Not 1e nor OD&D. Many might have used something as a house rule, but most old school versions did not actually have stat checks.
There's also a HUGE difference between a tool for the DM adjudication (the ability to call for a stat check) and the player expectation of using an ability on a skill check.
Players engage the environment as they, the players, are tested in the ideal 1e. The post 3.x expectation is a test of a _character_ ability so players are drawn to engage with their character sheet instead of the imagined environment.
Yeah, the idea of roll-under for stat checks came out pretty early, though I don't know its origin. Could have been one of the many trial ballons they floated through Dragon during that era.Not quite true. Ability checks first (as far as I know) appeared in Moldvay's D&D Basic Set (1980). And, while 1e AD&D didn't originally have such a rule to begin with, it did appear in publication (outside of The Dragon magazine or 3PP) as early as 1984 in the Dragonlance module DL2 Dragons of Flame (it may have appeared earlier elsewhere, but I can't attest to it). From there, Nonweapon Proficiencies appeared in Oriental Adventures (1985), Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (1986), and Wilderness Survival Guide (1986).
Not sure how to put it. Consider this, skills as saving throws. Run the game as you would and reserve the rolls for when things go pear shaped.
There was a blog about how to deal with the thief skills introduced with the thief. Their idea was to still let everyone do things like pick pockets or disarm traps or climb walls, just that the thief had their skills as a saving throw when it was done badly, or when things went really pear shaped. The thing he was trying to do is allow the players to have the freedom to do anything with their characters and not feel like they couldn’t do those thief things just because the thief had them as die rolls.
I, too, have no clear memory where it came from...Yeah, the idea of roll-under for stat checks came out pretty early, though I don't know its origin.
That would be very interesting, have a link?That was how the thief class was intended to operate. The communication of that concept was awful. The horrible percentages for low level thieves make much more sense as a saving throw than as a primary check to use the ability. A trained specialist with a 10% chance to succeed? It didn't make sense. It would be akin to requiring that a fighter roll a 19 or 20 to hit an AC 9 opponent.
If memory serves there was at least one other spell that had a similar oddball save...can't remember what it was.I, too, have no clear memory where it came from...
There was the oddball save vs phantasmal killer, for instance, but it wasn't d20.
I've been using it forever and 99% of the time don't have a problem with it. The other 1% comes when I'm dealing with someone trying to roll under a stat of 20 or higher (yes, even in my 1e-based game this happens occasionally).I do remember using roll-under a lot in Gamma World and finding problems with it. It gives an extreme swing between average (50/50) and great (90/10), it doesn't lend itself well to bonuses or penalties, it's unintuitive when wanting to determine degrees of success or resolve contests.
That roll-over setup has to be used in 3e and d20 style games, as stats in those systems tend to leave the 3-18 range behind pretty fast making roll-under kinda pointless. But in 1e where a 20 stat is rare and in 5e where 20 is a hard cap roll-under certainly has a place.Ultimately, though, the d20 core mechanic of modifiers & DCs is simpler and handles a wider range of applications.
Ultimately, though, the d20 core mechanic of modifiers & DCs is simpler and handles a wider range of applications.