Breakdaddy wrote:
I completely disagree. The limited nature of the roll under attribute check you mentioned makes it very different from the roll over I was talking about. There is a lot more latitude in a roll wherein you add level and roll over then a flat roll under and see who rolled the lowest. The roll under is limited by: a general 3-18 attribute range, No level added, Ability modifiers not taken into account (only raw attribute). This is severely limiting and makes a contest against a level 1 noob by a level 10 character with far more experience the same as two level 1 guys in a contest. This is silly to me and even though I don't care about "realism" in my games, breaks the verisimilitude to a degree that I can't get on board with.
Well, these are actually two separate issues. I don't find the SIEGE check easier than rolling under attributes, though personally I use the assigned probability method from AD&D 1e, which appeared alongside attribute checks in AD&D 2e's First Quest.
An opposed attribute check is subject to whatever modifiers the game master wishes to impose, just the same as a SIEGE check. If he wants to take experience level, class or race into account, he is free to do so.
Take a character with a 12 in an non prime attribute. Wish I could do tables here, let's see:
AS: 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18
AC: 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 | 45 | 50 | 55 | 60 | 65 | 70 | 75 | 80 | 85 | 90
NC: 00 | 05 | 05 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 25 | 25 | 30
PC: 30 | 35 | 35 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 45 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 55 | 55 | 60
AS = Attribute Score
AC = Attribute Check
NC = Non Prime SIEGE check
PC = Prime SIEGE check
The above are the comparative probability distributions of a successful unmodified check for each of the three methods under discussion at the various attribute scores. None of the above promotes realism or versimilitude in any way. theya re just probability distributions. How you then choose to modify them determines the probability that you use.
Whether you choose to add levels in 5% increments, modify for class, race, or perceived difficulty is in the hands of the individual game master; there is no absolute way in which one can be better than the other. All that can be done is set up criteria by which to compare and judge their suitability. Any such criteria are going to be subjective, though. You could, for instance, say "I prefer attribute scores to have less impact on determining success than 5% per point", but it is just as valid to say "I prefer every point of an attribute to count when determining success."
To be clear, I don't use attribute checks, but it is quite plain to me that it is subjective as to whether one prefers a SIEGE check or an Attribute check. Both are exactly as easy to modify to obtain a different probability than the base one.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)
