D&D 1E: You must be this lucky to play a Paladin

[Libertad]

Rolling 3d6 straight down the line is a common method of "old school" character creation.

In AD&D 1st Edition, all classes had a set of ability score prerequisites in order to play them.

Somebody did this for the classes of all pre-3E Editions.  Did you know that with this method, you have a 17 in 1 million chance to play as a Bard.

Someone else did a similar thing, but with 4d6, drop the lowest, assign the results to the scores of your choice.

Back in the old days, the standard Cleric/Fighter/Thief/Wizard format was the only thing you could be certain about.  Qualifying for Druid or Paladin was cause for celebration.

[phaedrusxy]

Did you know that with this method, you have a 1 in 17 million chance to play as a Bard.

The article you linked says 17 in 1 million, not 1 one in 17 million.

[Halinn]

Did you know that with this method, you have a 1 in 17 million chance to play as a Bard.

The article you linked says 17 in 1 million, not 1 one in 17 million.

Well, you've got to include the chance of making fighter 5/thief 5 first

[Unbeliever]

There are numerous stupid things about 1E D&D.  In many ways it's a game more focused on doing wacky things than about playing fleshed-out characters.  We could fill this board with dumb things about it.  I don't think this is news to anyone who has looked at the system.

[Libertad]

The article you linked says 17 in 1 million, not 1 one in 17 million.

Thanks for the spot!  Changed!

There are numerous stupid things about 1E D&D.  In many ways it's a game more focused on doing wacky things than about playing fleshed-out characters.  We could fill this board with dumb things about it.  I don't think this is news to anyone who has looked at the system.

It was of interest to me, as I always wondered about how hard it was to be a Paladin in 1st Edition.

[Agrippa]

On another forum I posted my thread about RPG art, one of the posters said that newer D&D is too focused on how cool your characters are and the awesome powers they wield. While older D&D art focused on asking how the characters ended up the way they are and what are they going to do next. Also that silly ideas and situations are part of the game and should be wholeheartedly embraced. Old school D&D players also tend to argue that low levels are meant to be hard and that PCs survive by your wits and not your character's abilities and therefore ability score minimums need to be very high or everyone would be playing high powered classes like paladin or monk over other classes. Yes, that's what they believe. Not that I really agree with them, I'm just relaying what they say.

[Eldritch_Lord]

On another forum I posted my thread about RPG art, one of the posters said that newer D&D is too focused on how cool your characters are and the awesome powers they wield. While older D&D art focused on asking how the characters ended up the way they are and what are they going to do next. Also that silly ideas and situations are part of the game and should be wholeheartedly embraced.

While the "you need to earn your fun!" stuff is bullshit, I have to agree that there's a certain appeal to art that doesn't take itself too seriously.  I'll take a bit of comic relief over yet another interchangeable dramatic pose any day.

[Halinn]

high powered classes like paladin or monk

I just needed to quote this out of context.

[Libertad]

I love it when people associate the entire history of Japanese cartoons with Dragon Ball Z-style shenanigans; it doesn't even get me mad anymore, it's so funny in its short-sightedness.

I will say that dudes with special powers who ran on the Rule of Cool were ubiquitous throughout D&D history.  Most of them were spellcasters.  Elminster, Raistlin, Mordenkainen, the Chosen of Mystra, elven spellcasters swinging swords and casting spells while in armor are some of the most prominent examples.  Also, the entire setting of Dark Sun runs on this principle.

[Unbeliever]

^ it's not just that, though.  Caramon is absurdly strong, like ridiculously so (what're the odds on rolling an 18 in Strength and then a decent percentile roll?), Drizzt is a ginsu machine, and so on.  Although, to be fair, those are all AD&D characters, not 1E ones. 

A lot of OD&D is, as Agrippa and I both noted, not so into the characters.  It's closer to a board game and a beer and pretzels game. 

[Agrippa]

I thought we were talking about AD&D characters? Isn't that what most people think of when they talk about 1st Edition?

[Prime32]

On another forum I posted my thread about RPG art, one of the posters said that newer D&D is too focused on how cool your characters are and the awesome powers they wield. While older D&D art focused on asking how the characters ended up the way they are and what are they going to do next. Also that silly ideas and situations are part of the game and should be wholeheartedly embraced. Old school D&D players also tend to argue that low levels are meant to be hard and that PCs survive by your wits and not your character's abilities and therefore ability score minimums need to be very high or everyone would be playing high powered classes like paladin or monk over other classes. Yes, that's what they believe. Not that I really agree with them, I'm just relaying what they say.

I love it when people associate the entire history of Japanese cartoons with Dragon Ball Z-style shenanigans; it doesn't even get me mad anymore, it's so funny in its short-sightedness.

Whenever anyone says this, show them Slayers. Seriously. Lots of living by your wits (even at high levels), and lots of zany schemes.

[Unbeliever]

I thought we were talking about AD&D characters? Isn't that what most people think of when they talk about 1st Edition?

AD&D is the second editon of the game. And it had a somewhat dizzying array of character creation add on options and variations tied to settings or whatever else you like.

While some of what can be said about 1e and OD&D apples to AD&D there's a serious difference of degree.

[Nanshork]

I thought we were talking about AD&D characters? Isn't that what most people think of when they talk about 1st Edition?

AD&D is the second editon of the game. And it had a somewhat dizzying array of character creation add on options and variations tied to settings or whatever else you like.

While some of what can be said about 1e and OD&D apples to AD&D there's a serious difference of degree.

+a whole lot.  1st edition and AD&D play veeeery differently.

[Libertad]

Original D&D is not known as 1st Edition.  It's known as OD&D.

The 1st Edition of D&D is known as 1st Edition AD&D.

[Unbeliever]

Ah. I stand corrected. I always associate advanced dungeons and dragons with the 2E rulebook with the knights charging through a canyon on the cover but thats probably because I started on the expert rules. In my defense it was 20 years ago.

That being said I think most people mean 2E when they say AD&D. Regardless of the little corner banner in the 1E books the 2E ones were the ones with it splashed across the cover. Barring wikipedia articles and the like I would actually need to see someone refer to 1E as "advanced" since to date I never have. But I'm not plugged into the OD&D movement since its a game I don't really like.

[Keldar]

1E is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, the numbering didn't start till the next edition.  The 1e moniker was retroactively applied when 2E AD&D came out.

[Nanshork]

I'm with Unbeliever.  I recognize that I'm wrong, but until today have never realized that 1E was AD&D as I've never heard anybody refer to it as such.

[Necrosnoop110]

1E is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, the numbering didn't start till the next edition.  The 1e moniker was retroactively applied when 2E AD&D came out.

That's how I've always seen things.

[littha]

Wikipedia lists the editions of Dungeons and Dragons like this:

OD&D
AD&D 1st
AD&D 2nd
3rd Edition
3.5 Edition
4th Edition
Essentials