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

[vivsavage]

With regard to the success probabilities of attacks, thief skills, the damage outputs of various classes at various levels, NWPs in 2e, and anything else you wish to discuss (spell progressions, XP requirements for levelling up), do you find that pre-3e versions of D&D have a good balance between success and failure, as well as comparitive power levels between classes?

 

[kenada]

I prefer that players know their chance of success, which older editions handle naturally with percentile or x-in-6 approach to skills. I also like that there is concrete progression. You’re better overall and not just able to do about the same versus stronger challenges and monsters.

The consequence of this approach is that the chance of success at lower levels can be pretty bad. Depending on your style, that can be a problem. It’s not like the modern approach developed in a vacuum. I think that’s fine for my game, but I know it’s not for everyone.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

With regard to the success probabilities of attacks, thief skills, the damage outputs of various classes at various levels, NWPs in 2e, and anything else you wish to discuss, do you find that pre-3e versions of D&D have a good balance between success and failure?

Overall, I like it immensely, especially the idea that levelling in general makes you overall better (at combat, at all saves) which IMO feel more right than the ability score treadmill.

That said, as @kenada points out, it does mean that lower level characters are underpowered. In addition, depending on what you require rolls for, certain classes (cough Thief) can really suffer from the prolonged curve to get better at their abilities.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

One thing I liked about those older editions (and the retroclones that would follow) is that you sometimes needed to roll high (attacks, saves), sometimes needed to roll low (ability checks). So you wanted to have dice that were truly random. Whereas now, you want dice that roll high, because you're always going to need to roll a high score.

Thief skills, ugh! I've grown to hate how they were done, and the middling chance of success that a thief must run the gauntlet of for many levels. Generally speaking, a thief in 1e's purpose was to find and remove traps and scout ahead. When you're terrible at those things, and stay terrible for a while, your role makes it unlikely that you'll survive to get good at those things (see also how a failed poison save generally meant death).

Yes, they shouldn't start out good at everything, but they should at least have the option of being passable at one thing (other than climbing walls) - that's why I liked how kits in 2e interfaced with the thief class.

 

[Ath-kethin]

NOTE: while my comments below broadly refer to all pre-WotC versions of D&D, they stem specifically from 2nd Edition.

I'm not sure how a "good balance" would look, but I know that nobody I ever played with had issues with it. In retrospect, I like the different mechanics necessary for different tasks; there was basically the Proficiency/Ability Check system (roll low) and the Combat system (roll high). The variation was a challenge for some folks, but essentially unifying everything behind the combat mechanic was a net detriment to the game IMO.

Thief skills were always rough, especially at low levels, but probabilities were very easy to visualize (since the the probability literally WAS the mechanic). Saving throws, similarly, were easy to parse because the target number was right in front of you before you rolled. They weren't always intuitive in their application, but you always knew what your target number was.

 

[Voadam]

Thief skills were terrible, the biggest narrative class feature of the skill class was terrible chances of success for a long time. 2e with their specialization of where to put points and getting decent at a specialization or two at lower levels was an improvement in my eyes. BECMI reducing the thief skill advancement from the rate in B/X instead of expanding thief abilities was a terrible disappointment. I would have preferred always on or very competent thief skills from the get go.

The low chance for PCs to hit in B/X was not super to my taste. I did like how a volley of arrows from bad guys was not necessarily the PCs getting fully peppered though. B/X and AD&D felt super swingy design wise for the most part on whether you hit all the time or never. It made things like percentile strength in character generation and magic weapons and weapon specialization a really big deal, which I did not care for.

NWP in AD&D 1e and 2e were design swingy based on stats. A low level character could have great stats and be good at their skill which I liked, however a high level character with modest stats would always be not so great. A mixed bag, but felt good in the higher stat games.

 

[Cadence]

Thief skills, ugh! I've grown to hate how they were done, and the middling chance of success that a thief must run the gauntlet of for many levels. Generally speaking, a thief in 1e's purpose was to find and remove traps and scout ahead. When you're terrible at those things, and stay terrible for a while, your role makes it unlikely that you'll survive to get good at those things (see also how a failed poison save generally meant death).

Amen!

 

[Lanefan]

One thing I liked about those older editions (and the retroclones that would follow) is that you sometimes needed to roll high (attacks, saves), sometimes needed to roll low (ability checks). So you wanted to have dice that were truly random. Whereas now, you want dice that roll high, because you're always going to need to roll a high score.

Completely agree!

Thief skills, ugh! I've grown to hate how they were done, and the middling chance of success that a thief must run the gauntlet of for many levels. Generally speaking, a thief in 1e's purpose was to find and remove traps and scout ahead. When you're terrible at those things, and stay terrible for a while, your role makes it unlikely that you'll survive to get good at those things (see also how a failed poison save generally meant death).

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%.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think there are two things to consider.

1. The OP specifies 2e, which is much different than every other TSR edition in regards to thief (and bard) skills. You could be pretty successful at lower levels as a thief if you dumped your points into a specialization.

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.

 

[Deset Gled]

My experience with pre-3e is limited compared to post-3e. The first word that comes to mind with my experience there is "inconsistent".

2e low level: You're not going to succeed.
2e high level (with splat books): You're going to be so overpowered it's impossible to fail.
BD&D modules: We're going to hold your hand and make sure you succeed.
AD&D ToEE: You're going to die.