The Purpose of Class Stat Prerequisites

[bexley]

I have never really used or understood them. So, I was hoping some of the older guys here could catch me up. What was the purpose of Stat Prerequisites? Is this just a design tool to avoid useless characters?

[waysoftheearth]

OD&D doesn't have them.

[Finarvyn]

Actually, the Paladin from Supplement II Greyhawk does. It requires a 17 charisma.

I assume that the design purpose of those in AD&D is to help guide players into whatever class makes more sense for their attribute numbers. OD&D has very few attribute bonuses, at least in the white box version, and so having prerequisite stats in order to follow a class doesn't make much sense.

The Greyhawk attribute chart changes make this more useful, I suppose, as some classes get huge advantages for good stats. Fighters, for example, get great bonuses for high strength so having a magic-user with high strength is mostly a waste of a good die roll.

[waysoftheearth]

Ah, that old chestnut. I don't use Greyhawk for much (other than a couple of monsters), so I'd completely forgotten about ye olde paladin

[bexley]

That makes sense. Thanks, greatly appreciated.

[scottyg]

Gary was big on archetypes and heroic characters. It was just a way of steering PCs into the heroic archetype molds he had in mind.

[Deleted]

Stat reqs serve to limit classes that should be extremely rare, like the paladin.

[inkmeister]

Yeah, OD&D LBB's don't have the pre-req's. Another question might be: why have abilities? Why did they include them? Through the lens of more recent game designs, including AD&D or B/X classic D&D, it seems weird that OD&D's abilities don't "do more" in any quantified sense. The design seems a little backwards to me, also. The design suggests that you should roll stats to find out what you are; a high int points to wizard, or high str points to fighter. But why not assume that if you are a fighter, you are probably strong? Or if you are a wizard type, that you are smart? The obvious response is "yeah, but some wizards are smarter than others, and some fighters are stronger than others." But I feel like the plain old level/to-hit bonus models that already. Higher level fighters are stronger, and if not stronger, they are more agile and skillful. That level of abstractness can accommodate a lot of different concepts and be simultaneously more realistic. Going the other way, having ability scores, the tendency is to want them to mean something (in a quantified game sense). A lot of work goes into rationalizing them and also extrapolating from them, and the result are things like the pre-req's you mention.

[Deleted]

To be fair, OD&D does use the term "Prime Requisite". That certainly sounds like they are required!

The one advantage I can see to a minimum stat for the classes is that without them, players will generally pick the class for what ever stat they rolled that was the highest from among the PRs. So fighters, clerics, magic-users and thieves (if you use them) will all have the same chance to be rolled up. This implies a world where magic-users are as common as fighters.

I don't think that's why they were added. It looks like one of those things where Gary pondered how a real-world would work. Naturally, a wizard isn't going to train an apprentice who doesn't have that aptitude (i.e. Int) so character can never become magic-users. It's the kind of thinking that added all those spell range and duration based on caster level. It doesn't add much besides complexity yet it makes a certain sense that higher level wizards would be able to cast their spells further so that's what the rules represent. More of a world-first based game design rather than character-first or play-first.

Aug 22, 2013 17:02:32 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Through the lens of more recent game designs, including AD&D or B/X classic D&D, it seems weird that OD&D's abilities don't "do more" in any quantified sense. The design seems a little backwards to me, also.

This is another example of world-based (naturalistic) design. Characters have ability scores because people are different. In some respects, rolling up a character in D&D is similar to other game's life-path systems, they are born (roll up ability scores), then they try and find training in a class (minimum ability scores), then they graduate from training (roll for gold), leave for the town to buy their gear then head out to the dungeon.

From reading history of the old game, I see references to rolling against ability scores. I think this is one of those common rules that never made it into the books. There were already variants of this idea published in Dragon #1.

[Red Baron]

Aug 22, 2013 17:02:32 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Another question might be: why have abilities? Why did they include them?

Don't.

Abilities are restrictive, detract from roleplaying as they force players to act in ways they wouldn't, and add meaningless complexity to the game.

[inkmeister]

Nice provocative statement there, RedBaron! Cool. I basically agree with you. Do you ignore ability scores in your game? My next game I'm running is going to be without them. I've gone with and without before. At this moment, your statement pretty much sums up my feelings on them.

[geoffrey]

In my AD&D days, we used class stat prerequisites only because we didn't know any better. But even then, we never disallowed anyone from making his PC a class because of low stats: "You want to be an illusionist? Your dexterity is too low. Bump it up to 16."

I have three rpgs on my shelf:
1. OD&D
2. Castles & Crusades
3. Lamentations of the Flame Princess

I like the fact that none of them uses class stat prerequisites.

[Red Baron]

Rolling up a character:

Roll 1d6 -- congratulations that's your level.

Now venture forth and find a few character defining artifacts and spells and do a few momentous, character defining deeds... or die a painful death and hope jim the elf will be more successful than recently deceased fighting man joe was.

[Falconer]

At the start of a campaign (not a one-shot), I make each player roll up a “stable” of 12 characters — in order. He or she then has the choice of which one to play at any given time. One might, for example, stick with the same character all the time (till it dies), or alternate between two characters, or whatever. This policy, I feel, makes a lot of sense for old school play. It makes level limits less onerous (so you “completed” that character — congrats! — you’ve got others to work up). So, if you’re looking over the stable, you’re naturally going to look at them and think, “that one would make a good MU … ooh, this one can be a Ranger …”

[Ghul]

Aug 23, 2013 21:13:15 GMT -6 Falconer said:

At the start of a campaign (not a one-shot), I make each player roll up a “stable” of 12 characters — in order. He or she then has the choice of which one to play at any given time. One might, for example, stick with the same character all the time (till it dies), or alternate between two characters, or whatever. This policy, I feel, makes a lot of sense for old school play. It makes level limits less onerous (so you “completed” that character — congrats! — you’ve got others to work up). So, if you’re looking over the stable, you’re naturally going to look at them and think, “that one would make a good MU … ooh, this one can be a Ranger …”

I love this idea. I don't think I'd take it as far as 12. Maybe half that, actually, but it's a pretty awesome way to go about things. My players almost always have at least three or four characters at a time, but it is rare for any of them (the players) to have more than one character in a given situation (adventure). But I never thought of having them roll up all those characters at once. Thanks, Falc.

[Falconer]

Thanks, Jeff. It’s my spin on the DMG Method IV, that’s why it’s 12 characters. I just don’t have them discard the other 11.

[Deleted]

Aug 23, 2013 14:48:58 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

Aug 22, 2013 17:02:32 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Another question might be: why have abilities? Why did they include them?

Don't.

Abilities are restrictive, detract from roleplaying as they force players to act in ways they wouldn't, and add meaningless complexity to the game.

Oh waah waah waah. Here, you're a zillionth level everything. Happy?

[tec97]

Aug 25, 2013 19:55:52 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Thanks, Jeff. It’s my spin on the DMG Method IV, that’s why it’s 12 characters. I just don’t have them discard the other 11.

Method IV is my personal favorite, however I only get about 2-3 characters that I consider playable when I use this...

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 22, 2013 17:02:32 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Another question might be: why have abilities? Why did they include them?

Ability scores can be useful in OD&D as a descriptive, rather than a prescriptive, mechanism.

(See, for example, the bit of ramble I wrote about ability scores here).

[inkmeister]

Mike, you don't have to be rude about it. I, for one, think RedBaron is on to something, and I don't at all think it has anything to do with wanting everyone to be "zillionth level" in everything, or have a very easy game, or whatever. Why not actually engage with what he's saying if you are going to participate at all?

Ways, your write up in the DD thread was awesome. It's a really good way to look at things if you are going to use the ability scores. At the moment I am interested in the value of not using them:
1) simplifies the game; among other things, no more worrying about what a particular ability means or ought to mean.
2) addresses one of the major aspects of power gaming/munchkinism
3) addresses players who feel disappointed in playing a "crappy" character
4) frees players to create exactly the types of characters they want
5) frees players to imagine their character however they want
6) in being more abstract, allows a variety of characters to be equally good but in different ways. For example, strength may make one a more effective fighter, but so might agility or wisdom or intelligence.
7) lets the level/AC/HP/to hit progressions model character attributes, albeit more abstractly, so that one might even imagine becoming stronger or more agile or more intelligent as they level up, rather than being "stuck" with static abilities that may suck for the rest of the character's lifetime.
8) balances the game by eliminating random bonuses; instead, discrepancy in levels accounts for difference in abilities.
EDIT:
9) Gets rid of the weirdness of having mental stats that are probably better handled by player skill/roleplaying.

[Deleted]

Inkmeister, (may I call you Inky? I promise not to call you Inky Dinky Doo...)

We're talking OD&D here; stats are ALMOST meaningless. CON gives you a better chance to survive, DEX is nice...

but a STR 9 fighter and a STR 18 fighter are almost identical except for a 10% XP bonus. Later on that changes, but this is the ODD74 board, not the 3.5 board. Even the STR percentile table in Greyhawk doesn't change it that much.

The random stat rolls are so that every character isn't perfect, and to enable the game of "I wonder what I'm going to roll." Yes, that's right. A significant minority... a minority, granted, but a significant one... actually enjoy the game of "I'm going to roll 3d6 in order 6 times and see what kind of character I get." Over the years we have had immense fun with this, including a LOT of "I never would have thought of playing this class, but it's kind of neat."

And if somebody really, really, truly wants to play something, the OD&D rules allow a bit of swapping.

Most of the things you refer to just plain don't apply in OD&D, period. They might apply in later versions, I couldn't say; but they don't apply in OD&D, and this is an OD&D board.

[Falconer]

This thread probably should have been moved to the “Other Editions” forum, it’s true.
That still doesn’t explain the “zillionth level” remark.

[Necropraxis]

I greatly appreciate that 3 LBB stats don't provide lots of bonuses or penalties, as that keeps the numbers simple and helps restrain numerical inflation (which starts to creep in even with the B/X range of -3 to +3).

Like Ways, I also tend to see the 6 stats as a form of personality profile. While not limiting, they can help players differentiate characters beyond the basic archetype (like, strong charismatic clumsy magic-user rather than just magic-user). I really enjoy seeing classes played against type (or at least idiosyncratically), too; a magic-user with an intelligence of 6 seems like a great opportunity for an interesting character to me (maybe the PC doesn't even cast the spells herself, but is possessed by a demon that takes over when the spell casting happens or something like that).

I also personally often call for "d20 less than or equal" ability checks for resolving various actions (including opposed ability checks for things like grappling), which gives some mechanical weight to the scores without overemphasizing them in combat.

[inkmeister]

Yes Mike, you may call me Inky (I've used that name elsewhere - I actually prefer it, as it is the name of one of the ghosts from Pac Man).

I see what you are saying Mike, and I appreciate the more substantive reply here.

Upfront, I do appreciate the mini-game of stat generation. I've done it that way many times and I do see its merits. I have no problem by being surprised by what I get. My players haven't really minded it either. But it's certainly not the only way.

I would argue that most of my 9 points apply to one degree or another to OD&D, and are relevant. This is an OD&D forum, but that allows for celebrating the rules as written, discussing them, and critiquing them. I think all of us feel both in love with the rules and also critical of them in one way or another. Your own changes that you've made in your personal games and advocated for even in the official rules indicate this tendency. You don't have to play the game 100% by the book to be playing D&D, and the books even tells us this.

I think the abilities do present a problem. People to this very day still try to work out what they mean or should mean. That's fine to do if you enjoy doing that, and I think a lot of people enjoy that, but it's not really necessary. The main rules of the game don't really have anything to do with ability scores, so ability scores are largely superfluous. The fact that they are there complicates the game. Every edition has changed what they mean, usually adding more mechanical weight in terms of bonuses, penalties, pre-req's, etc. While some people enjoy interpreting the scores, others undoubtedly would prefer to just imagine their character and just get on with the game. This has nothing to do with power-gaming, since without ability scores, there is less there to power-game with. It's really just about stream-lining and allowing imagination a greater role in defining a character. I'm a fan of this approach because I think it is also inherently more realistic. People do get stronger, faster, smarter as they hone their skills and abilities. The level mechanic takes this into account. Static ability scores do not. And some warriors excel because of their cunning and nimbleness, whereas others excel more through brute strength. Ability scores won't tend to take this into account whereas, again, the more abstract leveling mechanic does.

I honestly see this as somewhat analogous to the variable weapon damage debate that was had recently. Abstract can end up being more realistic, balanced, and allowing for greater use of the imagination.

Again though, I've played with ability scores, and I think they are fine; I have no interest in criticizing those who enjoy using them. At the moment, I can see value in dropping them. As a fan and critic of OD&D, I have to wonder why they were included. I don't think they are necessarily a solid fit for the game.

[Stormcrow]

If abilities are superfluous, then their inclusion does not complicate the game, because you're not using them. Therefore there's no downside to letting players roll for them.

I think the objection is simply one of aesthetics, not wanting to see something on a character sheet that has no mechanical effect.

[Deleted]

Aug 26, 2013 10:26:19 GMT -6 Falconer said:

This thread probably should have been moved to the “Other Editions” forum, it’s true.
That still doesn’t explain the “zillionth level” remark.

Insufficient fiber.

[Red Baron]

Aug 25, 2013 20:38:01 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Aug 23, 2013 14:48:58 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

Don't.

Abilities are restrictive, detract from roleplaying as they force players to act in ways they wouldn't, and add meaningless complexity to the game.

Oh waah waah waah. Here, you're a zillionth level everything. Happy?

I meant that abilities bother me from a roleplaying perspective, not from one involving game mechanics. I don't like the idea of a player feeling that he should repress his innovative way to tackle a problem because his hobbit is "to foolish" to come up such an idea since he only rolled a seven for intelligence, or preventing a magician from charging boldly into a fray because his character is "to wise" to act so rashly.

Removing abilities allows a character to be defined by his wits, actions, and roleplaying, not a set of random numbers.

[scottenkainen]

I'll weigh in too.

>I'm a fan of this approach because I think it is also inherently more realistic. People do get stronger, faster, smarter as they hone their skills and abilities. The level mechanic takes this into account. Static ability scores do not.< [snipped]

But, if you think of ability scores as subjective standards, then level can already be taken into account. A 1st level Fighter with a 15 STR is stronger than a 1st level Fighter with a 13 STR and can be described as such. A 2nd level Fighter with a 13 STR, though, might be better than a 1st level Fighter with a 15 STR because he's so much more experienced.

I think this is the real value of ability scores in OD&D -- others have suggested it is for players to help visualize their characters, but I think they are better tools for the DM instead, helping him craft his flavor text. Like, "Brom the Fighter was a strong man, or thought he was. He threw down with Gerrond the Warrior in the common room for some old-fashioned brawling, but despite Gerrond appearing scrawnier, Brom quickly found that his strength was no match for Gerrond's superior use of his strength."

>I don't like the idea of a player feeling that he should repress his innovative way to tackle a problem because his hobbit is "to foolish" to come up such an idea since he only rolled a seven for intelligence, or preventing a magician from charging boldly into a fray because his character is "to wise" to act so rashly.< [snipped]

And I would suggest that, if your players can let go of competitiveness and enjoy D&D as cooperative game play, then the hobbit's player could come up with a great idea, discuss it with the party, and they could agree that it was the cleric in the party who actually made the suggestion.

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[zeraser]

Aug 26, 2013 13:50:21 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

I think the objection is simply one of aesthetics, not wanting to see something on a character sheet that has no mechanical effect.

I can see that - and it reminds me of the utility of ability scores in character creation as a spur to imagination. Those six numbers between 3 and 18 can be very suggestive of what sort of character to play if the player doesn't already have a solid idea. (Having said that, if the player does have a solid idea, I wouldn't want to tell her to abandon it on account of rolled ability scores!)

[daniel]

Aug 26, 2013 10:18:59 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Inkmeister, (may I call you Inky? I promise not to call you Inky Dinky Doo...)

We're talking OD&D here; stats are ALMOST meaningless. CON gives you a better chance to survive, DEX is nice...

but a STR 9 fighter and a STR 18 fighter are almost identical except for a 10% XP bonus. Later on that changes, but this is the ODD74 board, not the 3.5 board. Even the STR percentile table in Greyhawk doesn't change it that much.

The random stat rolls are so that every character isn't perfect, and to enable the game of "I wonder what I'm going to roll." Yes, that's right. A significant minority... a minority, granted, but a significant one... actually enjoy the game of "I'm going to roll 3d6 in order 6 times and see what kind of character I get." Over the years we have had immense fun with this, including a LOT of "I never would have thought of playing this class, but it's kind of neat."

And if somebody really, really, truly wants to play something, the OD&D rules allow a bit of swapping.

Most of the things you refer to just plain don't apply in OD&D, period. They might apply in later versions, I couldn't say; but they don't apply in OD&D, and this is an OD&D board.

Altho the stats didn't mean *THAT* much, we were fond of RPing them, and a clever DM woudl make up some rule or other to make  a high or low stat mea something.