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

[Baron Opal II]

I had this thought in the Ascending AC thread. How do people feel about AD&D ability checks vs. WotC ability checks?

Just to summarize, in AD&D, the DM could call for an ability check, where you had to roll under your ability score on a d20. They could apply ad hoc modifiers, though I don't recall if there was any guidance for this- my DM occasionally asked for "roll under half" for very difficult rolls.

When I use ability checks, I have the players roll a d20 and add to the ability score seeking to get a 20 or better. 30 or better is a special success. This is equivalent to roll under, and seems easier for my players.

 

[rabindranath72]

I still run AD&D, but these days, if I feel that skills are needed in the campaign for whatever reason, I prefer to run 3.0. Even in the 2e days, we rarely used NWPs (at least the 2e version was self-consistent and reasonably complete; the 1e versions in DSG and WSG had two different resolution systems!)

 

[Mark Hope]

I still run AD&D, but these days, if I feel that skills are needed in the campaign for whatever reason, I prefer to run 3.0. Even in the 2e days, we rarely used NWPs (at least the 2e version was self-consistent and reasonably complete; the 1e versions in DSG and WSG had two different resolution systems!)

In my homebrew 2e games, NWPs almost never come up - in fact I am happy to not use them at all and leverage secondary skills and "well a wizard would know this" instead. But in my Dark Sun games, they come up all the time. I guess it has something to do with the nature of the setting? It's not intentional really - just happens that way.

 

[rabindranath72]

In my homebrew 2e games, NWPs almost never come up - in fact I am happy to not use them at all and leverage secondary skills and "well a wizard would know this" instead. But in my Dark Sun games, they come up all the time. I guess it has something to do with the nature of the setting? It's not intentional really - just happens that way.

Definitely. I use them in Birthright, for example, which relies on them. Ditto for Dark Sun. But other settings, or homebrew? Rarely if at all.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I had this thought in the Ascending AC thread. How do people feel about AD&D ability checks vs. WotC ability checks?

Just to summarize, in AD&D, the DM could call for an ability check, where you had to roll under your ability score on a d20. They could apply ad hoc modifiers, though I don't recall if there was any guidance for this- my DM occasionally asked for "roll under half" for very difficult rolls.

Non-Weapon Proficiencies were very similar, save that the base check was static, for example, making a Reading/Writing check, you had to roll under your Intelligence +1. Ad hoc modifiers could be applied to this as well. You could improve your chance of success by devoting additional proficiency slots (+1 per) but this was generally a terrible investment for PC's (especially once 2e exploded with the vast number of possible and occasionally overlapping NWP's).

I think it is a decent enough game concept in theory, but the implementation was a bit all over the place, particularly across TSR-era A/D&Ds (as a reminder, it also shows up in BX, and in Gazetteer-era BECMI and RC in the skills subsystem).

First and foremost, one needs to recognize what system this creates. It is creates a game resolution mechanic where :

1. Success by default fits a 5-100% range (most likely 15-90%) with changes to the success chance being in 5% increments.
2. The primary influential factor on the success chance (attributes) already being a modified normal distribution (with none of them being a pure example, IIRC. Even oD&D allowed modifying the 3d6 down-the-line to get better prime requisites).
3. Characters do not natively get better at these abilities as they level (excepting the skill subset of these options, where you can get more skills or maybe slowly improve the skills with additional skill slot expenditure).
4. Getting better at the primary influencing factor (attributes), while not natively happening as you level, does happen in the game (gauntlets of ogre power, tomes and librams, wishes, random pools and fountains in various adventures, etc.). How frequent and how easily this occurs differs between versions of TSR-A/D&D (ex. wishes for stats 16+ in AD&D/2E) and also between groups.
5. Improving attributes (or starting attributes in some cases) could give you a score of 20+ (potentially automatic success under default conditions).
6. If the system includes both innate attribute checks and a skill subsystem, it is not obvious how one should distinguish attribute checks from skill checks based on attributes. Semi-obvious ones are a large bonus for skilled use (which can easily lead to 'my wizard should always take Climb, because Spellcraft just moves their 90% chance to 110%' situations); or either a massive penalty to unskilled checks or disallowing certain activities without the skill (often leading to 'you've actively taken away abilities/reasonable chances you'd otherwise have granted my character just so you could justify this optional skill system' scenarios).

Once you recognize all these constraints, limitations, and qualities, it's a matter of deciding which activities you want to apply such a system to. If players should readily get better in something as they level, perhaps using a saving throw instead of an attribute would make more sense (especially if a given class should be better at it than the others, in which case choose the save the class is best at). If attributes of 19-20 are rare in your system and the activity should be something you should be able to approach 100% at doing, consider not using this system.

Beyond that, consider whether using attributes (or rolling dice at all) makes sense in the situation, or if you are doing it because attributes happen to be there. There's nothing wrong with 'you thought to look in the statue's mouth, thus you find the secret button,' nor with 'your chances are 4-in-6, 5-in-6 if ________.'

Is the WotC system of d20+modifiers to reach a set DC better or worse, in your opinion? I think it's vastly better, but my AD&D DM naturally disagrees, lol.

That's a hard question. I think the 3e/4e/5e systems are better*, but better in a way that can cause problems. Mostly the issue is that the skill system (and generalized resolution system in general) is still vestigial in the game, and the skill system can provide the illusion of rigor. Oftentimes they are just more ways of determining a percent chance of success for an atomic action, with insufficient thought into whether said atomic action should be the measure of adventure progress. Good chase rules, social interaction subsystems, faction rules, off-screen activity adjudication guidelines, reasons to be sneaking or leaping or pushing boulders around in the first place (instead of acquiring a spell which will obviate someone's entire skill loadout) -- these are what make or break the generalized resolution portion of the game, not how one determines your success/failure chances.
*caveat: open-ended numeric threshold systems work when one can actually get a decent grasp of how good your character is at a thing, based on the DCs one will likely face. Roll-under-on-d20 has the advantage of readily saying 'under the likely-common scenario of no net plus or minus, my chances are __%. D&D 3e, as an example, I often did not feel I knew that for a given character because there often wasn't a default likely-common scenario.

 

[Hriston]

I haven't played AD&D in a long long time, but, when I did (1E), I don't recall we ever used roll-under ability checks. When I heard/read about them years later, they always seemed off to me aesthetically. If I played AD&D now, I would use a d6 check like is present in the game for things like opening doors, finding secret doors, detecting traps, etc., using a difficulty scale like this:

target number​	difficulty​
6​	very hard​
5​	hard​
4​	medium​
3​	easy​
2​	very easy​

I'd model modifiers off the "Open Doors On A" column of the PHB Strength Table II, assuming opening the door is a hard difficulty task. So the modifiers would be:

score​	modifier​
3-7​	-1​
8-15​	0​
16-18/50*​	+1​
18/51-18/99*​	+2​
18/00*​	+3​

*exceptional scores given for fighter Strength only

I'd leave the roll-under mechanic as a non-standard ability saving throw where it's present in the game. I.e. the 4th-level magic-user spell dig (Dex, presumably d20) and the 4th-level illusionist spell phantasmal killer (Int, 3d6).

 

[teitan]

Core 2e? Fine. I don't really like them. They're incongruent with the established skill mechanic with the Thief and Assassin. In 2e they got so out of hand it was nuts. In 1e they changed the way the game played significantly. In OA they were wonderful but when imported to AD&D proper the sudden appearance of a skill system began the slow descent into "can I make a spot check?". Which is fine if you like to play that way but I feel it is limiting.

 

[DammitVictor]

I generally prefer adding bonuses and rolling high-- because I like the ability for abilities to be open-ended-- but there are some advantages to the straight roll-under. It replaces table math with pre-calculated numbers, and if you're really clever you can straight-up import the MOGA system from Alternity for difficulty modifiers and degrees of success.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Core 2e? Fine. I don't really like them. They're incongruent with the established skill mechanic with the Thief and Assassin. In 2e they got so out of hand it was nuts. In 1e they changed the way the game played significantly. In OA they were wonderful but when imported to AD&D proper the sudden appearance of a skill system began the slow descent into "can I make a spot check?". Which is fine if you like to play that way but I feel it is limiting.

Interesting. Do you have any examples? Slow descent into spot checks notwithstanding*, did you really see it take over the game? *I'm concerned with what was there in 1e and 2e, not what it might have become in 3e

My impression was that the non-weapon proficiency/skill system was a bunch of vestigial heat and light (and certainly page count in 2e) with out a lot of flame. There weren't any 'spot' style NWPs. Most being niche abilities like 'juggling' or giving you back the horse riding and reading/writing abilities you had before. The weapon/armor/bow-making skills let you fashion normal equipment -- very slowly and with setup equipment with costs you likely never would recoup. Healing (even with Herbalism as well) provided healing at a fraction of the speed of curative magic (and were only efficiently available to classes which already had said magic). Surviving in the wilderness was an amalgam of 5-13 NWPs*, costing 7-15 slots** ; and even then was specifically called out as being a poor replacement for proper equipment planning*** and following maps.
*direction sense, fire building, survival, tracking, and weather sense; possibly also animal handling, animal lore, animal training, fishing, hunting, mountaineering, rope use, and set snare
**more if you want survival for more than 1 of 6 terrain types, potentially adding 10 more slots to the cost
***"The survival skill in no way releases the player characters from the hardship and horrors of being lost in the wilderness. At best it alleviates a small portion of the suffering. The food found is barely adequate, and water is discovered in miniscule amounts. It is still quite possible for a character with survival knowledge to die in the wilderness. Indeed, the little knowledge the character has may lead to.overconfidence and doom"

All in all, my impression was that the system, in the end, didn't really do all that much. It just sat there taking up up page count and making false distinctions between 2e kits and such. In play, to, I remember a whole lot of futzing over picking nwps at character creation (often as a way of theme-definition for a specific character), but then they didn't really see a whole lot of use once actual play started.

All of which is just my take and experience, YMMV, etc.

 

[Voadam]

Interesting. Do you have any examples? Slow descent into spot checks notwithstanding*, did you really see it take over the game? *I'm concerned with what was there in 1e and 2e, not what it might have become in 3e

My impression was that the non-weapon proficiency/skill system was a bunch of vestigial heat and light (and certainly page count in 2e) with out a lot of flame. There weren't any 'spot' style NWPs. Most being niche abilities like 'juggling' or giving you back the horse riding and reading/writing abilities you had before. The weapon/armor/bow-making skills let you fashion normal equipment -- very slowly and with setup equipment with costs you likely never would recoup. Healing (even with Herbalism as well) provided healing at a fraction of the speed of curative magic (and were only efficiently available to classes which already had said magic). Surviving in the wilderness was an amalgam of 5-13 NWPs*, costing 7-15 slots** ; and even then was specifically called out as being a poor replacement for proper equipment planning*** and following maps.
*direction sense, fire building, survival, tracking, and weather sense; possibly also animal handling, animal lore, animal training, fishing, hunting, mountaineering, rope use, and set snare
**more if you want survival for more than 1 of 6 terrain types, potentially adding 10 more slots to the cost
***"The survival skill in no way releases the player characters from the hardship and horrors of being lost in the wilderness. At best it alleviates a small portion of the suffering. The food found is barely adequate, and water is discovered in miniscule amounts. It is still quite possible for a character with survival knowledge to die in the wilderness. Indeed, the little knowledge the character has may lead to.overconfidence and doom"

All in all, my impression was that the system, in the end, didn't really do all that much. It just sat there taking up up page count and making false distinctions between 2e kits and such. In play, to, I remember a whole lot of futzing over picking nwps at character creation (often as a way of theme-definition for a specific character), but then they didn't really see a whole lot of use once actual play started.

All of which is just my take and experience, YMMV, etc.

There were a couple niche actual adventuring abilities in the PHB NWPs.

Picking up a new language in game after figuring out starting ones could be nice.

Tumbling allowed no damage from a 10 foot fall and half from others up to 60' on a check, improving unarmed attack rolls by 2.

Healing was sub par compared to magical healing but was a distinct improvement over default healing and could be a supplement to magical healing.

Mountaineering allowed +10% to climbing chances per time taken.

Blindfighting reduced darkness/invisibility penalties.

Also Complete Thief's Handbook provided an observation NWP that seemed to be a spot type mechanic in 2e. Also an alertness one to reduce surprise but at the cost of an extra check everytime surprise came up for the chance to modify the surprise check.

Alertness
1 slot, Wisdom, + 1 modifier.
Required: Burglar.
Recommended: All.
A character with this proficiency is able to instinctively notice and recognize signs of a disturbance in the immediate vicinity, reducing by 1 in 6 the character's chance of being surprised whenever he makes a successful proficiency check.

Observation
1 slot, Intelligence, 0 modifier.
Required: Beggar, Cutpurse, Investigator, Spy, Swindler, Troubleshooter.
Recommended: Assassin, Bounty Hunter, Burgler, Fence, Smuggler.
Characters with this proficiency have cultivated exceptionally acute powers of observation. The DM may ask for a proficiency check (or secretly roll it himself) anytime there is something subtly askew; he may also allow characters with observation to increase their chance of finding secret or concealed doors by 1 in 6. The proficiency covers all the senses.
Example: Julina is questioning a man who claims to be a craftsman who has worked on the palace; she is searching for the most discreet entrance. The DM secretly rolls an observation proficiency check; it is successful. "You notice," he tells her, "that his hands are in beautiful condition, entirely lacking callouses." From this observation, Julina may deduce that the man is actually just posing as a craftsman; he may be a con man taking advantage of a few free drinks or coins, or he could even be a spy for her enemies.