Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,218 Location: Melbourne, Australia Karma: 195
Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Thread Started on Apr 16, 2012, 8:25am »
Another of my random missives for you good folks to thrash about
Examples of various dungeoneering "skills" are illustrated in the 3LBBs. While these are not intended to be exhaustive, whatever remains unexplained can be extrapolated from that which is explained.
The principle dungeoneering skills which are referred to are;
. Taking enemy by surprise, . Breaking down doors, . Locating secret doors, . Listening for enemy behind doors, . Locating traps, . Moving silently, . Hiding.
Taking Enemy by Surprise:
Quote:
If the possibility for surprise exists roll a six-sided die for each party concerned. A roll of 1 or 2 indicates the party is surprised.
(U&WA p9)
Perhaps the most important factor in combat success can be taking the enemy unaware. The players are given 2 chances in 6 of doing so, and this fundamental principal is also applied many times elsewhere...
Breaking down doors:
Quote:
Doors must be forced open by strength, a roll or a 1 or 2 indicating the door opens, although smaller and lighter characters may be required to roll a 1 to open doors.
(U&WA p9)
Once again, the typical player has the "typical" 2 chances in 6 of success. Halflings (and other weaklings) are "poor at" this, and are afforded only half that chance of success.
Locating Secret Doors:
Quote:
Elves are more able to note secret and hidden doors.
(M&M p8)
Quote:
Secret passages will be located on the roll of a 1 or a 2 (on a six-sided die) by men, dwarves or hobbits. Elves will be able to locate them on a roll of 1-4.
(U&WA p9)
Again we see our guiding principle in action; that most players will succeed 2 times in 6.
Elves are especially "good at" locating secret doors, however. Twice as good to be exact, for they locate secret doors 4 times in 6.
So, what we have seen thus far is our "baseline":
Most players will have 2 chances in 6 of achieving challenging deeds in the dungeon. If they are deemed "good at" something, their chances of success are doubled. If they are deemed "poor at" something, their chances of success are instead halved. From this foundation much can be achieved with negligible effort.
It's all very neat so far...
...however, listening is the odd one out.
Listening:
Quote:
When characters come to a door they may "listen" to detect any sound within. ... A roll of 1 for humans, and 1 or 2 for Elves, Dwarves, or Hobbits will detect sound within if there is any to be heard.
(U&WA p9)
It is, perhaps, unfortunate that listening departs from the pattern established above. EGG apparently desired to restrict the utility of listening at doors, perhaps because it can so "easily" facilitate player survival?
If, like me, you prefer a systematic approach you can assume the above figures are for players wearing a helmet. Removing the protective head gear would then restore the player to the "standard odds"; 2 chances in 6 for men, and 4 chances in 6 for elves, dwarves and halflings.
Now we get onto more "speculative" material.
Locating Traps:
Quote:
Dwarves note slanting passages, traps, shifting walls and new construction in underground settings
(M&M p7)
Although odds are not stated explicitly, one might assume we are being told that Dwarves are "good at" locating traps, in the same manner as are elves good at locating secret doors. Thus we might assume that dwarves have 4 chances in 6 of locating these traps, while other players have but 2 chances in 6.
Moving Silently:
Quote:
Elves have the ability of moving silently
(M&T p16)
Once again, odds are not stated explicitly, but once again we may assume that Elves are considered "good at" moving silently, in just the same manner as they are "good at" locating secret doors. Hence we might assumed elves have 4 chances in 6 of moving silently. Others, who are not quite so "good at" this, might instead have the usual 2 chances in 6.
Hiding:
Quote:
Elves ... are nearly invisible in their gray-green cloaks.
(M&T p16)
By the same logic as above we could conclude that elves have 4 chances in 6 of hiding. The mention of gray-green cloaks implies that they do so when suitably attired for hiding... plausibly, when not wearing metal armour. Others, who are not quite so "good at" this, might instead have the usual 2 chances in 6.
If one is prepared to come this far, then there is no harm in stretching the same logic one step further to cover whatever "thief skills" are not mentioned explicitly. These are;
Naturally, the thief would be considered "good at" these things (in addition to all of the above), and hence would enjoy 4 chances in 6 of success. The other (non-thief) players, of course, should have the regular 2 chances in 6 of success, unless stated otherwise above.
Thieves might have specialist "skills" which other players don't have at all, e.g.,
. Reading languages (beginning at 3rd level), . Reading spell scrolls (beginning at 9th level).
But once again, they would be "good at" these things, and so have 4 chances in 6 of success.
So, one simple mechanic to take care of all these... and the rest!
Joined: Dec 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 813 Location: The Echo Chamber Karma: 24
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #1 on Apr 16, 2012, 9:29am »
I did something very similar to this in my home campaign. I allow thieves, but I based their special abilities off the "standard" adventuring ones found in the LBBs. Just about all their abilities are based on 1d6 rolls, since OD&D already provides examples of most of them on that basis, as you've shown here.
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #3 on Apr 16, 2012, 10:25am »
Nice and simple, and a perfect replacement for the percentile thief abilities if you wanted to try running holmes as a complete campaign (i.e. a world where levels are capped at 3).
"If you like the idea of Blackadder II and Kit Marlowe getting drunk and fighting cultists and Spaniards in the London sprawl then check this baby out" - Jeff Rients
Another of my random missives for you good folks to thrash about
Examples of various dungeoneering "skills" are illustrated in the 3LBBs. While these are not intended to be exhaustive, whatever remains unexplained can be extrapolated from that which is explained.
The principle dungeoneering skills which are referred to are;
. Taking enemy by surprise, . Breaking down doors, . Locating secret doors, . Listening for enemy behind doors, . Locating traps, . Moving silently, . Hiding.
Taking Enemy by Surprise:
Quote:
If the possibility for surprise exists roll a six-sided die for each party concerned. A roll of 1 or 2 indicates the party is surprised.
(U&WA p9)
Perhaps the most important factor in combat success can be taking the enemy unaware. The players are given 2 chances in 6 of doing so, and this fundamental principal is also applied many times elsewhere...
Breaking down doors:
(U&WA p9)
Once again, the typical player has the "typical" 2 chances in 6 of success. Halflings (and other weaklings) are "poor at" this, and are afforded only half that chance of success.
Locating Secret Doors:
(M&M p8)
(U&WA p9)
Again we see our guiding principle in action; that most players will succeed 2 times in 6.
Elves are especially "good at" locating secret doors, however. Twice as good to be exact, for they locate secret doors 4 times in 6.
So, what we have seen thus far is our "baseline":
Most players will have 2 chances in 6 of achieving challenging deeds in the dungeon. If they are deemed "good at" something, their chances of success are doubled. If they are deemed "poor at" something, their chances of success are instead halved. From this foundation much can be achieved with negligible effort.
It's all very neat so far...
...however, listening is the odd one out.
Listening:
(U&WA p9)
It is, perhaps, unfortunate that listening departs from the pattern established above. EGG apparently desired to restrict the utility of listening at doors, perhaps because it can so "easily" facilitate player survival?
If, like me, you prefer a systematic approach you can assume the above figures are for players wearing a helmet. Removing the protective head gear would then restore the player to the "standard odds"; 2 chances in 6 for men, and 4 chances in 6 for elves, dwarves and halflings.
Now we get onto more "speculative" material.
Locating Traps:
(M&M p7)
Although odds are not stated explicitly, one might assume we are being told that Dwarves are "good at" locating traps, in the same manner as are elves good at locating secret doors. Thus we might assume that dwarves have 4 chances in 6 of locating these traps, while other players have but 2 chances in 6.
Moving Silently:
(M&T p16)
Once again, odds are not stated explicitly, but once again we may assume that Elves are considered "good at" moving silently, in just the same manner as they are "good at" locating secret doors. Hence we might assumed elves have 4 chances in 6 of moving silently. Others, who are not quite so "good at" this, might instead have the usual 2 chances in 6.
Hiding:
Quote:
Elves ... are nearly invisible in their gray-green cloaks.
(M&T p16)
By the same logic as above we could conclude that elves have 4 chances in 6 of hiding. The mention of gray-green cloaks implies that they do so when suitably attired for hiding... plausibly, when not wearing metal armour. Others, who are not quite so "good at" this, might instead have the usual 2 chances in 6.
If one is prepared to come this far, then there is no harm in stretching the same logic one step further to cover whatever "thief skills" are not mentioned explicitly. These are;
Naturally, the thief would be considered "good at" these things (in addition to all of the above), and hence would enjoy 4 chances in 6 of success. The other (non-thief) players, of course, should have the regular 2 chances in 6 of success, unless stated otherwise above.
Thieves might have specialist "skills" which other players don't have at all, e.g.,
. Reading languages (beginning at 3rd level), . Reading spell scrolls (beginning at 9th level).
But once again, they would be "good at" these things, and so have 4 chances in 6 of success.
So, one simple mechanic to take care of all these... and the rest!
So if you are looking for a justifified thief class in 3lbb's, then I agree that the above would be about the closest you could get, but the trouble is that all of the d6 skills mentioned are racial, not class based.
Excepting surprise and the willingness of pursuers to continue a chase - both of which apply equally to everybody, the abilities are inherent in the species, somehow or other, like homing in pigeons. It doesn't matter if a human was born and raised in an underground mining complex, and is an expert spelunker, they will not detect sloping passages as well as a dwarf (regardless of where the dwarf was born and raised.)
For the analogy to extend harmoniously with the text, you would need to assign "thief skills" to races, so maybe elves are particularly nimble at picking locks and hobbits might be deft at picking pockets, Dwarves; twice as good at finding and disarming traps, and maybe humans are the ones adept at climbing, if any race is.
So if you are looking for a justifified thief class in 3lbb's
For me it's not a matter of "justifying" anything. We've discussed whether or not thieves are justified elsewhere, and we both know where we each stand on that one
To me, this one is more a matter of practical gaming at the table.
I agree that the above would be about the closest you could get, but the trouble is that all of the d6 skills mentioned are racial, not class based.
I don't see why this has to be a problem. It's a generalisation to say "elves are good at this", "dwarves are good at that". What is wrong with "thieves are good at stuff"? It makes good sense to me in any case.
For the analogy to extend harmoniously with the text, you would need to assign "thief skills" to races,
You wouldn't need to do this, in fact, since it is already printed in the text as it is. They are not referred to as "thief skills", of course, and they needn't be -- expect in the context of discussing thieves.
The "skills" themselves are just things players do. A thief, or an elf, or a cleric, or whomever may want to hide. Or to surprise enemy, or to find a trap, or to "whatever", and there is no reason why they should not. It is all a matter of whether a particular player will be good at the deed in question.
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #6 on Apr 16, 2012, 9:08pm »
I was inspired to look through U&WA for more Dungeoneering Skills:
Avoid damage from falling in a pit: 3-6 in 6 (only take damage on a 1 or 2) Avoid traps, including opening pits: 3-6 in 6 (only sprung on a 1 or 2) Locate a room with a monster: 1-2 in 6, on a 1 the monster will have treasure Locate a room with a monster with a treasure: 1-3 in 6 of occupied rooms Locate an unguarded but hidden treasure: 1 in 6 of empty rooms Keep a door wedged open: 1-4 in 6 (spike slips from door on 5 or 6) Alertness (avoid being surprised by monsters): 3-6 in 6 (party surprised by monsters on 1-2) Avoid wandering monsters each turn: 1-5 in 6 (wandering monster encountered on 6) Avoid pursuing monster: 3-6 in 6 (monster continues to pursue on 1-2) or 2-6 in 6 if use a secret door Tight grip: 2-4 in 4 (drop an item on a 1 when surprised) Deter non-intelligent monsters with food: 1-9 in 10 Deter unintelligent monsters with food: 1-5 in 10 Deter intelligent monsters with food: 1 in 10 Persuade monsters: 9-12 in 2d6
"Story tellers are always careful to point out that the reputed dungeons lie in close proximity to the foundations of an older, pre-human city, to the graveyard, and to the sea.” - Holmes rulebook
Zenopus Archives - Holmes Basic D&D - website & blog
I was inspired to look through U&WA for more Dungeoneering Skills:
Avoid damage from falling in a pit: 3-6 in 6 (only take damage on a 1 or 2) Avoid traps, including opening pits: 3-6 in 6 (only sprung on a 1 or 2) Locate a room with a monster: 1-2 in 6, on a 1 the monster will have treasure Locate a room with a monster with a treasure: 1-3 in 6 of occupied rooms Locate an unguarded but hidden treasure: 1 in 6 of empty rooms Keep a door wedged open: 1-4 in 6 (spike slips from door on 5 or 6) Alertness (avoid being surprised by monsters): 3-6 in 6 (party surprised by monsters on 1-2) Avoid wandering monsters each turn: 1-5 in 6 (wandering monster encountered on 6) Avoid pursuing monster: 3-6 in 6 (monster continues to pursue on 1-2) or 2-6 in 6 if use a secret door Tight grip: 2-4 in 4 (drop an item on a 1 when surprised) Deter non-intelligent monsters with food: 1-9 in 10 Deter unintelligent monsters with food: 1-5 in 10 Deter intelligent monsters with food: 1 in 10 Persuade monsters: 9-12 in 2d6
Has anyone compiled all of these skill checks from the 3lbb's? Man, this is some good stuff to have organized and on a reference sheet or something. I never realized how much there is until seeing them all together!
Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,218 Location: Melbourne, Australia Karma: 195
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #8 on Apr 16, 2012, 9:50pm »
That's a very interesting take on things, Zenopus...
I guess I would rule that a skill or "deed" is something the player must actively do (as opposed to passively or reactively). He has to say to the referee that he is sneaking, or looking for traps or whatever.
I'm not yet sure what to make of the "inverse skills", such as not encountering wandering monsters 5 times out of 6.
Avoid damage from falling in a pit: 3-6 in 6 (only take damage on a 1 or 2)
From memory that was explicitly for a particular 10ft deep pit in the example dungeon. It may not apply to an 80ft deep pit, or even to 10ft deep pits in general?
Locate a room with a monster: 1-2 in 6, on a 1 the monster will have treasure Locate a room with a monster with a treasure: 1-3 in 6 of occupied rooms Locate an unguarded but hidden treasure: 1 in 6 of empty rooms
These are for the referee to generate random dungeons... not really intended for use once the dungeon exists. But it is very interesting to imagine using these while exploring and creating a dungeon simultaneously. If the player "finds" a secret door, then the ref has to put one in immediately!
Keep a door wedged open: 1-4 in 6 (spike slips from door on 5 or 6)
Personally, I only roll for this when the players return to a door they previously jammed. In my mind its the other dungeon denizens (imps, goblins, ghosts etc.) that have changed things while the players are absent.
Deter non-intelligent monsters with food: 1-9 in 10 Deter unintelligent monsters with food: 1-5 in 10 Deter intelligent monsters with food: 1 in 10 Persuade monsters: 9-12 in 2d6
I see all of these as monster behaviours/responses to player actions, rather than player skills.
For the analogy to extend harmoniously with the text, you would need to assign "thief skills" to races,
You wouldn't need to do this, in fact, since it is already printed in the text as it is. They are not referred to as "thief skills", of course, and they needn't be -- expect in the context of discussing thieves.
The "skills" themselves are just things players do. A thief, or an elf, or a cleric, or whomever may want to hide. Or to surprise enemy, or to find a trap, or to "whatever", and there is no reason why they should not. It is all a matter of whether a particular player will be good at the deed in question.
I guess I'm not quite understanding what you're interested in accomplishing, exactly. If you are not trying to find justification, or perhaps I should say grounding, for thief specific skills in the 3lbb's, then making the connections to elves finding secret doors and so on is I guess just beside the point of d6 being a die commonly used to dermine things in OD&D?
Not that I'm saying there is anything at all wrong the 1 or 2 on a d6 method you're proposing, but if it's just for "practical gaming", all well and good, but I'm confused by the thorough list of references then.
I had thought part of the point of the OP was looking at ways to model the sorts of skills given to the classic thief character by comparing them to similar activities in OD&D (listen at doors etc.) and expanding that pattern. As such, it seems quite important to me to point out that in the context of the 3lbbs those skills are racial bonuses, and thus not similar to class skills.
Thus the use of a single d6 in the 3lbb's is reserved for two sorts attempts to accomplish tasks in OD&D - attempts that are specific to a race, and attempts that are common to everybody.
Other chances that are class specific use a more complicated die throw - d20, 2d6, 3d6, or percentiles, typically. In that sense the traditional thief is quite in line with the other classes already.
Gygax's % thief skills fits the pattern established by other class specific skills in the 3lbbs - saving throws, turn undead, contact higher plane etc. etc. all of which use complex dice combinations.
Using a single d6 for class based skills would depart from that pattern and make thief the only class to use a simplistic method that is otherwise resereved for racial bonuses or general adventuring.
Again, nothing at all wrong with that, but you might just a well use a d10 for the added wiggle room.
Which is fine if all you are after is gaming practicality
I guess I'm not quite understanding what you're interested in accomplishing, exactly.
I guess I just find it pleasurable to ruminate upon what appears in the 3LBBs. Whether or not anything is accomplished by doing so is another question entirely
I had thought part of the point of the OP was looking at ways to model the sorts of skills given to the classic thief character by comparing them to similar activities in OD&D (listen at doors etc.) and expanding that pattern.
the use of a single d6 in the 3lbb's is reserved for two sorts attempts to accomplish tasks in OD&D - attempts that are specific to a race, and attempts that are common to everybody.
Other chances that are class specific use a more complicated die throw - d20, 2d6, 3d6, or percentiles, typically. In that sense the traditional thief is quite in line with the other classes already.
Gygax's % thief skills fits the pattern established by other class specific skills in the 3lbbs - saving throws, turn undead, contact higher plane etc. etc. all of which use complex dice combinations.
Using a single d6 for class based skills would depart from that pattern and make thief the only class to use a simplistic method that is otherwise resereved for racial bonuses or general adventuring.
That is certainly one perfectly valid interpretation of the source material.
Another is that the more significant distinction is between deeds which are exclusive to members of one class, and deeds which are doable in general by all (or most) players.
The examples you mention (turn undead, contact higher plane) and similar things are exclusive class abilities. Listening at doors, locating traps and secret doors, hiding, and pretty much all the other dungeoneering "skills" are mundane abilities which are not exclusively the realm of any one class or race -- anyone can try them.
That is why (in my mind, at least) it is worthwhile considering whether a player is "good at", "poor at", or just "regular at" these skills. When it is not a question of whether a players can do it at all, the question becomes whether he can do it well.
For me, saving throws are entirely outside the scope of the above. They are not typically considered "skills" or "deeds" to be purposefully employed by the player to achieve some ends. They are usually rolled only as a reaction to some disastrous event. Even if the referee requires players to actively say they do something in order to allow a saving throw (as some do), it is still only in response to adversity.
Even if we did consider saving throws to be a representative mechanic for dungeoneering "skills", then we must surely concede that this mechanic is not "class specific" as you say. Saving throws are not the unique province of any specific class -- everyone has them!
In the end I'm sure each individual referee will decide which way he wants to go with it.
Our role here is merely to illuminate the various possibilities
Another is that the more significant distinction is between deeds which are exclusive to members of one class, and deeds which are doable in general by all (or most) players.
That's a very valuable distinction, at least for me, since it highlights a good part of why the thief class, as presented in Greyhawk, vexes me.
Another is that the more significant distinction is between deeds which are exclusive to members of one class, and deeds which are doable in general by all (or most) players.
That's a very valuable distinction, at least for me, since it highlights a good part of why the thief class, as presented in Greyhawk, vexes me.
One of things I do in my campaign is use the d12 to resolve thief skills. I also allow anyone to try anything; for example, any character can attempt to pick a lock, hide in shadows, move silently and so forth. The thief has a starting minimum of 3-in-12 success chance, while non-thieves, attempting thiefly things have a set 1-in-6 chance of success. The thief gets better with experience levels, but a fighter, for instance will never get better than that 1-in-6 chance if he's trying to pick a lock, or what have you. Of course, circumstances and player ingenuity can alter probabilities in all such cases.
Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 561 Karma: 17
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #13 on Apr 17, 2012, 8:21am »
Quote:
The thief gets better with experience levels
Let's challenge this conventional wisdom for a moment:
Why should thieves have to "get better" at certain skills? Is listening at a door more hazardous to a 10th level thief than a 1st level one? It's not like turning undead, or fireball compared to read magic--what necessitates that they suck at 1st level? Have we all this time just fetishized the level up process? Does it put too much emphasis on abilites that, while useful, don't need to be shoe-horned in to each game session? Does the dwarf player lament if he doesn't get to detect a sloping passage every 10min? What I'm taking away from this great thread is that the thiefs abilities should be set at first level to compensate for the reduced combat prowress compared to the fighting-man.
Perhaps the whole anti-climactic progressing chart of a thiefs open lock skill needs to be re-examined. Just 4 in 6 from day one. If the "thief" were actually a "gnome" fighting-man who was restricted from wearing plate armor, would the 3lbb have fetishized his ability to climb walls at 4 in 6 or his listen skill?
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/Ways_100x100.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged
![[avatar]](http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1214/comicbookjames.jpg "[avatar]")
![[aim]](http://images.proboards.com/aim.gif "[aim]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/3632089479/384133a24f0d799205d632883fe0448e.jpeg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_u00qWD-_dM4/TNyW0RtBXkI/AAAAAAAAAI4/pHmT9bbqfrk/s400/backswords%2526bucklers.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i51.tinypic.com/34oeau1.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp161/ghul576/sorcereravatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii55/akesher3/erolaxeAvatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}