AD&D: There and Back Again - a Role-Player's Tale

[lumin]

Wait, so are you saying that in AD&D you could pick LARGE objects from a person's pocket? Of course it only applies to small objects, since those are the only types of objects that a person can have on their person, if you follow me.


Note the reference to small items.

Aha! You're catching on.

And where is "small" defined in the book? Or are you, the DM, "freewheeling" how "small" is defined?
Small on a Giant, is different than small on a Gnome.

So for a slightly "larger" object you may lower the DC to 19 or 18 right?

 

[Fifth Element]

Post the table in 1E and post the table in 3E side by side if they both exist. Let us judge for ourselves.

The table for 3E can be found here, and there is no table for AD&D, that's the point. And as the quote from p.110 of the DMG states quite clearly, when a character attempts something not covered by the rules, you either make a decision about it, or allow a die roll (based on a free-wheeled DC) to determine success.

 

[Fifth Element]

And where is "small" defined in the book? Or are you, the DM, "freewheeling" how "small" is defined?

In AD&D, you'd have to freewheel the definition of small, since there isn't one. "Small" is a defined term in 3E, as it applies to creatures at any rate. I suppose as an item it would be Diminutive or Fine or something like that, since 3E does in fact have defined size categories that go into much more detail than AD&D's S, M and L.

Small on a Giant, is different than small on a Gnome.

But it's not different to the thief. And you're not talking about anything that's different between the editions here, so I'm not sure what the point is.

 

[lumin]

The table for 3E can be found here, and there is no table for AD&D, that's the point. And as the quote from p.110 of the DMG states quite clearly, when a character attempts something not covered by the rules, you either make a decision about it, or allow a die roll (based on a free-wheeled DC) to determine success.

Actually the rule for handling animal is defined in 1E, but they were extremely strict on who could use them.

Druids:
In connection with their nature worship, druids have certain innate powers
which are gained at higher level. At 3rd level (Initiate of the 1st Circle), a
druid gains the following obilities:
1. ldentificotion of plant type
2. Identification of animal type
...
The ability to speak with animals as druids do which begins at
3rd level of experience.


Paladin
At 4th level - or at any time thereafter - the paladin may
call for his warhorse;

Clerics:
See Speak With Animals Spell

So again, here is another example of how 1E is far stricter with handling animals. Only certain classes could do it at certain levels or with spell. On the other hand, 3E handed the skill out like candy.

 

[lumin]

In AD&D, you'd have to freewheel the definition of small, since there isn't one. "Small" is a defined term in 3E, as it applies to creatures at any rate. I suppose as an item it would be Diminutive or Fine or something like that, since 3E does in fact have defined size categories that go into much more detail than AD&D's S, M and L.


But it's not different to the thief. And you're not talking about anything that's different between the editions here, so I'm not sure what the point is.

Uh, I think you just made that up. "Small" = "diminuitive or fine"? I missed that rule I guess.

3E allowed ANYONE to choose "sleight of hand" as a trained skill and roll a d20 on it, not just thieves. So "small" to a Gnome was very different from "small" to a half-orc in this regard. But it was up to you, as the DM, to decide how that was defined. Again - more freewheeling.

 

[Fifth Element]

Uh, I think you just made that up.

"Small" = "diminuitive or fine"? I missed that rule I guess.

No, just pointing that while Small is a defined term in 3E, the use of the word small in the Sleight of Hand description does not mean Small, just small. Unless you think that guy has a halfling in his pocket?

 

[Fifth Element]

Actually the rule for handling animal is defined in 1E, but they were extremely strict on who could use them.

No, you're confusing magic (which still exists in 3E, of course) with training animals. Besides that, a class being granted the ability to speak with animals is not remotely the same thing as providing a table of possible types of animal training and their related DCs.

Say an AD&D druid wanted to train an animal, using his ability to speak with animals. He wants to train an animal to fetch. Well, the DM now has to decide whether the druid can do that (since no rules are provided for it), or assign a DC and let the player roll for it. This is per p.110 of the DMG.

In 3E, the DM checks the table, finds that the DC is 15, and the player rolls.

You can't keep dancing around the quote from p.110 of the AD&D DMG.

 

[lumin]

No, just pointing that while Small is a defined term in 3E, the use of the word small in the Sleight of Hand description does not mean Small, just small. Unless you think that guy has a halfling in his pocket?

Again, that's your interpretation of it. To another DM, it could mean that small relates specifically to the creature performing the act. A pixie attempting to rob you while in a dungeon meant that the DM had to freewheel the DC for the check because of the type of individuals performing.

1E simply had a single number: 30% (at level 1). It also clearly stated -exactly- when that roll would be modified on the second paragraph on page 27 of the PHB.

Unlike 3E, there was no "qualitative" ambiguity for what roll a Thief could sucessfully pick-pocket on.

 

[lumin]

No, you're confusing magic (which still exists in 3E, of course) with training animals. Besides that, a class being granted the ability to speak with animals is not remotely the same thing as providing a table of possible types of animal training and their related DCs.

Say an AD&D druid wanted to train an animal, using his ability to speak with animals. He wants to train an animal to fetch. Well, the DM now has to decide whether the druid can do that (since no rules are provided for it), or assign a DC and let the player roll for it. This is per p.110 of the DMG.

In 3E, the DM checks the table, finds that the DC is 15, and the player rolls.

You can't keep dancing around the quote from p.110 of the AD&D DMG.

But the stated rule for handling an animal was already stated in the rules for the Druid, Paladin, and Cleric classes. There is no need to make up another rule because, as Gygax states, There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a player will attempt.

In this circumstance, the rules CLEARLY state who can and who cannot handle animals.

 

[IronWolf]

But the stated rule for handling an animal was already stated in the rules for the Druid, Paladin, and Cleric classes. There is no need to make up another rule because, as Gygax states, There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a player will attempt.

In this circumstance, the rules CLEARLY state who can and who cannot handle animals.

So I am a druid with a pet cat. I want to teach the cat to roll over and play dead. What's the percentage check?