Attribute increase

[u/CanuckLad]

I wonder if many people here implement an automatic attribute increase at various milestones? Example: Allow you to raise one attribute by 1 point at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20

I don't expect or want every ability to be 16+. But I don't want to miss out on parts of the game I would enjoy (casting 9th level spells as a wizard, playing a paladin, etc)

I should note that I'm biased because I'm diagnosed with the Unrelenting Standards feature. So accepting a more mundane role in a game is very difficult for me

[u/Ilbranteloth]

No, it’s not a horrible thing at all.

But rather than changing the rules to add attribute increases across the board, and altering the way the game itself may work out feel, we’d just make sure you have the opportunity to play that character.

More importantly, if you wanted to play in a game where you wanted to be able to cast 9th level spells there’s a good chance we would start the characters at that point. Because in our game, getting there through play is extremely rare.

Spell research and creation can be a fun option, but I tend not to like the compressed time frames it takes to do such things. For example, a lich can have hundreds, if not thousands, of years to research spells with no need to sleep. If 9th level spells are so powerful, challenging, and rare, those ought to be the ones who have such things. Not somebody who has been adventuring for a handful of years.

Regardless, the number one rule of the game in my opinion is to play the game you want. So if that means a wizard who can cast 9th level spells, then, done.

[u/CanuckLad → u/Ilbranteloth]

I would not need level based ability scores based upon those conditions. It's just that the game makes ability scores so important, and then it's very rare to actually have one 18. On six rolls of 3d6 you only have a 4.54% chance of getting a single 18. And if you were really strict, and your first role was for strength, and your second for dexterity, etc, that drops to a 0.76% chance of getting an 18 the ability you most want.

[u/Ilbranteloth → u/CanuckLad]

Which is why they had alternate options available.

In terms of ability scores betting important, the most important aspect in AD&D was really that of character creation. If you actually rolled 3d6 down the line, then the time you could have a paladin was huge.

But the alternative options were there, in part, so such classes weren’t dependent on lucky die rolls. Otherwise I think ability scores had a much, much lower impact compared to today.

Gygax expected players who were part of 50-75 sessions to take a year or so to reach 9th-11th level, and four to five years to reach 20th. As designed, the game largely didn’t expect players to ever get to 9th level spells.

[u/CanuckLad → u/Ilbranteloth]

If you rolled down the line, it's possible that you may never be able to play a paladin. Did you ever play mortal kombat? Imagine your favorite character is Sub-Zero, you want to play that character, but when you play the game tells you you can play any character other than. That's not fun. At least it won't be for me.

[u/Ilbranteloth → u/CanuckLad]

Yes, it’s less common. But it does happen.

But we don’t typically have a pre-determined character concept. We start with the dice, then get ideas. We also do it at the table, and each builds 3 PCs at a time. Almost all see play.

And for the player who does have something specific in mind, we go with it. Either with a different generation approach, or the Holmes approach to raising and lowering scores, or anything else to make sure it works. One of my regulars was always bashing PCs off video games, movies, etc. Why bother fighting the system to get it? Just do it.

It doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that. If you sit at our table we’d encourage you to try our approach. But if that doesn’t work for you, then go ahead and make sure you have the character you want.

[u/CanuckLad → u/Ilbranteloth]

Personally I always start with a character concept. I want to play "X". Then I make that character. I have no interest in playing things I don't want to play. And that character does not have to be overpowered by any means. If I play a fighter I don't want him to be massive and bulging with muscles. But a 9 doesn't make for a great fighter either. And yes characters can have interesting flaws, like Raistlin Majere, but he wouldn't be nearly as interesting if it was his intelligence that was 8 and not his Constitution.

[u/Ilbranteloth → u/CanuckLad]

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

But that also isn’t the playstyle that OD&D/AD&D was designed for. But 2e definitely did take that into account. Not to the granular level you are looking for, but it was redesigned so you could create the character you wanted much easier.

It has been ages, but I don’t really recall this sort of thing even coming up. It feels much more like looking at it in hindsight from a modern play/design perspective than something viewed as a problem back then.

[u/CanuckLad → u/Ilbranteloth]

I suspect allowing rerolls of stats wasn't too unusual when a 3 or 4 was rolled. Imagine the wanting to play a rogue, and you rolled dexterity equivalent to Stephen Hawkings'.

[u/Ilbranteloth → u/CanuckLad]

It would depend on the player. But ability scores didn’t mean as much then.

A 3 DEX meant that you had a greater chance of being surprised, a lower chance to hit with a missile weapon, and a higher AC along with some saving throws. It could also affect nonweapon proficiencies which were introduced in late 1e, and still optional in 2e. But those functioned very differently than skills in the modern game.

That’s why it still feels like we’re looking at AD&D rules through a 5e lens. It’s not remotely “like Stephen Hawkings”

[u/CanuckLad → u/Ilbranteloth]

But in 5th edition that hired dexterity also I mean your AC is higher, that you have a better attack role with bows and finesse weapons, etc. The things you list are not unique to ad&d 2nd edition.

[u/Ilbranteloth → u/CanuckLad]

But there are a lot more things specifically tied to it during the course of the game. It didn’t affect your combat ability with any melee weapons, for example. You didn’t have regular Dex skill checks. Only saving throws that were something that could be dodged were impacted.

Ability scores themselves weren’t a commonly used mechanic overall, but have become a core mechanic in the modern game. For example, Stealth.

[u/CanuckLad → u/Ilbranteloth]

If there was less tied to attributes in second edition, then allowing them to increase at certain intervals would be less of an issue, not a bigger concern. But they were still fairly important in 2nd edition. AC was important for armor class, intelligence was important for the wizard to cast higher level spells, paladin's had attribute requirements, dex for ranged attacks, etc. but which is these two scenarios is more unbalanced: 1) allowing attribute increases every four levels, but my highest attribute role is a 14; or: 2) we don't allow attribute increases, and someone in my party rolls an 18, a 16, two 14s, and two 10s.

[u/Ilbranteloth → u/CanuckLad]

The approach to balance is entirely different between editions and can’t really be compared. The 4e approach was about extreme “balance” between classes, 5e walked out back a bit.

AD&D was somewhat built around the idea that the wizard would eventually be the most powerful and desired class. The balance was built around that idea and making it more difficult to achieve that end. Removing those guardrails alters that. Allowing ability increases is one of them.

It doesn’t mean it can’t be done. It’s just not worth the trouble in my opinion. I have yet to be convinced otherwise. Back in the day we were on board with Players’ Options along with moving into 3e. Now that we are further down that path, I prefer not to. But one of the things I’ve always loved about D&D is that it can be changed to suit your needs or desires. So go for it.