OSR What are your thoughts on the success probabilities of pre-3e versions of D&D?

[Jack Daniel]

When I ref OD&D or AD&D, I don't use any kind of a general skills or non-weapon proficiencies system, and I don't use d20 roll-under ability checks either. If the rules define a specific action (like opening doors or searching for traps), I use the rule; otherwise I make a ruling and maybe call for a die-roll (% chance or x-in-6 or maybe 2d6 on the reaction table for actions with lots of possible outcomes), based on the circumstances and the character's background.

I'm pretty much fine with the chances for most actions in the rules, but I house-rule the heck out of thieves. I fold all of the thieving skills into three broad categories—Perception, Thievery, and Acrobatics—and start them off at different odds of success for different classes.

Thieves: Perception 35% (+5% per level), Thievery 50% (+5% per level), Acrobatics 85% (+1% per level)
Assassins: Perception 25% (+4% per level), Thievery 40% (+4% per level), Acrobatics 75% (+1% per level)
Bards: Perception 20% (+3% per level), Thievery 35% (+3% per level), Acrobatics 70% (+1% per level)
Monks: same as bards, except they improve their Acrobatics by +3% per level, the same as their other skills.

If I'm running an OD&D-based game set in some genre other than medieval fantasy, particularly in a more modern setting, there probably won't be a specialized thief class there in the first place, and instead I'll use a more generic "expert" class and the d6-based skill system that I wrote for Engines & Empires, back when the OSR was first taking off and becoming a thing.

 

[ECMO3]

With regard to the success probabilities of attacks, thief skills, the damage outputs of various classes at various levels, NWPs in 2e, and anything else you wish to discuss, do you find that pre-3e versions of D&D have a good balance between success and failure?

In 1E at low levels in terms of combat there were fighters, Rangers, Cavaliers and Paladins and there was everyone else. Barbarians were a step below these martials and everyone else was well, well below them. A magic-user could be one-shot until level 5 or so and his best damage spell at first level did 3.5 damage and could be cast once a day.

At upper levels it evened out a bit with Magic-Users being on par with the fighting classes and Clerics being a step down. Thieves sucked at combat at high levels too.

No class had a specific advantage in social situations .... except for Druids and especially Paladins that had high Charisma minimums. If you did not have one of these classes the face was as likely to be a fighter as anyone else. So aside from being the best at combat they could likely be the best out of combat too.

As far as skills, a low level thief was nearly useless at anything except climbing walls .... unless they were a Halfling, Gnome or Dwarf, then they sucked at climbing walls too. At higher levels they could be decent skill guys.

2E was a little better because you got subclasses to boost the combat power of the casters and thieves could put all their points in one ability making them good at SOMETHING.

 

[Lanefan]

In 1E at low levels in terms of combat there were fighters, Rangers, Cavaliers and Paladins and there was everyone else. Barbarians were a step below these martials and everyone else was well, well below them. A magic-user could be one-shot until level 5 or so and his best damage spell at first level did 3.5 damage and could be cast once a day.

Not quite. A 1st-level MU's best spell could put a bunch of people to sleep once a day; usually followed by coups-de-grace all round.

That you mention Barbarians implies you're talking post-UA 1e, which as written is a vastly different beast than pre-UA 1e. Pre-UA, at low levels there wasn't much difference between warriors and Clerics in combat other than Clerics had a more limited weapon selection.

 

[Neonchameleon]

When I was playing back in the day (starting in the mid 80s, so later than you), everyone I and everyone else I played with ruled that thieves were the only ones that could attempt these abilities, unless specifically stated, like certain racial abilities. Once thieves were a defined class, looking at the text in 0e's Greyhawk supplement, Basic, 1e, and 2e, the assumption appears to be that thieves are the only ones that can do these things, other than those few specified exceptions. Nowhere is it called out that these are abilities that stack on top of ability checks, for nigh-impossible tasks.

On the other hand one of the abilities is "Hear Noise". Making this thief-exclusive implies literally everyone who wasn't a thief was deaf because they couldn't hear noises or that hearing with your ear pressed against a door is an exclusive thing to thieves? Making it not thief exclusive with such low success chances (starting at 10%) on the other hand makes it a pretty useless ability.

The whole thing is weird whichever way you handle it.

 

[Voadam]

On the other hand one of the abilities is "Hear Noise". Making this thief-exclusive implies literally everyone who wasn't a thief was deaf because they couldn't hear noises or that hearing with your ear pressed against a door is an exclusive thing to thieves? Making it not thief exclusive with such low success chances (starting at 10%) on the other hand makes it a pretty useless ability.

The whole thing is weird whichever way you handle it.

I remember from at least the Holmes Basic set it describing dungeons as adversarial with PCs, doors open for monsters, but are stuck for PCs and require a strength check with possible noise to open. Enemies can hear easily but it is difficult for PCs. NPCs who become allied with PCs lose the monster advantages.

I remember this carrying over a bit in AD&D and Moldvay Basic.

In any case here is the 1e references on listening.

1e PH page 27:

1. Listening at doors includes like activity at other portals such as windows. It is accomplished by moving silently to the door and pressing an ear against it to detect sound.

1e PH Page 28:

Hearing Noise is simply listening intently. The thief and his or her accomplices must themselves be quiet (but not silent as in moving). This function can be repeated as often as desired. It requires a full minute to listen, i.e. one-tenth of a normal turn, or time equal to a melee round. Note that sleeping creatures, undead, and many other creatures do not make sounds discernible through a portal. Success informs the hearer that someone or something awaits beyond the portal.

1e DMG page 19:

Hearing Noise: This is pretty straightforward. The thief, just as any other character, must take off helmet or other obstructing headgear in order to press his or her ear to the door surface in order to hear beyond.

1e DMG page 60:

LISTENING AT DOORS
In addition to the simple exercise of observation, many times characters will desire to listen, ear pressed to a portal, prior to opening and entering. This requires a special check, in secret, by you to determine if any sound is heard. Because of this, continual listening becomes a great bother to the DM. While ear seekers will tend to discourage some, most players will insist on having their characters listen at doors at every pretense. First, make certain that you explain to players that all headgear must be removed in order to listen. Those wearing helmets will probably have to remove a mail coif and padded cap as well, don’t forget. The party must also be absolutely silent, and listening will take at least one round.
Silent creatures — undead, bugbears, etc. — will never be heard. Sleeping or resting or alerted creatures will not be heard either. If there is something for the listener to hear behind the door, the following probabilities will determine if any sound is heard:
Race Of Listener Chance Of Hearing Noise
Dwarf 2 in 20 (10%)
Elf 3 in 20 (15%)
Gnome 4 in 20 (20%)
Half-Elf 2 in 20 (10%)
Halfling 3 in 20 (15%)
Half-Orc 3 in 20 (15%)
Human 2 in 20 (10%)
Keen-eared individuals will gain a bonus of 1 or 2 in 20 (5% or 10%). Use chance of hearing a noise to determine if a character is keen-eared the first time he or she listens at a door, and if it is indicated, tell the player to note the fact for his or her character. Player characters will not initially have hearing problems (as they wouldn’t have survived if they had them). During the course of adventuring, great noise might cause hearing loss. Handle this as you see fit.
A loss of hearing might negate the chance to hear something behind a door without any other noticeable effects.
Hearing Noise: When a die roll indicates a noise has been heard, tell the player whose character was listening that he or she heard a clink, footstep, murmuring voices, slithering, laughter, or whatever is appropriate. (Of course, some of these noises will be magical, e.g., audible glamer spells, not anything which will be encountered at all!) Be imprecise and give only vague hints; never say, “You hear ogres,” but “You hear rumbling, voice-like sounds.” Failure to hear any noise can be due to the fact that nothing which will make noise is beyond the portal, or it might be due to a bad (for the listener) die roll. Always roll the die, even if you know nothing can be heard. Always appear disinterested regardless of the situation.
Maximum Number Of Listeners: Each listener will take up about 2½’ of space, so up to three can listen at a typical dungeon door.
Maximum Length Of Time For Listening: Only three attempts can be made before the strain becomes too great. After the third attempt, the listeners must cease such activity for at least five rounds before returning to listening again.


So in 1e all characters are pretty terrible at hearing through doors to detect activity on the other side, but all can try and there are specific rules for doing so. Thieves start at 10% at 1st level modified by race which matches up to the DMG base character chance so they start just like any character then get better at doing so at 2nd level and higher.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yeah, both these points show just how unclear the thief integration was, because it never specified how the one type of check interfaces with the other. I could totally see a thief making the case for just making a Dex check instead of using their skills, because of the greater probability.

One hack I read (maybe here?) was to just use the d6 Hear Noise ability probability for all thief ability checks, which I quite like.

I did some more looking through Moldvay Basic (since it was close at hand and easy to parse), and it does say that any character may check for nonmagical traps, succeeding on a 1 when rolling a d6. That's what, a 16% chance of success compared to the Thief's starting 10% (and a dwarf has a 33% chance)!

No citation; I was speaking half in jest. That said, I allow anyone to try anything but if you don't have training in it your odds of success at anything specialized (i.e. most Thief skills) range from pretty much zero to very low. I've never liked the school of thought that says if you don't have a skill you flat out can't do it; anyone can get lucky once in a while, but the skill sure helps.

On the other hand one of the abilities is "Hear Noise". Making this thief-exclusive implies literally everyone who wasn't a thief was deaf because they couldn't hear noises or that hearing with your ear pressed against a door is an exclusive thing to thieves? Making it not thief exclusive with such low success chances (starting at 10%) on the other hand makes it a pretty useless ability.

The whole thing is weird whichever way you handle it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that the rules were ambiguous, and future iterations of D&D starting with 1e and Holmes basic just muddied the waters.

Looking at the rules back then, it makes sense that most people would assume that only thieves could pick locks or find traps, despite what the original intent was or how it was originally played, because that's human nature to interpret things that way. And I think it's clear that by the late 80s, the assumed style of play among most players was that only thieves could do that stuff. Why do I make that conclusion?

Because if the designers of 2e still assumed the original rule (everyone could attempt anything, and thief skills were just there for the really hard stuff no one else could do), then they would have kept something very similar to the skill progression in 1e, because if you follow that assumption, that skill progression makes total sense and is balanced. After all, Skip Williams said a key design goal of 2e was to make it backwards compatible (which is why they stuck with descending AC rather than ascending, per his words).

However, if you look at it through how most people actually played, that being that thieves rolled every time they wanted to pick a lock or remove a trap, then the thief skill progression table was woefully weak, and thus is why when 2e came out, they addressed that glaring weakness by allowing you to dump up to half your discretionary points into one skill, making even a 1st level thief have a decent chance of success at those things.

So by making that significant change in 2e, it tells me that they knew that most players were not following the original intent (largely because the rules were extremely ambiguous about it), they knew that D&D wasn't growing through word of mouth via experienced DMs like the 70s but by swaths of new players learning together, and thus made a significant change to boost the function of the thief.