D&D 5E Do you miss attribute minimums/maximums?

[Shasarak]

Note, that was a 2e thing. That didn't exist in 1e. And still, only applied to Non-Weapon Proficiencies. Which didn't come up in play all that often.

No wonder you thought there was no difference between a 9 and a 15 then.

 

[Lanefan]

Note, that was a 2e thing. That didn't exist in 1e.

Must have existed in some form, as I remember using roll-under for various things long before 2e came out; and I doubt we invented the concept on our own.

Probably one of their trial balloons in Dragon that we caught on to, is my guess.

 

[Hussar]

No wonder you thought there was no difference between a 9 and a 15 then.

Well, 15 is where any actual bonuses started, so, there was a difference there. But, seriously, how often did you actually use the Cooking NWP? And, really, how often did your PC's choose NWP's that matched low stats? IME, people chose NWP's that matched their higher stats. So, it just didn't come up that often. Again, YMMV and all that.

Must have existed in some form, as I remember using roll-under for various things long before 2e came out; and I doubt we invented the concept on our own.

Probably one of their trial balloons in Dragon that we caught on to, is my guess.

Perhaps in the Wilderness Guide? I dunno, never read that one. But, it wasn't part of 1e before that. Unless, as you say, it floated with a Dragon article. Quite possible.

The "Roll under Stat" skill system isn't a bad idea though. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Imagine if you ported that over to 5e? Stats don't give bonuses to skills, they simply set the base DC for a character to succeed at a skill. Proficiency bonuses could be added to the stat to give a modified base DC. It would be a bit wonky since we don't do "roll under" for anything else, but, I think it's not a huge problem.

It would tend to lead in the same direction as 2e though. People only bother training skills that they have high stats for. And, with ASI's, you wind up with situations where PC's pretty much cannot fail. Makes the raw stat awfully important. Far more than level or training and I'm not sure I really like that. A 1st level character with an 18 stat is pretty much a master at that skill, whatever that skill happens to be. Which does run rather foul of the whole level system where your character is supposed to improve over time.

 

[Coroc]

Just another point about granularity.

In AD&D, there were what, 5 or 6 increments between a 17 Str and a 19 Str. At that level of granularity, ok, fair enough, I can see making adjustments to stats. But, what was that limited to Str? And, prior to 17, there was virtually no difference between a 9 Str and a 15 Str. So, you had all this granularity at the very top (which, according to some, no one ever saw at the table) and virtually none at any other point.

I mean, looking at the other stats, there's pretty much no difference between a 9 and a 14. There were a couple of things - extra spells for the cleric, a slightly higher chance to learn spells for the wizard, but, that was about it. It really was a weird kind of progression.

No real point here, just an observation.

This and absolutely this.

Combined with BA this is the blocker of any refined stat systems to

a) make sense
b) do not unbalance the game mechanics

It is pure math nothing else.

Everything which goes above +2/-2 (Stat Modifier so 16 - 24!) is critical,
because it gets into regions of having advantage / disadvantage and therefore breaks the system

 

[Maxperson]

Not sure what your point is? A woman who wants to play a strong character is just as likely to roll one up as the man who does. But before she even picks up the dice she is told No Girls Allowed on that concept.

That's untrue. She is not told that for a few reasons. First, she is not limited to female PCs. Second, a 18/50 strength is still very, very strong, so the concept is still there even with a female PC.

 

[Maxperson]

Just another point about granularity.

In AD&D, there were what, 5 or 6 increments between a 17 Str and a 19 Str. At that level of granularity, ok, fair enough, I can see making adjustments to stats. But, what was that limited to Str? And, prior to 17, there was virtually no difference between a 9 Str and a 15 Str. So, you had all this granularity at the very top (which, according to some, no one ever saw at the table) and virtually none at any other point.

I mean, looking at the other stats, there's pretty much no difference between a 9 and a 14. There were a couple of things - extra spells for the cleric, a slightly higher chance to learn spells for the wizard, but, that was about it. It really was a weird kind of progression.

No real point here, just an observation.

A nice increase to weight allowance and 7x greater chance to bend bars/lift gates for strength. Greatly increased system shock and resurrection survival rates for con. You left out a significant intelligence difference. The min/max known spells for wizards. Dexterity had some significant penalties to thief skills from 9-12. Charisma increased henchman and at 14 increased loyalty and reaction rolls.

So Wisdom, Strength, Intelligence, Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma all had significant differences from 9-14. Woah! That's all of them, leaving 0 where there was "...pretty much no difference between a 9 and 14.".

 

[Helldritch]

Skill checks were there from the begining. In character creation you could be an armorer, trader, fletcher, cook, etc... in your previous life. The option was in the DMG. All you had to do was to roll under the relevant ability. The ability could change depending on the desired result or cirumstances. You want to make a effective breast plate? Roll under strength. An ornate high quality breast plate? Roll a d20 under St and Dex. You wanted to make an ornate high quality breast plate really fast? Roll a d20 under St, Dex and Con. It was all in the DMG but it was often over looked.

As for the difference between 9 to 14, Maxperson nailed it fast. There were significant difference. It was just not really debilitating. You would not lose any "+" from these stats. Skill checks were scarce enough as to not be that much of a weakness. Now, with 5ed low stats bonuses, the difference between 9 to 14 can be a huge gap. From -1 to +2. With the bound accuracy feature, it can change a lot.

 

[JonnyP71]

Perhaps in the Wilderness Guide? I dunno, never read that one. But, it wasn't part of 1e before that. Unless, as you say, it floated with a Dragon article. Quite possible.

It was missing from the 1E core DMG and PHB, but mentioned in quite a few adventure modules, so it seems to have been an assumed 'thing' which didn't make it into print in official 1E books. It was certainly in the rules by the time the Mentzer Red Box Basic set came out, as though books discuss ability checks - if I remember correctly though they were very vague and it was left up to the DM as to whether they were done using 3d6 or 1d20.

I had that Red Box in 1983 a few months before I started playing 1E AD&D and used stat checks without ever realising the PHB and DMG did not mention them. We used the 3d6 method playing basic, but switched to 1d20 for AD&D as 4d6 stat generation led to higher stats.

 

[Lanefan]

The "Roll under Stat" skill system isn't a bad idea though. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Imagine if you ported that over to 5e? Stats don't give bonuses to skills, they simply set the base DC for a character to succeed at a skill. Proficiency bonuses could be added to the stat to give a modified base DC. It would be a bit wonky since we don't do "roll under" for anything else, but, I think it's not a huge problem.

It would tend to lead in the same direction as 2e though. People only bother training skills that they have high stats for. And, with ASI's, you wind up with situations where PC's pretty much cannot fail. Makes the raw stat awfully important. Far more than level or training and I'm not sure I really like that. A 1st level character with an 18 stat is pretty much a master at that skill, whatever that skill happens to be. Which does run rather foul of the whole level system where your character is supposed to improve over time.

The most important part of any such design would be determining what skills/abilities are tied to what stat. If done well, this could help balance out the importance of the various stats; if done badly it could exacerbate problems already present.

But roll-under is an elegant mechanic. And if something's particularly difficult nothing stops a DM from making it roll-under-half, roll under score-minus-x, or whatever; thus it's flexible as well.

The only add-on I'd throw in, to avoid auto-success, is that even if your stat is 20 (or higher, somehow) a natural '20' will always fail.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

It was missing from the 1E core DMG and PHB, but mentioned in quite a few adventure modules, so it seems to have been an assumed 'thing' which didn't make it into print in official 1E books. It was certainly in the rules by the time the Mentzer Red Box Basic set came out, as though books discuss ability checks - if I remember correctly though they were very vague and it was left up to the DM as to whether they were done using 3d6 or 1d20.

Another place where a pre-2e version of roll-under comes up is in the bizarre saving throw sequence vs. the spell Phantasmal Killer, where one of the saves requires getting under your intelligence score on 3d6 (with lots of potential modifiers).