|
Wisdom
Jul 10, 2010 7:43:29 GMT -6
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 10, 2010 7:43:29 GMT -6
Does anyone else find it odd that, as of Supplement I, every ability other than Wisdom has a mechanical use beyond serving as a prime requisite? I've been looking at Greyhawk a lot lately and comparing it to the LBBs, Holmes, and the PHB in order to get a sense of where their rules differ and where they're the same and what leaps out at me is that it's really only in AD&D that Wisdom serves any specific mechanical function in the game.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 10, 2010 9:35:15 GMT -6
Post by snorri on Jul 10, 2010 9:35:15 GMT -6
I strongly suspect that part of the problem comes, once again, from the gap between Arneson draft and Gygax published versions, and the addition of the 'alternative combat'. The "low modifiers" works beter with 2d6 than with 1d20 - and I guess that's the reason they were changed by Gygax in supplement I, and it seems abilities could have been used as a save system, before the implementation of the 'alternative' saves. So the question could be : what was Wisdom supposed to be before the alternative system ?
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 10, 2010 9:49:34 GMT -6
Post by Falconer on Jul 10, 2010 9:49:34 GMT -6
I don’t think it’s odd. OD&D and the Supplements have a sort of breathless, “and-here’s-another-rule-we-just-thought-of!” quality to them. The original use of Wisdom was to qualify for the Cleric class. Gygax and Kuntz didn’t seem to have many Cleric players, and Wisdom is easily the most nebulous of the ability scores, so they just didn’t come up with any more “mechanical functions” for it until trying to write a polished and balanced AD&D.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 10, 2010 11:34:53 GMT -6
Post by apeloverage on Jul 10, 2010 11:34:53 GMT -6
I had a look in OSRIC and it mentions "mental saving throws" as the thing that Wisdom modifies.
"Mental saving throw" doesn't seem to be defined elsewhere though.
So I guess this is what 3rd edition calls Will saves - things like hypnotism and fear?
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 10, 2010 13:12:19 GMT -6
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 10, 2010 13:12:19 GMT -6
I don’t think it’s odd. OD&D and the Supplements have a sort of breathless, “and-here’s-another-rule-we-just-thought-of!” quality to them. The original use of Wisdom was to qualify for the Cleric class. Gygax and Kuntz didn’t seem to have many Cleric players, and Wisdom is easily the most nebulous of the ability scores, so they just didn’t come up with any more “mechanical functions” for it until trying to write a polished and balanced AD&D. The lack of clerics in the original campaigns is an interesting and might go some way toward explaining why Wisdom didn't get the same kind of love that, say, Strength or Intelligence got in Supplement I.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 10, 2010 13:14:29 GMT -6
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 10, 2010 13:14:29 GMT -6
I had a look in OSRIC and it mentions "mental saving throws" as the thing that Wisdom modifies. "Mental saving throw" doesn't seem to be defined elsewhere though. So I guess this is what 3rd edition calls Will saves - things like hypnotism and fear? More or less. AD&D indicates that Wisdom modifies saves versus "beguiling, charming, fear, hypnosis, illusion, magic jarring, mass charming, phantasmal forces, possession, rulership, suggestion, telepathic attack, etc."
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 10, 2010 13:15:43 GMT -6
Post by coffee on Jul 10, 2010 13:15:43 GMT -6
The Cleric, remember, came about in Dave's game as a way to combat the vampire, Sir Fang. I never really got the impression that it was a major class that people were dying to play.
Similarly with Hobbits (Halflings if you prefer) in the 3LBBs -- they were just sort of stuck in.
Then again, as has been noted, this game wasn't "designed" from the ground up the way such things are today. It just sort of happened.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 10, 2010 13:20:41 GMT -6
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 10, 2010 13:20:41 GMT -6
Then again, as has been noted, this game wasn't "designed" from the ground up the way such things are today. It just sort of happened. Oh, absolutely! My point was simply that, given all the other aspects of the LBBs that get significantly expanded in Supplement I, I find it strange that Wisdom is the one ability score that remains "vestigial," if you will.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 10, 2010 13:24:07 GMT -6
Post by coffee on Jul 10, 2010 13:24:07 GMT -6
Yes, and it is a good point. I've often wondered about that.
Now that I think about it, even Hobbits were expanded in Greyhawk. But Wisdom still wasn't.
Maybe the Cleric players didn't complain enough about it? Or maybe, and this seems likely to me, Gary had some house rule that never made it into a supplement.
In his later games (2000s), Gary would give a bonus first level spell for high wisdom, even at first level. So he did eventually come around...
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 18, 2010 17:41:35 GMT -6
Post by aldarron on Jul 18, 2010 17:41:35 GMT -6
I don’t think it’s odd. OD&D and the Supplements have a sort of breathless, “and-here’s-another-rule-we-just-thought-of!” quality to them. The original use of Wisdom was to qualify for the Cleric class. Gygax and Kuntz didn’t seem to have many Cleric players, and Wisdom is easily the most nebulous of the ability scores, so they just didn’t come up with any more “mechanical functions” for it until trying to write a polished and balanced AD&D. The lack of clerics in the original campaigns is an interesting and might go some way toward explaining why Wisdom didn't get the same kind of love that, say, Strength or Intelligence got in Supplement I. Ah but there were several very prominent clerics in the "original campaigns", its just that they were in Blackmoor, not Greyhawk. I've seen nothing to suggest that Arneson used modifiers in conjunction with ability stats in those days, that seems to have been Gygax's idea, so if clerics were a neglected class in Greyhawk its hardly surprising a wisdom modifier wasn't developed in OD&D. I haven't looked yet, but it would be interesting to see what ability modifiers are present in EPT.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 18, 2010 18:01:26 GMT -6
Post by snorri on Jul 18, 2010 18:01:26 GMT -6
In EPT, there's no wisdom - this is replaced by Psychic ability, described as the ability to use magic and get in communication with the gods. Modifiers apply to use of spells (an idea which links to later AD&D chances of spell failure ?) From the reading of M&M, it seems only to abilities have a rel description and meaning : Constitution and Dexterity, which both are saves. The main problem is it has been doubled by the alternative saving thrown system [even if this one has serious roots in Chainmail] so there's no connexion between the description and game effect: chances of survival can more or less be deduced fromt the text, but a later ad&desque rationalization helps tat reading, and the dex description - "getting off a spell" - is forgotten. Holmes took it batter by using the "firing first" effect in his initiative system. So a proto-Dragons at dawn could have two stats only
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 19, 2010 19:27:18 GMT -6
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 19, 2010 19:27:18 GMT -6
Ah but there were several very prominent clerics in the "original campaigns", its just that they were in Blackmoor, not Greyhawk. True, but Arneson didn't write Supplement I, so I think it's still a fair assumption that the lack of prominent clerics in the Greyhawk campaign might explain the short shrift given to Wisdom. An interesting idea, but, alas, EPT has no Wisdom score. "Psychic Ability" seems to be its closest equivalent and it's not all that close.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 19, 2010 21:09:52 GMT -6
Post by galadrin on Jul 19, 2010 21:09:52 GMT -6
Eh, I've always felt the new rules in Supplement I disrupted a nice balance present in the first three booklets. To me, the fact that stats in M&M were not directly tied to combat (with dexterity bonus for missiles the sole exception) made OD&D more of an adventure game and less of a combat game. The big three scores, including wisdom, were arguably the most important - they helped the player excel faster in her class, and allowed her to move into secondary classes easily. Instead of discrete bonuses (+1 hp, for instance), these helped players to access new parts of the game world.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 19, 2010 23:21:56 GMT -6
Post by coffee on Jul 19, 2010 23:21:56 GMT -6
I have a real love/hate relationship with Greyhawk. It adds so much to the game, which seems to make it a different game entirely.
That's one of the reasons I really like just the three LBBs.
But then...Greyhawk...
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 23, 2010 22:48:25 GMT -6
Post by castiglione on Jul 23, 2010 22:48:25 GMT -6
The lack of a mechanical use for wisdom isn't too surprising since the rules for D&D seem to have grown organically. Also, given that this is WISDOM, we're talking about, it'd be pretty hard to think of a mechanical use for such an attribute (I'm not too familiar with AD&D).
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 24, 2010 9:23:06 GMT -6
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 24, 2010 9:23:06 GMT -6
I feel much the same, so I've more or less given up on trying to play a LBB-only game, despite my best efforts. I'm just selective in what I take from Greyhawk, which is, to my mind anyway, the best way to use the Supplements: pick and choose what you like and ignore the rest.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 24, 2010 14:43:33 GMT -6
Post by castiglione on Jul 24, 2010 14:43:33 GMT -6
So a proto-Dragons at dawn could have two stats only That would certainly work. And Melee (the combat system for TFT) had only two attributes: ST and DX so there's some precedence for such a minimalist approach.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 26, 2010 9:11:37 GMT -6
Post by apeloverage on Jul 26, 2010 9:11:37 GMT -6
I'd be reluctant to add any other effect to Wisdom, unless it was only for non-clerics, because clerics are a bit too good anyway.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 26, 2010 10:44:41 GMT -6
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 26, 2010 10:44:41 GMT -6
I'd be reluctant to add any other effect to Wisdom, unless it was only for non-clerics, because clerics are a bit too good anyway. I'm largely inclined to agree. Clerics are an extremely versatile class in OD&D, as I've discovered over the course of the last year and a half in my campaign. They're on average only slightly less potent a melee combatant than a fighting man and, while their spells aren't as impressive as those of a magic-user, they're still plenty useful.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Jul 26, 2010 11:36:51 GMT -6
Post by snorri on Jul 26, 2010 11:36:51 GMT -6
I guesss it's more or elss a side-effect to the birth of a formal class system. In Arneson's campaign, it seems (human) characters started as "fighting-men", then could learn magic, and some get special features - turn undead being one. In D&D, the cleric is described as a cross-over of magic-user and fighting-man, even if he got his own magic. And wisdom was probbaly added in the same movement, as this class needed a prime requisite. Then, it became its own standard, a distinctive feature of D&D - and among its best success, as this character spread in others rpg's, in comics and so on.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Aug 13, 2010 4:59:03 GMT -6
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 13, 2010 4:59:03 GMT -6
it'd be pretty hard to think of a mechanical use for such an attribute I don't know... wisdom could easily determine whether you tread carefully or recklessly, or make judicious or foolish decisions (+1 or -1 to saving throws). Or what benefit is made of experience (+5% or -5% to earned experience). Or whether a character is cool-headed or panicky in pressure situations (+1 or -1 to morale rolls). Or whether or not a character recalls which plant is poisonous, or how to find water in a desert, or chooses a good or poor camp site... it goes on and on
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Wisdom
Nov 14, 2010 2:59:03 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2010 2:59:03 GMT -6
I can think of myriad ways of incorporating Wisdom into the game, and I have done so in my own game with it and all primes. The idea that wisdom was given "short shrift" by EGG and I in Supplement #1 is not so; finding no applicable use in the generative way the game was advanced then--a great amount of time was spent 1972-73 on playing and examining the action-combat side of the mechanics--is what lead to that and no more. Gary wrenches ability scores into AD&D for various reasons; in my unpublished supplement #5--and indeed in my campaign world played since 1973--I take a more expansive and inclusive stance with these. Prime (and often amalgam) abilities are grown significantly within many areas of the game. I see these, like the rest of the D&D game, as mere starting points only.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Nov 14, 2010 16:21:38 GMT -6
Post by talysman on Nov 14, 2010 16:21:38 GMT -6
Contrary to the way I used to play when I switched to AD&D, I've decided that ability scores should only provide bonuses on a case-by-case basis, and it's up to the player to describe actions that would make one (or more) abilities relevant. With that interpretation, vague, overlapping abilities, like having two mental abilities, are a plus, not a minus; players are encouraged to come up with creative descriptions that incorporate both Intelligence and Wisdom.
I've also decided to just sum up Wisdom as "knowing when something is wrong, in any sense of the term". Knowing something is morally wrong is, of course, the most important ability for Clerics, but Wisdom can also be relevant as a form of danger sense, common sense, or manners. I wouldn't use Wisdom for "Will", but I would allow it to affect the ability to see through illusions and to resist being forced to do something wrong.
|
|
|
Wisdom
Dec 29, 2010 9:51:18 GMT -6
Post by paleologos on Dec 29, 2010 9:51:18 GMT -6
It's interesting to note the Tom Wham OD&D character record sheets contain a line for "Wisdom adj."
I've previously wondered if this had anything to do with the "magical attack adjustment" for high and low Wisdom scores in the AD&D Players Handbook, published a year previously...
|
|
|
Wisdom
Dec 30, 2010 19:42:41 GMT -6
Post by Zenopus on Dec 30, 2010 19:42:41 GMT -6
Did you mean "published a year later"? Those Tom Wham sheets first appeared in 1977, and the Player's HB in 1978. Unless you mean the 1979 Wizard Logo version of the Wham sheets?
|
|
leon
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 103
|
Wisdom
Dec 31, 2010 4:39:14 GMT -6
Post by leon on Dec 31, 2010 4:39:14 GMT -6
Well obviously we are not the first to wonder on such issues, more than 30 years later. I guess DMs at the time tried to find other uses for Wisdom (and for all the character abilities). For example there's an article in TD #1 p.7 called "How to use non-prime-requisite character attributes" which introduces a rather clunky task resolution system. In this article wisdom is used to: "divining “correct path” of action; recognizing function of devices; etc." This article could be considered anathema for the OSR crowd since it pretty much resolves everything with a die roll, even things that would normally be roleplayed irrespectively of the system used (even a heavy on skill checks system).
|
|