Classic D&D...

[Baumi]

I'm curios about one thing (Diaglo at least should know the answer..):

In the 74 Edition there are only three classes, but not the ones that someone would pick today (Fighter, Mage, Expert) but Fighting-Man, Magic-User and Cleric (hope I got the names right). How did you handle the "Thiefing Skills" like Sneaking around, open locks and things like that? Did they roll on an Attribute or just a description how they disable a Trap,..?

 

[Delta]

I'm curios about one thing (Diaglo at least should know the answer..):

In the 74 Edition there are only three classes, but not the ones that someone would pick today (Fighter, Mage, Expert) but Fighting-Man, Magic-User and Cleric (hope I got the names right). How did you handle the "Thiefing Skills" like Sneaking around, open locks and things like that? Did they roll on an Attribute or just a description how they disable a Trap,..?

Think I can mostly field that, looking at my copy of the OD&D boxed set.
- Sneaking up on someone is handled by the surprise roll (1-2 on d6).
- Locks in general aren't mentioned anywhere that I can tell.
- Traps could be detected with the clerical find traps spell.

Disabling traps aren't mentioned anywhere I can tell. Perhaps you can assume if detected, they can be automatically bypassed? This idea is bolstered in that when Thieves appear in Supplement I Greyhawk, they only have one trap skill (it's just "Remove Traps"... no separate "Find Traps" exists or is mentioned.)

 

[Numion]

3. THAC0 isn't so bad! Really! I mean, what's the difference, honestly? In 3e, if you're a fighter attacking with a bonus of +3 and your enemy has AC 17, you know you need to roll a 14 or better to hit. d20 + attack bonus beats AC. Very simple, very intuitive. In the classic game, though, if you're a fighter with THAC0 17 attacking an enemy with an AC of 3, what's the difference? You know that if the d20 + the bad guy's AC beats your THAC0, you hit -- roll 14 or better. What I'm driving at here is, since the numbers are practically the same, why the hate? Why is it that whenever anyone brings up "what's bad about D&D before 3e came out", THAC0 and AC always top the list? I'm not seeing a difference!

I don't tell my players the AC at first. Usually after a couple of rounds I might tell it to them to speed things up (since they've mostly pinpointed it themselves, considering which results hit and which don't).

 

[RFisher]

Has anybody else had a similar experience with going back and playing by the "auld school" rules?

Yep. My web site is filled with musings on the subject. (Though any insights therein were given me by the old school community. I only claim the flaws as mine own.)

(One other thing that I like about the RC version of D&D are the restricted spell lists of Clerics and Magic Users. Almost every spell on those lists were useful - no filler - and there were so few of them there weren't too many problems figuring out which spells you wanted to prepare on a given day. I do miss that sometimes, especially when my Cleric and Druid players are both dithering over which spells they think they might want today.)

It also leaves lots of room for PCs to come up with their own spells.

Of course, THAC0 is easily circumvented in those old editions by just converting it into an attack bonus and making AC go low to high instead of high to low.

For me, it's even easier to just look at the table.

How did you handle the "Thiefing Skills" like Sneaking around, open locks and things like that? Did they roll on an Attribute or just a description how they disable a Trap,..?

I haven't actually played the original game, & if I did how I would would be colored by later editions. So I can't give you an authentic answer. But I can tell you how I handle thief skills in classic D&D.

Before the thief, though, I suspect you had to find the key to open most locks. Perhaps you could break the lock or door/chest if they were weak & you were strong. Probably with some form of attribute check. Likewise, traps were probably seldom disabled. When it happened, it was probably the referee describing the trap (from the PC's point-of-view, of course) & the player describing exactly how the PC tries to disable it. Besides surprise, I suspect the referee often just ruled on sneaking based on how alert the sneakee might be.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Awesome! Classic D&D is such a beautiful system and product. I keep meaning to break it out and attempt to take a campaign from Basic to Immortal.

I recently was gifted with the Dwarves of Rockhome sourcebook, and was happily surprised to see a Dwarf-Cleric class.

I can see wanting a Noble class, but out curiosity, why Scientist?

Ah, well, it's awfully difficult to run a Victorian gaslight/steampunk setting without a player character scientist class.

 

[T. Foster]

Think I can mostly field that, looking at my copy of the OD&D boxed set.
- Sneaking up on someone is handled by the surprise roll (1-2 on d6).

Correct

- Locks in general aren't mentioned anywhere that I can tell.

The magic-user knock spell specifically opens locks. If that's not available you've got 2 choices: 1) find a key (if there's a lock, it makes sense that there will be a key that fits it somewhere nearby), or 2) smash it (making lots of noise and probably drawing wandering monsters, and possibly destroying whatever is on the other side of the lock). If someone wanted to try to pick a lock I'd assign an ad-hoc chance based on the character's Int and Dex, but it would be very low (perhaps base 1% + 1% per point of Int or Dex above 13, or something like that). I also like the idea of a "locksmith" expert hireling who's an NPC who doesn't fight but who has a good chance to pick any lock -- he won't normally go into the dungeon with you, but if you bring out a locked chest or strongbox you can take it to this guy and pay him to open it for you.

- Traps could be detected with the clerical find traps spell.

Dwarfs are also vaguely stated (vol. I, p. 7) as being able to find traps (with no mechanic attached), and there are wands of secret door and trap detection. More generally, though, it's up to the players' ad-hoc tricks -- probing with poles or daggers, rolling marbles, tying rope or string around things, using bags of sand or flour, etc. From my perspective, at least, abstracting all of those tricks away into the "find traps" roll takes away at least a little bit of the fun of the game.

Disabling traps aren't mentioned anywhere I can tell. Perhaps you can assume if detected, they can be automatically bypassed? This idea is bolstered in that when Thieves appear in Supplement I Greyhawk, they only have one trap skill (it's just "Remove Traps"... no separate "Find Traps" exists or is mentioned.)

There's a vague mention (vol. I, p. 10) that Strength aids in "opening traps" (again with no mechanic attached). I wouldn't say that characters are assumed to be able to disarm or disable traps -- avoid them, or trigger them harmlessly, yes (don't step on the pressure plate, cause the needle to spring without your finger in its path, etc.), but not necessarily disarm them (i.e. make it so that the needle or pressure plate doesn't spring).

 

[Delta]

The magic-user knock spell specifically opens locks.

Yeah, of course I thought of that later, after going to bed last night.

I wouldn't say that characters are assumed to be able to disarm or disable traps -- avoid them, or trigger them harmlessly, yes (don't step on the pressure plate, cause the needle to spring without your finger in its path, etc.), but not necessarily disarm them (i.e. make it so that the needle or pressure plate doesn't spring).

Yeah, I also agree in general, which is why I used the word "bypassed" previously.

 

[Delta]

Actually, this highlights an interesting question I hadn't considered before. Let's say you're playing with Thieves directly out of Supplement I Greyhawk. Their trap ability reads in its entirety as follows:

- remove small trap devices (such as poisoned needles)

How do these thieves find the traps in the first place? Must they use some other mechanism (like find traps or physically described means)? Are they entirely prohibited from dealing with things like pits or big deadfalls? On the one hand, this would wipe out the whole "search here, there, everyhwere: standard thief s***" problem with thieves in play...

 

[T. Foster]

Actually, this highlights an interesting question I hadn't considered before. Let's say you're playing with Thieves directly out of Supplement I Greyhawk. Their trap ability reads in its entirety as follows:


How do these thieves find the traps in the first place? Must they use some other mechanism (like find traps or physically described means)? Are they entirely prohibited from dealing with things like pits or big deadfalls? On the one hand, this would wipe out the whole "search here, there, everyhwere: standard thief s***" problem with thieves in play...

Yeah, I think the original intention was that for both finding traps and disabling large/simple traps (such as pits, deadfalls, tripwires, etc. -- the kind that can usually be disabled by cutting a rope, wedging a spike, etc.) that you're expected/required to deal with them on a player/negotiation level, and that the thief's abstract special ability is only intended to apply to very technical/detailed operations (where you have to get into the mechanism via an angled mirror and a pair of tweezers and cut the red wire without touching the green or yellow wires, or whatever the equivalent of such in a fantasy/medieval milieu would be) that a player without actual training as a traps expert couldn't realistically be expected to describe non-abstractly -- just like picking a lock or picking a pocket (the player isn't expected to actually know these skills -- to describe literally how he uses his picks to manipulates the tumblers in the lock, or how he positions his hands/body to filch the mark's wallet, etc.).

P.S. Delta, I love your OD&D-blog and included a link to it at The Knights & Knaves Alehouse which has generated some very positive responses.

 

[Delta]

T. Foster, thanks so much for the comments! I really appreciate it.