Ability Scores and Checks – Part 2

I3-5: Desert of Desolation, 1987

In Part 1, I did my best to explain why the ‘push-button’ argument is crap, but it’s not the only concern people have with the Ability Check mechanic. Three other objections were mentioned.

1. Characters with very high scores reap all the benefits, while mid-tier scores see increased failures.

Yes, that’s the design. A higher ability score means a higher chance for success. If the PC has a 10 in any ability score, then they fall in the middle of the range, equivalent to a normal person. They should only have a 50/50 shot at difficult tasks that require that ability. If the task isn’t something a normal person could fail at half the time, then the check needs modifiers, the ability score target needs adjustment, or the roll doesn’t need to occur.

By providing a -5 to +5 modifier to the roll, you can swing that chance by 25%. As stated previously, this provides a chance to ask the player how their character is accomplishing the task, and to then reward that. It grants a lever to increase intelligent play. If you really need to ramp up the difficulty, you can halve or quarter the score. This drops the chance precipitously, but still recognizes the impact of the PC’s score on the task at hand. And you can still modify the roll! With these adjustments, you can reach a wide range of chance, and the character’s score serves as the primary source of that final value.

Once you’re in need of chances between 95% and 100%, it’s time to just let the PC have the win; their score itself serves as the evidence of their success. If you’re looking for chances below 5%, you’re again being too granular, and are best served by granting the character a minimum floor of their 1 in 20 chance. It’s simple and allows the surprising to happen more regularly, which is always a good time. After all, you asked for the roll, so there’s a chance, right?

Your players when you tell them how the modifiers affect the roll.

 

Speaking of that.

2. A score of 3-18 only spans 16 values on a d20, PCs always have a 15% chance of success, while a PC with a score of 18 always has a 10% chance of failure.

I think we have the solution in the text above. Modifiers and score target adjustments allow us to circumvent these minor caps. Still, if you’re calling for a check, it implies a chance of failure; a 1 in 10 chance of failure at the peak of one’s ability would appear to me appropriate when fully testing that ability. I see it as a feature rather than a bug.

Mentzer suggests an alternative approach, Basic 1983

 

So I’m not swayed by the prior points, but the last one has teeth:

3. Ability scores never improve, which locks in those mid-tier failures for the life of the PC.

Yeah, this is absolutely fair. In AD&D, the PC’s ability to hit and their saving throw values increase as they level up based on their class. Their core ability scores, on the other hand, are permanent outside of a magical item or a wish. As a result, the scores never provide a sense of progress in the same way that other rollable stats do.

A common solution is to just use saving throws instead of ability checks. I see the cleanliness of using a pre-existing mechanic to solve the issue, but I think it’s a poor substitute. First, that’s not what saving throws are for. Saving throws are meant to be reactionary. Using them proactively to succeed goes against their design of avoiding disaster, which can work but muddies the waters. Secondly, they often don’t match to the desired action. If our chandelier-swinging thief uses a saving throw to determine whether they look awesome or fall hysterically, what’s the check? Death magic? Breath weapon? Petrification? It’s not intuitive.

We’ll look at solutions in the next post, and figure out if we even need one.