head... just incase'.

Point buy is better for this edition, unless you plan on doing a throwback. At which point; MORE MEAT FOR GRINDER!

[Safety Sword]

One character I remember most was a wizard with just above average int (13 or 14) and a terrible con score (6). He became a sickly albino necromancer looking at ways of cheating death and becoming more than he was given by life. The pure drive of the character was amazing, yearning towards improving his int by dark arts/ion stones, before finally ascending to lichdom. Yes he wasn't a nice character, but his evilness was totally believable. The character was great because he wasn't going to get his 9th level spells just because, he was going to have to sacrifice and earn for that. You simply can't get that in the later versions because everything is distilled down.

Except for the average intelligence bit, it's a Raistlin thing.

If you don't know what I'm talking about then please (please, please, please, please) get your hands on the Dragonlance Chronicles series and read on through.

Spoiler: The events in the books were largely written after the roleplaying experiences of the writers. It is amazing to think that they played that story through.

[MaxWilson]

Another thing to remember about 1st and 2nd ed is they weren't remotely fair, nor did they even try to be. Stats don't mean a lot when you're a dice roll from death regardless.

Especially when death is permanent. In 5E you can bring someone back from the dead with a 3rd level spell, as many times as you want. In AD&D Resurrection/Raise Dead spells weren't guaranteed to work, cost you 1 permanent point of Constitution (and therefore could only be used a finite number of times), and Raise Dead didn't work at all on elves. Raising someone from the dead without the Con drain required a Wish spell, which aged the caster 5 years permanently.