[B/A D&D (design history)] Ability score bonus

[Dr. Mabuse]

My first game back in 1984 was AD&D1e. We had great fun for some years before drifting into other games (Traveller, RQ, CoC, SR etc...). Besides the happy memories one thing has been nagging me all these years: why did AD&D1e calculate ability bonus the way it did.
Even in those days it puzzled me.

In AD&D you need 15 or 16 to get any bonus, making scores from 7 to 15 equally good or bad. Somehow it made those middle stats slightly indifferent – mechanically strength 8 was as good as 15. Only the top 4 ability scores gave a bonus.
This was a change from Basic. BD&D had a slowly raising curve, with only a few numbers not having any bonus.
(IIRC something like 9-12 no bonus, 13-15: +1, 16-17: +2 and 18: +3).

Does anyone know why it was changed?
It is not a big thing, but I have always wondered why.

Dr. Mabuse

[Old Geezer]

Nope, sorry.

Actually in Original Brown Box D&D there were NO ability bonuses. There were a few XP bonuses, but that's it. I think AD&D might actually predate Basic.

Looking at it as a game designer, the AD&D system gives you a wider range of average characters. This is something I've noticed has changed a lot in thirty years; useta was, we played a LOT of characters with all stats between 9 - 12. Nowadays I've encountered a lot of people who think a character "sucks" if it has any attribute bonus under +2, and will flatly refuse to play a character with any attribute minuses.

[komradebob]

This is something I've noticed has changed a lot in thirty years; useta was, we played a LOT of characters with all stats between 9 - 12. Nowadays I've encountered a lot of people who think a character "sucks" if it has any attribute bonus under +2, and will flatly refuse to play a character with any attribute minuses.

It must have been a big deal to somebody, since the old, 1st ed AD&D had alternate rules to get around the problem of "6 x 3d6, straight down the line".

Come to think of it, even Basic D&D let you putter a bit with stats. Of course, there were a lot of Fighters in those days, too...:D ( Largely for those not talented enough to be anything liked skilled labor)

[Badmagic]

This was a change from Basic. BD&D had a slowly raising curve, with only a few numbers not having any bonus.
(IIRC something like 9-12 no bonus, 13-15: +1, 16-17: +2 and 18: +3).

Does anyone know why it was changed?


It wasn't. The form of D&D that AD&D was Advanced from wasn't Basic. Basic came later.

Why was the curve in Basic different? For just the reasons you mentioned. There was large range of attributes that were all essentially the same, and that just felt wrong.

[RobertFisher]

The way I see (...justify...) it is this: For a particular modifier, Gary asked himself what percentage of the population would have effectively a +1. Then he looked at the probabilities for a 3d6 roll & put the +1 in the place that best fit that. For Strength, he felt the there was enough range among the subset of the population with an 18 that he added the exceptional strength bit.

In truth, I doubt it was so systematic, but that gives the general idea.

I still don't particularly care for it, though. That's one of the many reasons I prefer Basic/Expert to AD&D. I've even thought that if I were to even run AD&D again, I might import the Basic/Expert ability modifiers.

Though I still maintain the number of PCs I've lost to a low ability score is dwarfed by the number of PCs I've lost to my own stupidity.

[Lord Twang]

Well, once the two were separate, they had to stay that way. Due to the lawsuit/greivance between Gygax and Arneson, the Classic D&D line and the AD&D line had to remain different, at least as much as possible. This was one way they could be different. Each game line preserved a different way of interpreting ability scores. I prefer the Classic way, and you'll note that once all versions could be merged, 3e picked up the classic way.

[BlackSheep]

It must have been a big deal to somebody, since the old, 1st ed AD&D had alternate rules to get around the problem of "6 x 3d6, straight down the line".
There was a quite impressive one in Gygax's Unearthed Arcana. Pick your class, then roll Xd6 for each stat taking the best three, where X goes from three up to nine depending on class priorities. So your magic-user gets straight 3d6 for Comeliness but 9d6-take-three for intelligence. Add that one to the list of reasons to play a human.

[Lev Lafayette]

Nowadays I've encountered a lot of people who think a character "sucks" if it has any attribute bonus under +2, and will flatly refuse to play a character with any attribute minuses.

Heh. I wonder what would happen if a GURPS or Hero game came their way - you know, a game system where you have to take a disadvantage to gain the extra points for powers and abilities.

[Saxondog]

To the best of my memory, the basic DnD and ADnD stuff came out at the same time. The AD&D monster manual was out when I bought the original basic set (dragon, archer, wizard cover... I think) and then switched to buying AD&D books as the others came out. Ran a hybrid game.

There was a difference between 10 and 14 on a stat. It was just not on a chart. There were frequent causes to roll a d20 vs a stat. Got an unknow cypher in some dead language? Roll vs Int. Slick balcony rail walking? Roll vs Dex.

I wish the new d20 stuff accepted that 14 and 15 were different. As it is, you get most people with almost all stats at even numbers. Considering hybridizing a game again.

[Skiorht]

There was a difference between 10 and 14 on a stat. It was just not on a chart. There were frequent causes to roll a d20 vs a stat. Got an unknow cypher in some dead language? Roll vs Int. Slick balcony rail walking? Roll vs Dex.

Right, though it varied from product to product until the appearance of non-weapon proficiences (what a fucking stupid name) in the Survival Guides. Some modules used attribute bonuses, while others relied on levels and saving throws as mechanisms for doing stuff.

I wish the new d20 stuff accepted that 14 and 15 were different. As it is, you get most people with almost all stats at even numbers. Considering hybridizing a game again.

Odd-numbered stats can be important for Feat prerequisites, but otherwise you're right. Of course, if you roll stats, you may end up with odd numbers all around. IIRC, my latest statline had only one even number.

[RobertFisher]

Heh. I wonder what would happen if a GURPS or Hero game came their way - you know, a game system where you have to take a disadvantage to gain the extra points for powers and abilities.

(O_O) I don't remember having to take disads in Gurps or Hero.

That said: They while take whatever disads that will have the least impact given the character & the GM's style.

[Particle_Man]

You are both right.

You don't have to take disadvantages in GURPS.

You *do* have to take disadvantages in GURPS *if you want the extra points for powers and abilities.*

[Yak of Darkness]

Odd-numbered stats can be important for Feat prerequisites, but otherwise you're right. Of course, if you roll stats, you may end up with odd numbers all around. IIRC, my latest statline had only one even number.
Ability damage is also pretty common (at least, with the prevalence of things like undead and poisons in my games, it is for my players and me), and having an odd-numbered starting score can help ease the blow--the Str 15 and 14 fighters might have the same bonus to begin with, but not after taking three points of ability damage--as well as keep you one more point away from zeroing out in an ability score and thus going comatose/dying (in the case of Con).