|
Post by foster1941 on Feb 4, 2005 17:40:59 GMT -5
As I've been moving more and more in the OD&D direction I've found myself turning against the thief class (which as all OD&D fans know wasn't part of the original rules and was added in supplement I). Are thieves really necessary to D&D? Their skill-list with all those percentiles seems too fiddly (and brings to the fore too many 'skill system' questions -- what if my non-thief tries to climb, or sneak, or hide? etc.), they raise issues with demi-human balance (because demihuman thieves are unambiguously better than human thieves and don't have level limits), they screw up the balance of the fighter class (in baseline OD&D the two best benefits of the fighter are that they can use missile weapons and magic swords, but if thieves can do those things too then you've made the fighter obsolete (or you have to add more complications to bring the fighter back into balance -- exceptional strength, more hit dice, etc.)), and their most useful abilities are redundant to existing character types -- dwarfs can spot traps (as can careful roleplaying), elves and hobbits can sneak and hide, demi-humans can hear noise, magic-users have the read languages spell, clerics have the find traps spell, etc.
So, do we really need this class? Lots of players seem to like playing thieves because they picture them as the dashing roguish sort like The Gray Mouser or Cugel the Clever, but couldn't those characters just as easily be fighters with high Dex and Cha scores and neutral or chaotic alignment? Are the ability to back stab and pick pockets really so indispensable?
|
|
|
Post by Jerry Mapes on Feb 4, 2005 18:39:40 GMT -5
Frankly, One doesnt need them in OD&D as you have shown the many reasons why. Although we did have "thief like" characters pre-suppliment.
They were based on Dex and Cha as you suggest with character development/background and RPing taking care of the rest.
The same could be said for other editions. But I dont think adding of the thief archtype really diminishes the presteige of the Fighter that much. Yes the thief can use the same weapons even the same armour, but the restrictions: armour vs. ability, to hit numbers, and hit die type still keep the Fighter as the #1 Guy with a Sword and Shield.
But again, they are not necessary... no more so than a Barbarian is or other "special" sub-class or class. Most can easily be achived by simply playing with stats, creating the proper background, and RPing it. But like most things that progress, people want more fixed rules to go by. Hence the advent of AD&D.
|
|
|
Post by mistere29 on Feb 5, 2005 9:38:51 GMT -5
I don't think the skill system questions are that big of deal, because the the thief skills are very specfic (At least in AD&D.)
Climb walls means climbing smooth surfaces without tools. Hiding in shadows means just that, not using any solid cover to hide behind. Move silently just gives you and increased chance in surprise, not an automatic surprise.
As for the demi-human thing, i don't think is that big of a deal, since you don't really need alot of thieves in a party. We only have two in our group of 8.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Feb 9, 2005 9:22:27 GMT -5
Hey there, Thats weird I've been thinking along the exact same lines for some time now. Thieves aren't "pure" they're contaminated with the seeds of destruction! Seriously, I have been considering putting a ban on the thief character class and instead have them "play it straight". But I haven't settled on it.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 13, 2005 17:21:59 GMT -5
When I began my "brown book" career it was with the Supplements in hand, so I never played without the Thief as an option. I think that the Thief serves a purpose within the party because it allows for the DM to invest an additional level of trickery into a dungeon complex -- traps and such -- and I don't really want all of my players to have such specialized skills as picking locks.
In my opinion, of the "big four" the Cleric is the class I find the least useful. The Cleric is a spellcaster and a fighter, and both of these general functions are covered by other classes. (Especially if the DM allows a PC to be a Fighter/M-U. In my own games, particularly with small parties, I encourage characters to diversify in classes even though the rules do not really allow this option.) The Cleric is a healer, but a simple modification of non-magical "binding wounds" could render this obsolete as well. What the Cleric does well is to mess with Undead, and none of the other three can compete with that ability, so the question comes down to how often a DM uses Undead in the campaign....
|
|
|
Post by Jerry Mapes on Feb 15, 2005 21:50:13 GMT -5
I think the tweaking of a non-magical binding of wounds would be ok at lower levels. But what happens to the group at 4th, 5th or higher?
A few good hits from a 5 or 6 HD monster could knock a PC down to barely a handful of HPs. Either the PC's would be running away more, which isnt always a bad thing, or the binding wounds would have to be tweaked to the point of normal healing and curing spells. Otherwise after one or two fights the party would be fleeing for cover to hole-up and heal up. Using normal healing rates even adjusted for the tending to the wounds... the time spent would be long and tedious. Or you dump the character off at the local healer and continue on without them.
I guess at a low level I would be more open to goign Cleric-less. But as the group gets more levels... too many factors come into play. I suppose if the DM glossed over the down time (which is something i dont do) then it would not be a problem.
Just my $0.02
Jerry
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 16, 2005 14:45:45 GMT -5
More fuel for the anti-thief fire: Gene Weigel asked EGG and RJK on this thread over at Pied Piper Publishing who was the 'pioneer player' for the D&D thief class, and neither one could remember, both stating categorically that the class was very unpopular among the Greyhawk players except for a few demi-human multiclassed thieves later on. As far as I'm concerned, then, that just about seals it. The thief class is no longer going to be included in my OD&D -- sure there will still be some NPCs with thief-like abilities (and probably still a "thieves' guild" of some sort, as a Lankhmar tribute), and thee might even be PCs with some thief-like abilities on a case by case basis, but the thief class as detailed in OD&D supplement I will be no more, and I don't expect it will be much missed...
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on Mar 16, 2005 17:58:03 GMT -5
Fascinating.
I'll keep this in mind when I finally win a copy of the OD&D Books on Ebay. I have all of them in PDF format, but I would hate to start an OD&D game without at least one hard copy of the rules.
Why oh why didn't WOTC reprint these rules for the 30th anniversary of D&D?
Grrrrr
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 17, 2005 13:31:59 GMT -5
I am still struggling with this one, but only, I think, cause of tradition. I don't think I need a "thief" per se, but the thought of a lightly armored, sneaky character has a lot of appeal to me. I have some ideas to throw at you guys, but first I have to go for now. More later.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 17, 2005 15:30:03 GMT -5
Here is some more food for thought.
This is cut an pasted from DF, written by Mike:
------
Most of the thief skills could reasonably be attempted by anyone, especially with a bit of roleplay, and many are already duplicated by other class abilities, spells, or items. In thinking through this, keep in mind that OD&D did not have skills, it had "abilities." A thief is just a cowardly fighter with higher than average dexterity skills (ie, a high DEX).
Climb Walls: 2/6 chance for fighters, 1/6 for everyone else, modified by STR. Granted this isn't "sheer surfaces" but anyone can climb a tree, and rock walls aren't that hard. Magic users can levitate or polymorph into a squirrel. (Fighters are best because climbing requires strength and reach, and because Conan is the best fantasy climber I can think of.)
Find Traps: Dwarves find traps automatically in OD&D, or 1/6 in BD&D. All characters can find secret doors on a 2/6 chance (OD&D), elves have a 4/6 chance; it seems reasonable to extend this to finding hidden traps as well. Lots of magic items reveal traps, as does the clerical spell Find Traps.
Disarm Traps: "Strength will also aid in opening traps" (OD&D vol1) and "Traps are usually sprung on a roll of 1 or 2 when a character moves over them" (OD&D vol3), so how about: a dwarf can disarm traps automatically, other characters have a 2/6 chance modified by STR to spring a trap harmlessly. Of course clever roleplay never hurts either, nor a 10' pole.
Hide in Shadows: 2/6 for halflings, 1/6 for everyone else, modified by DEX. Magic users and elves can cast Invisibility, and elven cloaks may be found. You cannot hide while carrying a light source, and shiny armor makes it difficult.
Pick Pockets: 2/6 chance for halflings, 1/6 chance for everyone else, modified by DEX bonus. Requires either stealth or a distraction.
Hear Noise: 2/6 chance for demi-humans, 1/6 chance for everyone else. (This rule is from OD&D, vol 3)
Move Silently: 2/6 chance for halflings and elves (extrapolating from their woodland abilities and from Tolkien), 1/6 chance for everyone else, modified by DEX. Clerics can cast Silence spells. Elven boots may be found. Anyone can "move silently" in a noisy environment. You cannot move silently in heavy armor.
Open Locks: Locks are just a mechanical device like traps, 2/6 for dwarves, 1/6 for everyone else. Of course anyone can also attempt to kick doors open, magic users and elves can use Knock spells, and a clever player can always try to obtain a key. Chests can be taken to an NPC locksmith.
Backstab: I've never bought into the notion of special training to hit a vital area. Most thieves, especially 1st level thieves, are not professionally trained assassins. A surprise attack should be a general rule... anyone attacking with the advantage of surprise gains +4 to hit and double damage. Surprise generally means your target does not know you are nearby, *or* trusts you fully and is completely unguarded. There are many ways to accomplish this. Once you have revealed yourself a surprise attack is impossible; even if you successfully hide again they'll be wary. (This is not the same as surprise in an encounter, where they see you but are slow to react.)
Read Languages: Magic users and elves can cast Read Languages, and any character with sufficient INT and time can try to decipher something. Demi-humans and high-INT humans already speak a variety of languages. Barring that you can always consult a sage...
Read Magic Scrolls: Magic users and elves can already do this, and with no chance of failure. (Cugel is the only fictional thief that did this, and he screwed up every time...)
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Mar 17, 2005 21:05:20 GMT -5
As someone who has only played a few OD&D games I have a few observations that may be off base, so forgive me for anything stupid in advance.
The first difference I noticed between OD&D and AD&D was that OD&D seems based in the realm of Tolkien (esp. the demi-humans) while AD&D had a very different feel (unique to itself) portrayed best in the Gord novels. At least thats how it seems to play out in our group. When you think back to the Tolkein books you don't see much about thieves besides the natural abilities of Hobbits. The guild is not really mentioned nor are human thieves. The idea of the "lightly armored fighter type sneaking around" is supposed to be incorporated in the normal characters (with limited funds and strict wieght capacity being considered etc. esp. during travel). In other words a fighter might go lightly armored out of necessity when traveling through terrain that includes a swamp for instance. The dwarves for instance in "The Hobbit" don heavy armor only at the very end, but travel in light armor because of the need to move freely and also because of its expense (where Bilbo at least is shown to wear his light mythral shirt on his return). So what I'm getting at is that there really is no human thief parallel in LOTR and since the game seems so closely linked to this world (despite Gygax's refusal to admit this) that it mayha be better to include less rather then more, So, I guess I agree with Foster. The thief, if you think about it, is a city dweller (look at Gord) and highly specialized. How often do they really set traps when adventuring, and can that get a bit cheeky after a while? And fighters are almost driven away from wearing light armor as this is the realm of thieves (which is a flaw I think). I suppose it boils down to how you see your OD&D world and what philosophy you think the game is based on. What ever the case, there is a clear difference between the game philosophies of 1E and OD&D.
While the 1E system clearly needs the thief as a core class due to its greater complexity, OD&D really doesn't benefit as a system based on its high level of simplicty.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 17, 2005 21:11:43 GMT -5
The first difference I noticed between OD&D and AD&D was that OD&D seems based in the realm of Tolkien (esp. the demi-humans) while AD&D had a very different feel (unique to itself) portrayed best in the Gord novels. At least thats how it seems to play out in our group. When you think back to the Tolkein books you don't see much about thieves besides the natural abilities of Hobbits. The guild is not really mentioned nor are human thieves. The idea of the "lightly armored fighter type sneaking around" is supposed to be incorporated in the normal characters (with limited funds and strict wieght capacity being considered etc. esp. during travel). In other words a fighter might go lightly armored out of necessity when traveling through terrain that includes a swamp for instance. The dwarves for instance in "The Hobbit" don heavy armor only at the very end, but travel in light armor because of the need to move freely and also because of its expense (where Bilbo at least is shown to wear his light mythral shirt on his return). So what I'm getting at is that there really is no human thief parallel in LOTR and since the game seems so closely linked to this world (despite Gygax's refusal to admit this) that despite my instincts to include more rather then less, I agree with Foster. The thief, if you think about it, is a city dweller (look at Gord) and highly specialized. How often do they really set traps when adventuring, and can that get a bit cheeky after a while? It is not just you. I always thought that about both OD&D and its offspring Classic D&D, where AD&D was tied to many more fantasy settings. Very well put. Now excuse me, I need to go purge the thief references out of my OD&D homemade player's document.
|
|
|
Post by dzubak on Mar 18, 2005 13:00:23 GMT -5
Regarding thieves, I too believe that the thief class as written belongs in the city. I've always wanted to replace them with some sort of dungeon delver or generic adventurer class but haven't been able to come up with anything.
<snip Tolkien OD&D comparison> Good post Axe.
At the risk of getting flamed, this is why I enjoy the Dex limitations attributed to heavy armors in an edition that shall not be named!
-d -hey, play with fire, expect to get burned.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 18, 2005 13:43:20 GMT -5
At the risk of getting flamed, this is why I enjoy the Dex limitations attributed to heavy armors in an edition that shall not be named! The AD&D barbarian class only gets his 'extra' Dex bonus when wearing non-bulky armor (which is to say only leather or elfin mail) and I never had any problem with that (and in fact suggested something just like it for WSmith's hypothetical 'Dex-based fighter' in another thread). I don't know how the equivalent 3E rule works but if it's like everything else in 3E I suspect it involves a lot of in-game bookkeeping which is (at least IMO) a bad thing -- IMO the fewer numbers/variables and modifiers that need to be kept track of, especially by players, the better.
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Mar 18, 2005 14:53:07 GMT -5
At first the 3E rules regarding armor seemed appealing. However, it changes the "look" of the game too much (to the point no one appears to have on metal armor and you can't tell the fighter from the magician).
AD&D if properly DMed would likely encourage light armor for fighters. However, no historical "real world" evidence exists to base this assumption on. I mean, didn't the Spanish soldiers in the 1400s walk around the new world in plate armor walking 100s of miles in blistering mosquito infested swamps?
It would seem history is actually on the side of the AD&D system as well, since people could move quickly in plate and chain armor (I would refer you to some of P&Ps post at the Tavern but have no idea if they are still there) so AD&D fighters probably should get dex bonuses along with the armor bonuses.
Another issue is keeping the game simple. If you make players constantly switch between armor types (traveling to the dungeon vs. entering the dungeon) this would become a freakin' head ache. Not to mention those "random" attacks you would have to worry about while switching in and out of armor all day (not unlike a hermit crab changing shells).
So, as much as I don't like the fact that AD&D has few to zero fighters running around in light armor, I think it is probably beyond improvement. Perhaps a simple solution might be to have all your magical protections work like bracers. Another thing might be for the DM to wipe out fighters unable to hall a$$ in certain situations.
Foster, that is an interesting observation about the barbarian class. The Beserker NPC class (presented in the monster manual) also gets an a.c. 7 without armor only. When we play this class (we have two PC beserkers actively being played now) we allow dex bonuses and magical bonuses to apply. One Beserker (or barbarian) runs around in a lion cloth and with his 17 dex and +2 ring has an a.c. of 2 (7-3-2) and when using a shield a 1. This PC is very Conanish as well using a bastard sword twice in a round is awsome (he has a 18.something strength and rarely uses the +2 bonus to hit with a single strike).
Anyhow, I just reread the Hobbit with my daughter and have to say although thieves do exist (referred to as burglars etc.) and the Mirk Wood Elf King is also familiar with thieves (stating he assumed the Dwarves were going to steal from the dragon using a thief rather then try to kill it) the class is never really defined (rather anyone trying to sneak around is a burglar or thief, including fighters). It's as if it is a character issue rather then a skill issue (though obviously one needs to dress for the occasion and having natural abilities is a big plus).
|
|