D&D 1E AD&D (yes, 2e too) players and referees, what do you think of rolling under for ability and NWP checks?

[the Jester]

You should do it with 3d6.

I liked the variant where the dice you roll depend on the difficulty.

My favorite version of "roll under", however, is "roll under, higher is better". This sets a ceiling based on your ability score for how well you can accomplish something. For instance, moving a boulder out of the way might be a Strength check with (to use modern parlance) a DC of 13, so nobody with a Strength below 13 can actually succeed.

 

[Parmandur]

For mathematical elegance and keeping the bell curve of Abilities relevant I really like the roll under methodology. Never experienced it in practice, however.

 

[Celebrim]

In the last OD&D game I played in, we used 3d6 down the line (with point swapping to PR) for ability scores, and as such the DM had ability checks be on 3d6, or 2d6 for easy tasks, 4d6 for hard ones.

That certainly handles one of the major problems which is a lack of difficulty differentiation. You could even go up to 5d6 for nearly impossible feats. 2d6 also very much feels like DC 5 from 3e, which was a level of difficulty that I really enjoyed as it let skilled types shine in their domain, gave even average types good chances of success, but highlighted the problem with dump stating.

The Nightmares Underneath uses roll-under checks for some tasks, but it also allows you to increase ability scores as you level, so character competence DOES increase, unlike in AD&D.

And that handles one of the other ones, which is the lack of skill scaling.

In the last old school game I ran with 3d6 ability generation, my Five Torches Deep & B/X mashup, we used d20+ modifier resolution (plus proficiency modifier if applicable), as that's the core mechanic for that system.

But yeah, that gets there much more directly and with much more intuitive math. I've tried running 1e AD&D after playing modern systems, and it's still fine for tactical miniature combat and there are still so much that ports between the two, but any time you get out of the check for traps/kick up the doors/kill the monsters/take their stuff cycle, not having a unified skill system becomes such a clunky thing that I just can't as a GM deal with it anymore. I spent 15 years in that system but I can't ever go back. The soon as I get in a situation where the floor isn't flat and smooth stone, and the room isn't a 30x40 rectangle or the challenge isn't just "Can you kill this thing?" I miss my modern skill system and the minimal amount of on-the-fly ruling and rules smithing you have to do.

 

[Celebrim]

I liked the variant where the dice you roll depend on the difficulty.

My favorite version of "roll under", however, is "roll under, higher is better". This sets a ceiling based on your ability score for how well you can accomplish something. For instance, moving a boulder out of the way might be a Strength check with (to use modern parlance) a DC of 13, so nobody with a Strength below 13 can actually succeed.

Yeah, that's another solution. But it still feels like kludging a fix in.

After playing a lot of different systems, I've gotten to the point where if you don't have both skill scaling and difficulty scaling, I'm not really interested in running the system. Even BRP which would make my top 5 systems of all time, I'm a bit sour on it because the only way to do difficulty scaling involves division which I consider something you try to avoid in a rules set.

 

[Mannahnin]

Tangent, but here are the TNU (free edition) rules for ability score increases on level-up:

Attribute Gains
Each time you gain a level, you may choose two attributes to test for advancement.

The first attribute you test must be one of your primary attributes. The second may be any one of your five other attributes, including your other primary attribute.
You may not test the same attribute twice when you gain a level, you must test two different attributes. Once you increase in level again, you may test attributes that you
have tested or increased before.
Thieves have only one primary attribute, and must always attempt to raise it, along with one other attribute of their choice, when they gain a level.

To test an attribute for advancement, roll a d20 and compare it to the attribute’s current, permanent score. If your attribute score has been temporarily reduced, for
whatever reason, restore it to its normal rating and ignore the reduction. You are healed! This is an additional reward for gaining a level.

If you roll higher than your attribute score, you may increase it by 1 point if it is already 13 or higher, by 2 points if it is already 9-12, and by 3 points if it is only 1-8.

If you roll equal to or lower than your attribute score, the score does not change unless it is both one of your primary attributes and 12 or lower.
• If it is a primary attribute and the score is 1-8, increase it by 2 points.
• If it is a primary attribute and the score is 9-12, increase it by 1 point.
• If the score is 13 or higher or it is not a primary attribute, you must roll higher than the score to increase it.

This reference table follows the above text:

 

[Mark Hope]

I liked the variant where the dice you roll depend on the difficulty.

My favorite version of "roll under", however, is "roll under, higher is better". This sets a ceiling based on your ability score for how well you can accomplish something. For instance, moving a boulder out of the way might be a Strength check with (to use modern parlance) a DC of 13, so nobody with a Strength below 13 can actually succeed.

Yeah, this is more or less what we do. Roll as high as you can, but your stat is a cap to success, like blackjack. And some checks have a minimum ability requirement.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yeah, this is more or less what we do. Roll as high as you can, but your stat is a cap to success, like blackjack. And some checks have a minimum ability requirement.

The "blackjack" check mechanic is the central one in Pendragon, with crits when you roll exactly your score (or score plus modifiers, if applicable).

 

[Micah Sweet]

The "blackjack" check mechanic is the central one in Pendragon, with crits when you roll exactly your score (or score plus modifiers, if applicable).

I always thought Pendragon had a neat idea there.

 

[James Gasik]

It reminds me of the Complete Psionics Handbook's "Power Score". In the games I was playing in before I saw that book, since 1 was the "best" roll you could achieve on a check, it was often given the same reverence as a 20 on an attack roll. Suddenly here was a book saying 'Hey, if you roll a 1, that's actually the bare minimum result, to get a fantastic result, you have to hit your check result on the nose!"*, which I found confusing initially because it was something I wasn't used to.

*The CPH refers to this as the optional "skill score" rule. I have no idea where this rule is found, as I couldn't find it in the PHB or DMG- if anyone has a reference, please share.

L:eft unsaid (at least, as near as I could find), of course, is what occurs if your Power Score exceeds 19, as a 20 is always a failure. In fact, since you can invest points in powers to increase your Power Score the same way you can NWP's, it's amusing that increasing your Power Score doesn't make you any more likely to hit that number, and apparently could make it impossible to hit precisely- apparently one's "best effort" is based purely on luck, and never has better than a 5% (and possibly 0!) of success...unless you own a Luckstone, that is.

 

[el-remmen]

While having a bell curve on checks is certainly better than d20, I think 1-20 maps a little bit better to the ability score spread most characters will have. If 18 on 3d6 is always a failure, an Elf with a 19 Dexterity might feel like they're being ripped off, lol.

The way I did it (and maybe I got this from the Dungeoneer's or Wilderness Survival Guides? An issue of Dragon?) was to assign the number of d6 to roll under your stat based on difficulty of the act. So 3d6 for easy/routine stuff, 4d6 for difficult stuff, 5d6 for extremely difficult, 6d6 near impossible etc.

Edit: we have have had 2d6 as the floor - I don't really remember.