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

[Aging Bard]

I'm working on a "Refit" of the 1st Edition rules: cleaning up ambiguities, pre-ruling common actions, and greatly resequencing combat to clarify what actions are possible and when. None of this is directly related to the OP. However, one conclusion of the Refit is that certain classes are entirely too squishy for modern play and this must be addressed. This includes magic-users and thieves in particular. One solution comes from the Unearthed Arcana supplement, which granted single-class fighters and rangers weapon specialization. I realized that all single-class non-prestige classes needed additional abilities. Multi-class characters were fine as is. Magic-users also needed less spell squish, which I realize will be seen as a violation of a basic right of passage of early D&D. Fie, I say!

Quick quiz: How many 1st level spells does a typical cleric/druid/magic-user/illusionist being with?

Answer: 3/4/1/1. This is because 1) druids begin with 2 1st level spells for some reason, and 2) clerics and druids gain bonus spells for high Wisdom, and at Wis 14 2 1st level are gained, which is quite typical.

Thus, we change the rules so that: 1) all of the Big 4 spellcasters start with 2 1st level spells, and 2) magic-users and illusionists gain bonus spells for high Int. We further add that all single-class Big 4 casters gain 1 additional spell per spell level once a new level is obtained. So typical single-class Big 4 casters will start with 5 1st level spells. Sacrilege you say? No, I say magic-users get to actually cast spells instead of throwing darts. Considering the tradeoff of 4 cantrips per spell slot, a single-class magic-user can begin with 8 cantrips and 3 spells and be almost constantly casting. My revised rest rules also allow a low-level cast to re-acquire all 1st level spells in less than 2 hours. That's a setting I want.

As for thieves, they gain 2 single-class bonuses: 1) +10% to all normal thief abilities, +2% to climb walls; and 2) weapon specialization in a single ranged weapon. The first ability makes thief abilities useful, particularly if Dex and no armor bonuses apply. Note that this does not apply to assassin or acrobat specific abilities. The second ability applies to all weapons in the Ranged Weapon Table, and if these are also melee weapons then melee specialization also applies. I also made thieves better two weapon fighters (watching too much Conan the Destroyer), which strongly encourages dagger specialization for both melee and ranged combat. Finally, I am convinced that Gygax hated DMing thieves because he added all sorts of "stars are right" requirements to using stealth abilities in the DMG. Begone, I say! Move silently and Hide in shadows are things thieves get to do if they make their roll, even if you are staring right at them. They are just that good.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Would that be praising with faint damnation?

I don't look at it as the Thief being terrible, instead I look at it as the Thief having a realistic chance to do these things at all where others generally don't. Even 20% is a whole lot better than 1% or 0%.

Do you have a citation on this? I can't find anything on other classes attempting to perform thief abilities (unless you're talking regular DM adjudication), other than climbing walls as listed in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. As far as I can tell from the core books (and this was a quick, cursory look, so I certainly could've missed something), all it says in both editions is that "these are the things that thieves can do."

2. Remember, thief skills weren't the % chance of success for regular tasks. EVERY class could attempt to hide, pick a lock, etc. Those skills were only used for exceptionally tough scenarios where non-thieves would have no success at attempting. So a lower score didn't mean they could ever find a trap or pick a lock, only that for exceptionally hard tasks, the thief still had a chance. It goes back to player skill vs character skill.

So in that context, yes. They were balanced.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Would that be praising with faint damnation?



Do you have a citation on this? I can't find anything on other classes attempting to perform thief abilities (unless you're talking regular DM adjudication), other than climbing walls as listed in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. As far as I can tell from the core books (and this was a quick, cursory look, so I certainly could've missed something), all it says in both editions is that "these are the things that thieves can do."

I mentioned it upthread in another response. It's a carry over from OD&D and the early days. Unless you believe that no class ever tried to hide, or pick a lock, or disarm a trap before the thief class showed up (which I doubt anyone would argue that), it very much was believed that all classes could attempt anything (again, going back to player skill). so by extension, when the thief showed up with those skills, they were meant not to mean that all other classes suddenly couldn't do those things, just that thieves were able to do them when otherwise it would be ruled to be near impossible for other classes. That's how I learned it in 1981 from the DM who taught me the game as he was taught when he learned in 1976.

It's also why I made that comment about how that should have been a huge red flag for the 3e design team, because they had years of data that showed as soon as you gave a character a skill, players (especially newer players) would assume that you couldn't do that unless you had the skill for it, which we saw a lot in 3e, but as this thread shows, we also saw in AD&D with how people interpreted thief skills.

 

[Voadam]

Would that be praising with faint damnation?



Do you have a citation on this? I can't find anything on other classes attempting to perform thief abilities (unless you're talking regular DM adjudication), other than climbing walls as listed in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. As far as I can tell from the core books (and this was a quick, cursory look, so I certainly could've missed something), all it says in both editions is that "these are the things that thieves can do."

The closest I get to that in descriptions is the climb walls description.

In the 2e PH revised description of thief skills under climb walls on page 57 it says:

"Climb Walls: Although everyone can climb rocky cliffs and steep slopes, the thief is far superior to others in this ability. Not only does he have a better climbing percentage than other characters, he can also climb most surfaces without tools, ropes, or devices. Only the thief can climb smooth and very smooth surfaces without climbing gear. Of course, the thief is very limited in his actions while climbing—he is unable to fight or effectively defend himself."

B/X had rules for everybody searching for traps (not disarming).

1e I remember had rules for people listening at doors.

For sneaking and picking locks and picking pockets and the rest I think it was completely undefined but my guess is it was DM adjudication so deliberately sneaking by saying you are slowly and carefully doing so sounds reasonable and something anyone can do but picking locks and pockets seem a specialized skill I would not assume everybody can do. Even though he was a thief I do not expect Conan to be picking pockets.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

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.

I think also by the time I started gaming, the rules were more crystalized and codified, so your earlier experience, in turn informed by an even earlier one, would be different.

I mentioned it upthread in another response. It's a carry over from OD&D and the early days. Unless you believe that no class ever tried to hide, or pick a lock, or disarm a trap before the thief class showed up (which I doubt anyone would argue that), it very much was believed that all classes could attempt anything (again, going back to player skill). so by extension, when the thief showed up with those skills, they were meant not to mean that all other classes suddenly couldn't do those things, just that thieves were able to do them when otherwise it would be ruled to be near impossible for other classes. That's how I learned it in 1981 from the DM who taught me the game as he was taught when he learned in 1976.

Ugh, that long list of skills in 3e drove me up a wall! Leveling up 3e/Pathfinder skills were always agonizing bean-counting for me.

It's also why I made that comment about how that should have been a huge red flag for the 3e design team, because they had years of data that showed as soon as you gave a character a skill, players (especially newer players) would assume that you couldn't do that unless you had the skill for it, which we saw a lot in 3e, but as this thread shows, we also saw in AD&D with how people interpreted thief skills.

As with so much in earlier editions, there was a lot of DM adjudication, because of rules that were ambiguous or contradictory. One DM might rule that only thieves with thieves tools could pick a lock, another might say "eh, roll under your dex score with a -4 penalty and see what happens." Which would make thieves even worse - Imagine a first level fighter with a Dex of 13. They would need to roll a nine or better, which would be a 45% chance to the first level thief's (assume human with a dex of 18) 40% chance.

For sneaking and picking locks and picking pockets and the rest I think it was completely undefined but my guess is it was DM adjudication so deliberately sneaking by saying you are slowly and carefully doing so sounds reasonable and something anyone can do but picking locks and pockets seem a specialized skill I would not assume everybody can do. Even though he was a thief I do not expect Conan to be picking pockets.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

Which I think was the most common way people looked at those rules, even if they weren't intended that way. Hence my comment about being a red flag for 3e design when they went heavy with the skill system. It's human nature to make that assumption. Unless you had someone who learned it the original way to talk or teach you, I think most people just assumed only thieves could do those things as you say.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Another voice to say that by the time I was GMing (post-Greyhawk) most people I encountered did not assume most of the thief actions could be usefully done by others. Under some circumstances you could climb or hide, but they weren't assumed to be useful tactical actions the way they were for a thief.

Regarding the rest, my comments would probably be unuseful for this thread, as my dissatisfaction with the inconsistencies in resolution was part of what pushed me out of D&D and into other, more coherently designed systems. So as with many things in what is commonly considered OSR, my reaction is primarily negative, and thus not helpful.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Part of me kinda wishes that 5e hadn't used the skill system, and had just relied on background and class for whether or not someone gets to apply their proficiency to a task, based on whether it makes sense or not. That way we wouldn't need all these skill and tool proficiencies.

Don't get me wrong, I think the 5e skill system is vast improvement, but I wouldn't mind something even lighter.

Which I think was the most common way people looked at those rules, even if they weren't intended that way. Hence my comment about being a red flag for 3e design when they went heavy with the skill system. It's human nature to make that assumption. Unless you had someone who learned it the original way to talk or teach you, I think most people just assumed only thieves could do those things as you say.

 

[Lanefan]

Thus, we change the rules so that: 1) all of the Big 4 spellcasters start with 2 1st level spells, and 2) magic-users and illusionists gain bonus spells for high Int. We further add that all single-class Big 4 casters gain 1 additional spell per spell level once a new level is obtained. So typical single-class Big 4 casters will start with 5 1st level spells. Sacrilege you say? No, I say magic-users get to actually cast spells instead of throwing darts. Considering the tradeoff of 4 cantrips per spell slot, a single-class magic-user can begin with 8 cantrips and 3 spells and be almost constantly casting. My revised rest rules also allow a low-level cast to re-acquire all 1st level spells in less than 2 hours. That's a setting I want.

I've done similar, but not as extreme. All casters in my game start with 3 1st-level spells. Bonus spells for high Int or Wis don't start kicking in until at least 2nd level. Reacquirement takes 15 minutes per spell level, to a cap of 8 hours, thus getting back those 3 1sts takes about 45 minutes.

As for thieves, they gain 2 single-class bonuses: 1) +10% to all normal thief abilities, +2% to climb walls; and 2) weapon specialization in a single ranged weapon. The first ability makes thief abilities useful, particularly if Dex and no armor bonuses apply. Note that this does not apply to assassin or acrobat specific abilities. The second ability applies to all weapons in the Ranged Weapon Table, and if these are also melee weapons then melee specialization also applies. I also made thieves better two weapon fighters (watching too much Conan the Destroyer), which strongly encourages dagger specialization for both melee and ranged combat. Finally, I am convinced that Gygax hated DMing thieves because he added all sorts of "stars are right" requirements to using stealth abilities in the DMG. Begone, I say! Move silently and Hide in shadows are things thieves get to do if they make their roll, even if you are staring right at them. They are just that good.

Other than a toned-down version of the very last bit to make MS and HIS worthwhile, I have not done any of these.

 

[Lanefan]

Do you have a citation on this? I can't find anything on other classes attempting to perform thief abilities (unless you're talking regular DM adjudication), other than climbing walls as listed in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. As far as I can tell from the core books (and this was a quick, cursory look, so I certainly could've missed something), all it says in both editions is that "these are the things that thieves can do."

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.