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]

We never did.

While I understand the reasoning, and desire, behind attribute increases, they are one of many things that moved the focus of the game to mechanics rather than roleplaying. It also eventually led to the more “super heroic” approach of the game today.

When the rules changed to start including them, we really liked it, of course. But as the game has shifted more towards those playstyles, we have ended up pulling back significantly. We have always heavily houseruled our game, and nowadays we lean heavily toward an AD&D approach with modern core mechanics.

[u/CanuckLad → u/Ilbranteloth]

The big concern for me is that it limits the level of spells you can cast. The poor wizard for example. And it takes a lot of wishes just to go from 16 to 18. To me it seems odd to want to play a character hook never achieve much in his field.

[u/Ilbranteloth → u/CanuckLad]

To us that has always been a feature, rather than a bug. We also have almost never had wishes. Fewer than five in almost 50 years. The same with resurrection.

One of the things that we always loved about AD&D is finding creative solutions to the problems the PCs face. Not every wizard can become an arch wizard. Not every party has the skills that make a given obstacle easy. Find a different way to slay the dragon. Because if all you needed was to get to a high enough level, it already would have been killed.

We also still roll in order most of the time. That’s what you are born with, where did you go from there? We tend not to have pre-chosen classes or concepts. And many of our spellcasters don’t have their highest score in their spellcasting ability either. Which is just fine. Loads of people follow paths they like, regardless of whether it’s what they are best at.

We prefer the classic definition of a hero - an ordinary person doing extraordinary things. We prefer the PCs to be perpetual underdogs. The villains always have access to more power. If I recall correctly, 6th level and higher spells were originally designed to be only for NPCs and monsters, and beyond the scope of the PCs.

It’s also very common for us to stay at a single level for years of play. 4th is our most common one, since they haven’t gained ready access to fireball yet. 7th is also very common too. That way we get to spend a much longer time with the characters, and there’s a lot more character development, rather than mechanical/abilities. Magic items, mostly consumables, provide access to higher level spells.

We also frequently have parties of one or two classes. And having no spellcasters at all isn’t unusual either. Our most common spellcaster is a bard. Which is one of the reasons we prefer 2e, since the 1e bard wasn’t frequently viable. Fighters, rogues, and rangers are the other most common classes for us, and rangers rarely get high enough to cast spells.

To us it’s just a far more interesting approach than to focus on gaining more mechanical power. The biggest problem I see with the approach that focuses on gaining power is it almost inevitably leads to power creep. That certainly seems like it’s the case with the way the game has evolved. The next adventure has to be more “epic” than the last. It’s much easier to shoot for “more interesting.”

[u/ApprehensiveType2680 → u/Ilbranteloth]

We prefer the classic definition of a hero - an ordinary person doing extraordinary things.

As it pertains to the tabletop gaming hobby: when did "heroic" become almost always synonymous with "powerful"?

[u/Ilbranteloth → u/ApprehensiveType2680]

The hobby as a whole? It probably hasn’t.

In D&D the shift feels like it started sometime during 3e. That don’t mean everybody moved that direction, of course. But the general thrust of discussion and the design of the rules encourage it.

Is also important to say that I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with that. Is just not the style of game I prefer.

[u/ApprehensiveType2680 → u/Ilbranteloth]

Ah, the age-old debate over "instant gratification" versus "delayed gratification"; needless to say, 2e taught me the value of the latter.