fuindordm
Adventurer
@Celebrim
Thanks for your feedback and suggestions! I can respond to some of your ideas:
As I see it, in AD&D there are three types of skills. (Of course, this analysis is my own inference and interpolation; the design principles are never stated in the books.)
1. There are some "highly reliable" skills that are successful in the range of 80-100%, such as the druid's nature lore, assassin's disguise, barbarian's first aid, ranger's tracking, and thief's climbing. Typically these skills fall into what we would call the exploration pillar today. They are reliable either because the consequences of failure are not very important (e.g. tracking, first aid) or so dire (e.g. disguise) that any large chance of failure would make them not worth using.
2. Then there are some "difficult, can't even try if untrained skills" of which the thief skills are the archetype, but there are a few other examples such as bard charm & lore, and barbarian detection of magic and illusion. The design principle for these skills seems to be that succeeding gives you an advantage, but failing doesn't have a major consequence. A thief who fails detect traps is no worse off than before--they may still get a 1-2 in 6 roll to avoid (a frequent mechanic in modules) or use a creative approach to mitigate the risk. Failing to hide/move silently does not mean you are detected, it just means your chance of surprise remains the default. At least, that is how I ran it--if failing a detect traps roll meant setting off the trap, no one would ever try it!
3. The middle ground is when PCs attempt challenging tasks that require no special training. In 1e, we have some d6-based examples of such tasks, like open doors and the implicit perception vs stealth opposed check of surprise. Post 3E this is usually handled as d20+ability bonus >= 10, 15, or 20. The DC is very subjective and ad hoc, which makes the precision of the d20 roll a bit illusory in my opinion. In 2E, d20 < ability score was more frequent, but again the DM might assign ad hoc bonuses/penalties, and the informal system was completely at odds with the NWP system that had its own rules for actions that previously could be attempted untrained. These are some reasons why I find the d20 roll unsatisfying. In the past I have also tried systems like 3d6 under ability for easy, 4d6 under ability for challenging, and 5d6 under ability for extremely hard tasks. BUT lately I have been trying to reduce my tendency to ask for ability checks, preferring to grant auto-success if the action seems reasonable and in line with the character's experience, even under mild pressure. This is why I suggest in the document that if success seems likely (>50%) based on the DMs understanding of the situation, they should just let the PCs succeed, and ask for the d6 roll only if the consequences of failure are truly interesting.
Your point about the granularity and precision of the test is entirely valid, but I think a question of preference. Since the difficulty/target number is subjective, that uncertainty can cancel out the precision of the roll. Another advantage of a d20 roll would be if you give the PCs an opportunity to specialize; but this doesn't make much sense for the untrained ability checks. In the case of perception/stealth/surprise, the specialization of the thief in AD&D, and the desired granularity, is implemented differently by introducing a difficult % check that if passed provides a static and significant bonus (see the DMG explanation of surprise and the effects of successful thief skill rolls). At least, this is my interpretation--any trained skill roll with a low base chance of success should provide a bonus if succeeded but not a grave consequence if failed. The bluff/insight opposed roll looked like another "untrained" example that fits in the same design pattern.
Now, I don't claim this system resolves all problems of verisimilitude! But it is good enough for me to consider running with as a DM. In the tree example I would let a thief climb automatically (since it is significantly easier than sheer surfaces) even under pressure; but PCs without that skill would make a d6 Str roll with the failure simply meaning that they don't make progress. On the other hand, assuming that they can take their time, everyone would simply succeed. Some of these d6 rolls could also be supplanted by more detailed movement/exploration rules if they exist (for example, jumping as you mention).
The rest of this system, which I am still thinking about, is what other trained skills in categories 1 and 2 should exist to complete the set (I mention Persuasion as an example to modify the bluff/insight opposed roll), who should be able to access them and how (Intelligence bonus languages? proficiencies? swapping only with default class skills?), and how to handle all the special cases of exploration and movement defined by the thief-acrobat and barbarian classes in UA. But I think a unified system for AD&D based around these three "skill design patterns" is possible.
Thanks again for putting your thoughts down!
Thanks for your feedback and suggestions! I can respond to some of your ideas:
As I see it, in AD&D there are three types of skills. (Of course, this analysis is my own inference and interpolation; the design principles are never stated in the books.)
1. There are some "highly reliable" skills that are successful in the range of 80-100%, such as the druid's nature lore, assassin's disguise, barbarian's first aid, ranger's tracking, and thief's climbing. Typically these skills fall into what we would call the exploration pillar today. They are reliable either because the consequences of failure are not very important (e.g. tracking, first aid) or so dire (e.g. disguise) that any large chance of failure would make them not worth using.
2. Then there are some "difficult, can't even try if untrained skills" of which the thief skills are the archetype, but there are a few other examples such as bard charm & lore, and barbarian detection of magic and illusion. The design principle for these skills seems to be that succeeding gives you an advantage, but failing doesn't have a major consequence. A thief who fails detect traps is no worse off than before--they may still get a 1-2 in 6 roll to avoid (a frequent mechanic in modules) or use a creative approach to mitigate the risk. Failing to hide/move silently does not mean you are detected, it just means your chance of surprise remains the default. At least, that is how I ran it--if failing a detect traps roll meant setting off the trap, no one would ever try it!
3. The middle ground is when PCs attempt challenging tasks that require no special training. In 1e, we have some d6-based examples of such tasks, like open doors and the implicit perception vs stealth opposed check of surprise. Post 3E this is usually handled as d20+ability bonus >= 10, 15, or 20. The DC is very subjective and ad hoc, which makes the precision of the d20 roll a bit illusory in my opinion. In 2E, d20 < ability score was more frequent, but again the DM might assign ad hoc bonuses/penalties, and the informal system was completely at odds with the NWP system that had its own rules for actions that previously could be attempted untrained. These are some reasons why I find the d20 roll unsatisfying. In the past I have also tried systems like 3d6 under ability for easy, 4d6 under ability for challenging, and 5d6 under ability for extremely hard tasks. BUT lately I have been trying to reduce my tendency to ask for ability checks, preferring to grant auto-success if the action seems reasonable and in line with the character's experience, even under mild pressure. This is why I suggest in the document that if success seems likely (>50%) based on the DMs understanding of the situation, they should just let the PCs succeed, and ask for the d6 roll only if the consequences of failure are truly interesting.
Your point about the granularity and precision of the test is entirely valid, but I think a question of preference. Since the difficulty/target number is subjective, that uncertainty can cancel out the precision of the roll. Another advantage of a d20 roll would be if you give the PCs an opportunity to specialize; but this doesn't make much sense for the untrained ability checks. In the case of perception/stealth/surprise, the specialization of the thief in AD&D, and the desired granularity, is implemented differently by introducing a difficult % check that if passed provides a static and significant bonus (see the DMG explanation of surprise and the effects of successful thief skill rolls). At least, this is my interpretation--any trained skill roll with a low base chance of success should provide a bonus if succeeded but not a grave consequence if failed. The bluff/insight opposed roll looked like another "untrained" example that fits in the same design pattern.
Now, I don't claim this system resolves all problems of verisimilitude! But it is good enough for me to consider running with as a DM. In the tree example I would let a thief climb automatically (since it is significantly easier than sheer surfaces) even under pressure; but PCs without that skill would make a d6 Str roll with the failure simply meaning that they don't make progress. On the other hand, assuming that they can take their time, everyone would simply succeed. Some of these d6 rolls could also be supplanted by more detailed movement/exploration rules if they exist (for example, jumping as you mention).
The rest of this system, which I am still thinking about, is what other trained skills in categories 1 and 2 should exist to complete the set (I mention Persuasion as an example to modify the bluff/insight opposed roll), who should be able to access them and how (Intelligence bonus languages? proficiencies? swapping only with default class skills?), and how to handle all the special cases of exploration and movement defined by the thief-acrobat and barbarian classes in UA. But I think a unified system for AD&D based around these three "skill design patterns" is possible.
Thanks again for putting your thoughts down!
