Ability Scores (continued)
On page 16, underneath the Intelligence bonus table, is a nice, moody black-and-white art piece that I'm almost certain was done by
Jeff Easley. We see four warriors from behind, approaching a ruined tower, while birds (perhaps bats?) flock in the sky. The action is framed by dead or winter trees, their branches denuded of any leaves. I tried to find an online image of it, but had no luck.
Intelligence – The content of the Intelligence bonus table is unchanged from 1st Edition, except that
Minimum Number of Spells/Level has been removed, and
Spell Immunity has been added. Spell Immunity only applies to illusions, and goes from 1st level illusions at INT 19 to 7th level illusions at INT 25. The
Number of Languages now also indicates the number of
non-weapon proficiencies, if that optional rule is used.
One of my favorite bits of AD&D was the
Chance to Learn Spell roll. Not because I enjoyed rolling to see if I learned a spell, but because of what it said about magic in the AD&D world. The idea that magic-users had to find spells to add them to their spellbook was fascinating. Coming from D&D, were spell acquisition was much more perfunctory, it added a bit of spice to what was otherwise a collection of mechanics and straight bonuses/penalties.
Interestingly, although it is not explicitly called an optional rule, the explanation of
Maximum Number of Spells per Level is put into the blue box that is otherwise used for optional rules throughout the book.
Wisdom – Like with Intelligence,
Magical Defense Adjustment,
Bonus Spells, and
Chance of Spell Failure from 1st Edition are joined by Spell Immunity. This Spell Immunity applies to specific named spells, i.e., the spells that have mind control effects such as
Charm Person,
Command,
Hold Person, etc. WIS 19 gives immunity to first level spells of that sort, and each subsequent WIS score provides immunity against the next level of spells, up to level six at WIS 25.
Charisma – The Charisma bonus table is exactly the same as 1st Edition:
Maximum Number of Henchmen,
Loyalty Base, and
Reaction Adjustment. However, while Loyalty Base and Reaction Adjustment were presented as percentage bonuses in 1st Ed., in 2nd Edition they are single digit bonuses. Loyalty and Reactions were percentile systems in 1st Ed., but in 2nd Ed. they are determined by a 2d10 roll.
The 2nd Edition books are well-organized. But they aren’t always the best edited. Page references or index entries are sometimes off by a page. And there’s a big mix-up here. The Charisma section has the first explicitly mentioned optional rule:
Racial Adjustment to Charisma. This is apparently a reworking 1st Edition’s Racial Preferences Table, in that one’s Charisma adjustments could be modified depending on what race you were, and what race you were dealing with.
“If your DM is using this rule,” it says, “your character’s apparent Charisma may be altered when dealing with beings of different races. These alterations are given in Chapter 2 (page 20), after the different player character races have been explained.”
Passing by the page reference referring to the start of the chapter rather than the exact page of the rule, as a matter of fact there are
no such alterations noted. After the description of each player character race, there’s a section on Other Characteristics that talks about height, weight, and age. That concludes Chapter 2, with Chapter 3: Player Character Classes beginning right after.
Some thoughts on the Abilities section as a whole: this section is well written and organized. It is replete with examples, using characters named Rath and Delsenora, for columns that are not so straightforward. The tables are clean and easy to read. The chapter is nicely brought to a close with
What the Numbers Mean.
This takes a sample character, Rath, and provides two different interpretations for what the same set of ability scores could mean.
1) Although Rath is in good health (Con 13), he’s not very strong (Str 8) because he’s just plain lazy—he never wanted to exercise as a youth, and now it’s too late. His low Wisdom and Charisma scores (7, 6) show that he lacks the common sense to apply himself properly and projects a slothful, ‘I’m not going to bother’ attitude (which tends to irritate others. Fortunately, Rath’s natural wit (Int 13) and Dexterity (14) keep him from being a total loss.
Thus you might play Rath as an irritating, smart-alecky twerp forever ducking just out of range of those who want to squash him.
2) Rath has several good points—he has studied hard (Int 13) and practiced his manual skills (Dex 14). Unfortunately, his Strength is low (8) from a lack of exercise (all those hours spent reading books). Despite that, Rath’s health is still good (Con 13). His low Wisdom and Charisma (7, 6) are a result of his lack of contact and involvement with people outside the realm of academics.
Looking at the scores this way, you could play Rath as a kindly, naïve, and shy professorial type who’s a good tinkerer, always fiddling with new ideas and inventions.
This kind of explanation of the interplay of ability scores is actually unique in all D&D (unless it is in 3e, which I do not own). And to me it perfectly encapsulates both why I love random character generation, and why I would never get into just using the ability bonuses instead of the full stat. For me, the appeal of D&D over other, perhaps more straightforward systems, is letting the character come to me, and using those unexpected results to come up with character ideas I’d never come up with on my own.
The section ends by recommending that players not give up on characters who have one or two low scores, but to see them as an opportunity for role-playing. "Too often," it says, "players become obsessed with 'good' stats. These players immediately give up on a character if he doesn't have a majority of above-average scores. There are even those who feel a character is hopeless if he doesn't have at least one ability of 17 or higher! Needless to say, these players would never consider playing a character with an ability score of 6 or 7."
I get it. It's not all about good scores, there's fun to be had even in low scores. It is an admirable sentiment, very suitable to the
D&D of that time, but I fear always a little undercut by the AD&D bonuses and the ability requirements for certain races and classes. I suppose it was intentional to teach by example, but Rath has
no bonuses from even his highest stat, and a fair number of penalties. This section says "Rath's survivability has a lot less to do with his ability scores than with your desire to play him." Yeah, but you're asking Rath's player to play on hard mode compared to his compatriots who have rolled comparatively more averagely.
It seems a strange hill to plant one's flag on, when the game you're revising explicitly said characters should be created to have higher scores, and you haven't changed the math at all. (And I must note again that D&D was
right there!)
This piece of art takes up the whole of page 19. I think it’s supposed to be an Elf and Dwarves, but my first instinct has always been that all of these are Halflings, even though they are wearing shoes.
