I've been working on a minimalist D&D for ages.
B/X checks are a bit messy, as we discussed many times before; they could be vastly simplified.
For example: by RAW, a thief usually has better chances climbing sheer walls than climbing a rope (and uses two completely different systems), while the Halfling uses two different systems to hide (90% in the wilderness, 2-in-6 otherwise).
In total, there are at least six different systems:
- D20 roll high (attacks, saves).
- D20 roll low (ability checks).
- X-in-6 chances (foraging, getting lost, etc.).
- 2d6 roll high (reaction).
- 2d6 roll low (morale).
- Percentages.
If you consider wether the roll is affected by your abilities, level, both or none, the situation gets even more complicated:
I'm still ignoring things such as damage, surprise, initiative, 10% chance of arcane error for thieves, 90% chance of drowning, etc.
I tried to fix that more than half a dozen times in this blog.
But, ultimately, the problem becomes obvious: you cannot fix this because the fix is entirely dependent on matters of personal taste.
To put some order into it, you'd have to decide:
- Does it need any more order than that? Should the mechanics be more unified than that?
If the answer is positive, you'd have to choose:
- Do you prefer 1d6, 2d6, 1d20 or 1d100?
- Do you prefer roll high or low?
- Should your chances improve with a high ability score?
- Should your chances improve with a high level?
Assuming you can make a decision for each of these circumstances, you'd get at least thirty possible answers - none strictly better than the other, since 1d20 is no better than 1d6 or 1d100 and roll high/low each have their defenders.
[Each has its benefits, however; I find "30% chance" extremely intuitive, for example, and "rolling a natural 20" a fun thing to have in the game].
Now, if the answer is negative - i.e., if you're willing to accept the mess - things get even more complicated.
Because - unless you accepted "because the book said so" as your only criteria, you'd have to ask yourself:
- Should you level affect your chances of foraging?
- Should you Dex affect move silently?
- Should thieves have an easier time climbing a rope?
- Et cetera ad nauseam.
Now you don't have thirty answers - you have thirty answers for each check.
And I haven't even started talking about quantity.
And I haven't even started talking about quantity.
- How hard should the checks be?
- Should there be different "DCs"?
- How much should your level affect this?
- What about your abilities?
- Should level matter more than ability or vice-versa?
- Etc.
A 5e (Solomonic) solution
As a small aside, 5e solves this mostly by mentioning three types of rolls (attacks, saves, ability checks), but they all function in a roughly similar fashion: roll 1d20 + ability mod + proficiency.
Proficiency (defined by level) and ability mods have similar weights.
(When I say "Solomonic" I do not mean "wise, but "cutting things in half".)
Sometimes proficiency doesn't apply, sometimes it is halved or doubled, so in the end a table would look somewhat better than B/X but not much simpler, and still need an external DC to function, which B/X usually doesn't.
A B/X (Solomonic) solution
Since there are no right answers, we can come up with our own. Target 20 is one of my favorites, but does not cover ability checks or 1d6 tasks explicitly.
Here is one of mine.
- Do you prefer 1d6, 2d6, 1d20 or 1d100? 1d20.
- Do you prefer roll high or low? High.
- Should your chances improve with a high ability score? Yes.
- Should your chances improve with a high level? Yes.
Target 20 already covers attacks, saves and skills; we'd need a system for non-thief skills (1d6) and ability checks.
My suggestion:
Roll 1d20, add (ability+level)/2, Target 20.
To keep thief skills similar, just use:
Roll 1d20, add (ability/2)+level, Target 20.
E.g., Dex 14, level 8 means +15 to hide if you're a thief, +11 if you are not.
+11 seems a lot for a non-thief, but in the unlikely event you have a
Dex 14 MU, it gives the sneaky bastard lots of personality!
If you prefer to ignore levels for non-thieves, I think this method (1d20+ability/2) is still better than simple ability checks as it makes things a bit harder (and closer to the usual 1-in-6 chances for general tasks). Or, to add more complexity, you only get to add half level if the task is somehow related to your class. But I'm not sure this is even necessary.
One side effect I enjoy is that every point matters - Dex 10 is different from Dex 11 at least half the time.
Similar methods have been used in "Action Throws" and BFRPG optional rules ("Ability Rolls").
Well, TBH I might have mentioned something similar in this blog before; I'm sorry to repeat myself, this seems to be an unsolvable matter indeed... but at least we gave it a shot!
We will never run out of pixels to debate the Thief, but a little terminology emphasis clarifies something for me at least.
ReplyDeleteA thief doesn't have additional " thief skills". He has " ThiefAbilities." That is to say, he can do stuff with them that normal people can not. They are exceptional feats, not regularly trainable routines.
And for the same reason, I prefer a different resolution mechanic for that to regular "B/X skills" (lol), to make clear that a thieves' ability is something different. It's an added layer. And if it overlays something someone else could have tried, I rule the thief always gets an attempt the conventional way too, should his thief ability fail (ie, you failed to "move silently" but you can still make a roll to move quietly like anyone else).
I agree with this perspective. If running B/X close to RAW, thief abilities should be almost supernatural most of the times (the thief deserves this).
DeleteOTOH, "hear noise" is certainly not unique to the thief, detecting traps might be debatable, etc.
Attempting to do the same thing in two different ways is a good solution.
For some cases, it might be possible to add probabilities (e.g., if anyone has 1-in-6 chances to find a trap, a 1st-level thief has 26%).
Which sounds strange, as the thief has explicit 10% chances to find a trap, but maybe these are traps no one else can find?
But to me it might work better than saying that the thief has no advantage in finding these traps.
Here is an interesting discussion on the topic:
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=57552
Moldvay:
"Any character has a 1 in 6 chance of finding a trap when searching for one in the correct area. Any dwarf has a 2 in 6 chance."
Someone else:
"So, taking that dwarves can find "large" traps on a 1 or a 2, it could be assumed that other non-thief, non-dwarf PC could find "large" traps on a 1 in 6 chance."
My OD&D solution was to use characteristic rolls for most thief tests, except that the skill% can replace the appropriate characteristic. For example a 1st level thief pick locks is 15%, so their minimum DEX for picking a lock is 15. An ordinary lock uses a d20 roll under, so they have a 75% chance of opening an ordinary lock. An expensive lock is harder and uses a d30 to make the test, so they have a 5)% chance of opening an expensive lock. A safe used a d100 roll, so they have a 15% chance of cracking a safe. This fixed my major problem with the class which was abysmally poor abilities.
ReplyDeleteWhen I developed my magic item/crafting system it quantiified the skill difficulties and the d100 roll became d120 (actually d30 under characteristic/4). But the difficulty of circumventing magical locks and safes was more readily defined, rather than just being a d100 roll.
Similarly other thievish skills became similarly gradiated. Detect Traps was always used by me as a saving throw to realise you are about to hit problems. The difficulty (and thus the dice thrown), basically depends on the speed the thief is travelling and the light.
No real hard and fast rules (such as the AD&D expanded climbing walls rules, just a snap decision as to how difficult it might be, and let the player decide if they want to take a chance).
Non-thief characters could take thievish skills, but they would just roll under their unmodified characteristic (which may increase slowly with level but not at the same rate as the thief skills).
Oh, and my default thief class is the Tomb Robber (in the classic Chinese wuxia mould). That is, a typical adventurer. And the Rogue group is defined by their preference to avoid combat (your typical late edition rogue is actually a fighter class - the Bravo.
I like improving the thief, and giving % chances to other classes is a good idea.
DeleteThis "detect traps" idea is great! It is something I've been considering since reviewing Dragon Quest. The thief has relatively low chances to find traps anyway; I'd say if he is walking ahead of the party, with his 1d4 HP per level, he should have SOME chance of finding a trap even WITHOUT looking.
I don't know much Wuxia TBH. I like the idea of avoiding combat, but I don't think my players would go for it!