|
Post by WSmith on Mar 17, 2005 15:21:38 GMT -5
This thread has me considering dropping the thief altogether, like many others. As much as I would like to do this, I still find something missing. I am thinking of a lightly armored fighter subclass character, based upon DEX. I would love to hear from Jerry who says he had a pre suppliment "thief-like" class. Any other ideas?
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 17, 2005 15:37:11 GMT -5
Before I do too much work, I am going to check out the original SR bard and ranger. They might fill the niche, and I like both those classes anyway.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 17, 2005 16:22:54 GMT -5
The SR ranger class might fit the bill for you. The SR bard's thiefly skills amount to being given standard thief skills at 1/2 his level, so if you're getting rid of the thief this won't help much (I kinda like the bard class and am trying to decide if they're still viable w/o thief skills -- considering how overpowered the class is WITH them I think they probably are).
As for creating a viable Dex-based fighter class, here's a couple thoughts. Make Dex the class' prime requisite, and allow them to trade Int and/or Wis to improve it. Perhaps allow the fighter's AC bonus for high Dex from supplement I to apply only to this class, and only if he's wearing leather armor (in the manner of the AD&D barbarian class). Thus a character with leather & shield (AC 6) and Dex 18 (+4 bonus) would have AC 2 -- the same as a character in plate + shield. High Dex grants everybody bonuses to surprise and initiative (optionally) and missile fire, and since this class will tend to have high Dex (because it's their PR) they'll tend to get these bonuses (which kick in at 13+). The only other thing I'd suggest is to perhaps allow this class (and this class only) to wield two weapons at once -- the second weapon could be used to parry (if the Chainmail parrying rules are used) or for a second attack. Such a character type would fit very well for either Moonglum from the Elric books or the Gray Mouser. He doesn't have any particular hiding or sneaking abilities like the thief class, but the fact that he's typically got a high Dex and that he's typically wearing non-metal armor should both help him in ad-hoc judgment call situations.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 17, 2005 16:33:03 GMT -5
The SR ranger class might fit the bill for you. The SR bard's thiefly skills amount to being given standard thief skills at 1/2 his level, so if you're getting rid of the thief this won't help much (I kinda like the bard class and am trying to decide if they're still viable w/o thief skills -- considering how overpowered the class is WITH them I think they probably are). The bard was too long for me to read just yet. I did read the ranger, though. Still undecided. That is the feeling I am going for. That is very good. I got to think about this the TWF thingy, but the move/hide is a good option. Especially if using the ideas from the other thread.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 17, 2005 17:12:06 GMT -5
I got to think about this the TWF thingy, I just threw that in there because I was thinking of characters from literature that seemed to fit this style/archetype and both of those I came up with -- Moonglum and the Gray Mouser -- used 2 weapons. But that doesn't necessarily mean this has to be a class ability, perhaps it could just be a function of Dex score (like it is in AD&D) that would be coincidental to these types of characters since they tend to have high Dex scores.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 17, 2005 18:39:53 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't know If I want to preclude TWF from the other classes, especially the fighter. Having it not as a class ability for this new class, but tied to DEX, say over 13, (since in Vol. I DEX 13+ has a +1 for missiles, and apparantly modifies initiative also as per the FAQ) makes it not exclusive to the new class, but the new would be inherently better since they should have a high DEX. Some ideas:
To use two weapons effectively, a character must have a DEX of 13 higher. This allows for a +1 bonus to the attack roll (just to be clear this +1 bonus is the same one as granted for init' and missile fire) and an extra 1d6 (or double damage, or half of 2d6) of damage if the strike is successful, (more on that in a minute)
Not sure what the parry rule is, but I am sure it could be intergrated.
Since the recent ephiphiny of my understanding the nature of abstract of D&D combat, I always felt that an extra attack roll for TWF was a bit redundant. A house rule I had been using and suggested for C&C, but was not implimented, was that the single attack roll was made as usual, but both damage dice were rolled. If the hit was successful, then the higher damage roll was applied to the victim. Since in OD&D all damage is 1d6, this needs some modification.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Mar 17, 2005 18:55:27 GMT -5
Yeah, I saw that. Since the bard is sort of a Jack of all trades class, it may fit the niche of "general adventurer." I am close to deep sixing the thief class, and go with the suggestions here. Perhaps instead of a bonus to a roll, OR an exclusive ability, the bard automatically gets a second roll that no other class would, to read script, or hide or some such. That might be a bit overpowering in and of itself, but I haven't thougth much about it, (just brainstorming right now.) What would the new class be called, The term rogue has, over the past 5 years or so, become unattractive and just doesn't appeal anymore for some reason. How about Duelist?
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 17, 2005 19:26:18 GMT -5
What would the new class be called, The term rogue has, over the past 5 years or so, become unattractive and just doesn't appeal anymore for some reason. How about Duelist? The problem with rogue (aside from other-edition connotations ) is that it's a description of a personality/behavior type, not anything intrinsic to the class. It'd be like if we called the cleric class "humorless uptight prigs" -- that may very well be true to the stereotype but that doesn't mean any particular member must be that way (and it also doesn't tell us a thing about what the class actually does). I assume that's the reason Gary Gygax doesn't like the term (when someone asked "then why did you call your novels 'Gord the Rogue'?" he shot back "because Gord WAS a rogue, as well as a thief!"). Duelist could work, but seems too specific. Fencer? Skirmisher? Scout?
|
|
|
Post by northrundicandus on Mar 17, 2005 19:47:19 GMT -5
In honor of the site -
CALL 'EM KNAVES.
;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Stonegiant on Jul 9, 2005 8:21:51 GMT -5
Another possibility would be to call them Rakes, Outriders, or since they are dex based maybe even call them archers and take some cues from the 1st edition NPC class.
|
|
|
Post by AxeMental on Jul 9, 2005 15:18:15 GMT -5
Greetings Stonegiant! Hale from Daytona Beach. Your the closest person I have yet to find on the web! Hopefully your an active AD&D gamer and "normal". Yes, what I think you guys are looking for is an Indiana Jones type PC. Some guy who is a "professional scout, finder, and trap avoider". He were's a leather jacket, a whip and the closest thing to a .45 AD&D has. Seriously, this shouldn't be a big deal. The ranger is a great idea, but I don't like the alignment character restrictions. Your looking for a scoundrel as much as a saint. Maybe call it the fighter subclass called Scout, armor: leather or eleven chain, weapons: same as a fighter, HD d10, and give it an increased chance of finding traps, an ability to keep direction, and an increased chance to find secret doors. So, basically its a fighter with a thiefs ability to find traps and open locks. You might give this class some surprise benefit as well.
|
|
|
Post by WSmith on Aug 16, 2005 16:32:25 GMT -5
Looks like Thoth Amon put some work into this idea.
|
|
|
Post by Jerry Mapes on Aug 16, 2005 18:32:55 GMT -5
Sorry it took so long to get back to this.
What we had wasnt so much a seperate class, but simply a Fighting Man that emphasized his best scores in Dex and Chr. we gave him similar abilities as what came later in the suppliments and AD&D but fewer.
It basically was sneak, pilfer, find traps, and con. Sneak was a combo of what later became move silent and hide. His chance of being successful was based on his Dex vs. the person(s)/monsters INT with the difference of scores being the +/- mod. Pilfer (pick pockets, purse cutting, pocketing an item, etc.) was handled the same. Con (job) - was simply basic fast/sweet talking. I never really had a hard fast rule. It really was PC to NPC interaction. The Player had to convince me. IF i went with a dice roll or the player was really inexperinced and needed some "help" i would default to the CHR Reaction roll table in the M&M book with a rolled score of: 2=realizes its a con and attacks 3-5=realizes its a con and reacts "hostile" short of attacking (call constable, guards, verbal restraint, etc.) 6-8=uncertain 9-12=accepts offer If the person being con'd was someone elses retainer or henchman then I would apply thier loyality to the roll as well as the sweetness of the deal/offer/bribe.
Find traps was active/descriptive search then Wis vs Wis of trap setter with difference being modifier +/-, to disarm it was Int vs Int of trap setter with difference being modifier +/-.
it all made for some extra prep work but it worked ok. But the key to the success still remained up to the DM based on the description/thouroughness of the action. It was common sense. You needn't go into a 3 hr treatse on what you were doing but you couldnt just say "I check for traps" and leave it at that.
all in all it was pretty much what was to come, just less stnadardized. a simple attempt to keep it from being solely mechanical.
gotta run supper is on.
|
|