"Stat Check" thought

I think that is a pretty solid way to go about it.

I like the notion that each point counts significantly better than the modern stat bonus system. And it does do away with the low rolling, though I am still undecided whether rolling low is a good or bad thing in itself (part of me kind of likes the idea that you roll high for combat and low for stat checks, but part of me is put off that stat checks would be the only thing you roll low for).

The only thing I think I would miss is giving a sort of critical success when players roll exactly equal to their stat number. Though I get that the nat 20 could supplant this.

Another possibility if you want to roll high is just to invert your current system. Eg. a stat of 16 means roll above a 4 on a d20.

There's a simple solution for it: d20 >= 21 - Stat.

Doing this way you have a static threshold to beat, ranging from 3 (90% success) to 18 (15% success).

Yeah, I've done something like this before, but forgot about it when I made my post. It's probably easier than what I was describing.

The first time I saw this was The Dragon magazine, #41, Sept. 1980, in "The Halls of Beoll-Dur" adventure:

"... there is an original procedure for saving throws which is used in some locations... roll 3, 4 or 5d6 (the number of dice varies) and subtract one point from the dice roll for every two levels of experience the character has attained. Compare the resulting number to a specified ability (this also varies), and if the adjusted dice roll is less than the character's score for the ability in question, the saving throw is considered made."

It does say "original." I'm not sure if that means brand new or new to D&D, imported from elsewhere. Even if these authors came up with it originally, on their own, I'm not so sure this wasn't around before then.

That system for opposed rolls isn't a bad one, but honestly I have never had any taste for opposed rolls vs monsters.

The story is about the PCs, why muck things up by giving monsters stats? The fighter should have to hold the door based on his strength alone. You might say that it is easy to hold the door against goblins, and difficult to hold the door against a minotaur, and even impossible against a dragon and modify the roll accordingly. But I think that to actually give those monsters stats moves the focus from where it should be: the fighter. I especially don't like the idea of a PC and an NPC competing for something and robbing the PC of a great roll just because the NPC rolled a little better.

I tend to just use 3d6 roll under your stat, no modifiers or anything like that. I feel as though this best represents character ability mechanicaly, in the sense that someone with a high score in any given stat has a better chance at the relative task than someone with an average or low score. I did at one point a long time ago used the d20 for stat checks but realised that if scores do not reach above 18, which is the flat cap there will always be a 10% failure chance which ended up not good for the players.(if i decide that the character is simply destined to fail at a given task or check I make a roll in secret and inform the player of that characters misfortune). Though this is generally the exception not the rule.

I think you got those backwards. 3d6 + STAT is an average roll of 10.5 plus an average stat of 10.5, so it fits. 4d6 is an average of 14, though, so it's easier than a 3d6 roll.

You might want to change it to 3d6 average, 2d6 tricky, 1d6 hard, 1d6/2 extremely difficult.

this is where I have a problem with the entire system. Instead of a stat check, I would tell the player to consult a sage, cast contact other plane etc. take Gandalf in LoTR, how many times did he have to go consult with others? The liberary of minas tirith, meetings with elrond etc.

It's like players expect their PC to br know it alls who don't need to interact with the world around them (ha! Too close to home for some of us.)

It depends mainly on the terms of the check, IMHO.
Secondly on the class.


Focusing on the class, I don't understand why a L17 MU should necessarily jump a cliff (STR Check) safely better than a L1 MU could do: it's not his businness.

Same thought for a 6'8'' tall bulky FM trying to hide in shadows.


Focusing on the check, it makes sense what you say about L17 PC vs L1 PC facing the same challenge; on the other hand if a L17 PC faces a L17 challenge he should work hard as much as a L1 PC facing a L1 challenge.

So the entity of the challenge matters: you have a 1st term.

Now, should a L1 PC necessarily have less chances to succeed against a L17 challenge than a L17 PC?
No, if you consider the right terms.


2nd term: TTC (Time to Complete)
L1 MU against summoning circle: approximately 6 hours.
L17 MU against summoning circle: approximately 20 minutes

3rd term: Drawbacks
L1 MU failing his check (summoning circle): he accidentally summons a hostile fiend.
L17 MU failing his check (summoning circle): smoke comes out of the circle, all the material components are gone.


To make a long story short, with the right terms (like the three I've said above) you can keep using the same static roll.


OT: D&D Next is doing something like this (according to the design articles): automatic success for trivial goals and die roll for challenging goals.

AND the ability to take more hits AND an all-around improvement in the ability to avoid a vast range of different types of harm (saving throws). AND the Fighting Man gains the ability to have followers, which is an obvious improvement over the low-level status of "no followers at all".



The Cleric's relative casting power compared to the M.U. is irrelevant to the argument at hand. His spell loadout improves as he gains levels. Whether it improves at the same rate as the M.U.'s or not is not germane.



Saving throws applied to situations where the throw represents the character jumping out of harm's way.


See above for "save or something happens" traps. Triggering a trap than saving for no damage counts as "dodging the trap".




Most saving throws represent mundane abilities: the body's ability to process poison, agility to jump aside, etc.. Hit points, too, are partially mundane: they represent dodging, stamina, grit, and to an extent the ability to just go on despite injuries. These are perfectly mundane, because A, they do not represent anything that, according to the logic of the game world, would be "magical" or "supernatural", and B, even ordinary 0 level mooks have them.



"Only exception"? Hardly. To reiterate:

- "THAC0"
- Hit Points
- Saves
- Spell quantity
- Spell quality
- Ability to have followers (binary)
- Turning Undead
- Thief skills (if you use Thieves)

all improve, and these concepts make up a very significant part of a PC's statistics rules-wise.

Over and above game mechanics, the game is also built on the assumption that over time the PC's will also improve in wealth, equipment, achievements and scope of play ("from saving the village to saving the world"). That's all improvement, right there.



It CAN be done that way, but then for every situation that crops up, you have to make a case-by-case decision considering three different factors all of which are completely subjective and have to be judged on the spot. And at that point, you might as well just pull a vague "X in 6" chance out of your head without pretending that there's some sort of system behind it. Which is fine if you and your players are cool with it, but don't call it "a system for skill (or whatever) use", because "make something up" is not a system but a practice.

As you saw later in my post, I was taking saving throws into account. My point is that, in OD&D, each class has *one* unique ability and a handful of heroic abilities ("to hit", hit points, saving throws) that can all be subsumed under the concept of "luck". Mundane, trainable abilities are not governed by level at all. Level thus represents how heroic or supernormal a character is, compared to ordinary men.

As for followers, Fighters can have as many normal hirelings, including mercenaries, at any level, as stated in the rules. They can also have henchman at any level, limited in number by Charisma. Level does not affect either of these. What you may be thinking of is that a Lord who builds a keep (or Patriarch who builds a stronghold) attracts a bunch of mercenaries all at once. These are no different from those they can hire at any level; the difference is that building a stronghold acts as advertising. You still have to pay for their upkeep.



Both are relative/germane to my point: Clerics appear to have two class abilities instead of one, in contrast to Magic-Users, but that is because one of their abilities (spell-casting) is reduced to compensate for the extra ability (turn undead.)


Originally, no. The roll to avoid a trap is listed as a simple d6 roll in U&WA. It does not improve with level. Neither does "resist adversity", the M&M precursor to system shock, which is tied to Constitution. Originally, with the exception of poison, all saving throws listed are restricted to supernatural effects: spells, wands, petrification, polymorph, dragon breath. The saving throw doesn't represent an ability to jump, it represents how lucky you were that you jumped at just the right time. The GM can choose to describe a successful save vs. dragon's breath as jumping out of the way, or as cowering behind a shield, or as diving into a pool, or any number of things.

The proof of this is the "natural" exception to the supernatural rule: poison. You can't train or get better at not being poisoned; surviving poison is a matter of luck. This is why it is tied to level, while mundane, physical abilities are static.

In addition: Distance jumped, and movement in general, does not improve with level. Maximum weight does not improve with level. Nothing improves with level except fantastic or cinematic abilities.

The thief seems to be an exception to this, which is why AD&D and later editions drift towards level as mundane improvement. However, there is an argument floating around that thief abilities should be treated as second chance abilities or saving throws, for when mundane abilities fail. One hint in the rules as written that this should be the case is the little-known fact (mentioned in Supplement I, where thieves are introduced) that a thief can open a *magical* lock or closure. Pick Locks works on wizard-locked doors.

So, improvement of mundane abilities is not a fundamental assumption of D&D. It's a choice some people make, but not part of the original rules.

I go back and forth on this one.

My personal preference is that dice are only rolled in life-and-death situations (like combat), and mundane situations are hand-waved or resolved in-character based on the players' knowledge/problem solving.

My actual experience is that, I want to be inclusive as a DM, and some of my players are better role-players than others (or different styles). Some of my players are wonderful to have at the table but simply do not have the experience/interest to problem-solve in-character or role-play important interactions with NPCs. This type of player seems to really enjoy quick & easy mechanics like stat checks, reaction rolls, etc. so they can advance the plot and get on to killing monsters (and taking their loot).

I would say the same about you, actually. Especially since you are the one espousing the view that mundane abilities should improve with level, when in the rules as written, they don't. And doubly so when several later clarifications of "hit points", including (eventually) what Gygax wrote about them in the AD&D DMG,) state quite plainly that hit points *do* represent luck.

You don't agree with this. You *won't* agree with this. There is nothing I can say to you to change your mind, and none of the arguments you've made in response are the least bit convincing to me. That's OK. Some people choose to interpret the game differently, and play the game with hit points as pure damage capacity and with all abilities scaling with level. But surely, you can see that the evidence in the 3LBBs contradicts your statement that all abilities scaling with level is a fundamental assumption of D&D. Ability scores in the 3LBBs remain static, the chance to surprise, dodge a trap or open a stuck door is given in U&WA as a flat d6 roll, and only a small number of things actually scale with level. The LBBs do not do what you say you want them to do, so your desires can't possibly be a fundamental assumption of the 3LBBs.

I was actually trying to say in that last post that the fact that I don't agree premmy's preference is "fundamental" doesn't mean it's not a bad way to do it. House rules are the norm. I have a semi-stat check system that is not part of the original rules at all. I have other changes as well. So, the way I play the game isn't "pure". If premmy wants to be "non-pure" in a different way, that's OK.

Thanks for rephrasing it in a better way, darkling.