Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 9874160" data-attributes="member: 4348">It's how it was played in general when I was there (which most were not, even on these forums.  I was only a teen at the time, and I'm normally the oldest person at almost any gaming arena I'm at these days).What I DO see as an invention is how many who were never there trying to insert how it had to have been.  Before thieves, the most common way to determine success was either DM fiat (DM decides) or rolling under an ability score. (and before someone blurts out in opposition, it was not the only ways, but they were definately the most common).With thieves, it did not automatically stop you from pick pocketing.  Instead, the above systems normally stayed in place which left it up to the DM.  Generally, it for tasks that others would try, a thief may get a pass on (such as the automatic success for moving queitly...as opposed to moving silently...etc).  Or, as I mentioned, they may do a double check.  DM fiat normally went more towards automatic successes though, depending on how one acted, what one did, and how they went about it  (descriptive actions were much more important in earlier D&D, no big skill rolls to replace role playing like much of it is done today).The roleplaying aspect was a much bigger item, and there was no "persuasion" skill that many use today.  It was all roleplaying.  Skills were not normally a big reference thing to roll for.  In fact, this focus wasn't really even an item until later in the 70s.  Prior, it was DM's fiat (which meant that some would do an ability score check, which actually was far more likely than a theives roll check, even with the thief class, as the was more accepted) which normally was left up to how well you roleplayed and depended on how the DM felt your actions went.Interestingly enough, 5e ALSO originally had a similar idea as a rule.  Going back to how skills used to be utilized  (before the NWP thing) as an idea to be referenced, in 5e it was written also that skills generally were automatically successful except in certain situations.  (or, if one wants the inverse, for tasks that are basic to the skill, or things that would be routine, no roll is needed for those who are skilled.  For example, an interpretation could be a rogue who always pick pockets, would normally not get caught unless someone else was skilled at perceptions of being pick pocketed...etc). Which is one items most people today don't think about.  It's why if there was a skill of surgery, a surgeon would suceed 100% of the time on a routine surgery they would perform, as opposed to someone who would need to roll.  That is what makes up a difference between someone who is skilled vs. one who is not skilled rather than the +4 variable of the proficiency bonus.It's also left up to DM's fiat on what does or does not qualify a skilled individual on whether they need to make a roll to suceed or not.Unfortunately, after 3e's debacle on how it handled skills (I roll for everything instead of roleplaying it through), most don't even consider this rule and make people roll for everything these days, even routine tasks a skilled individual should have no problem suceeding at.</blockquote>

Verification