....There are a number of different ways you could represent the Thief's abilities in keeping with the tone of the game without going down the dreaded universal mechanic route. One I can imagine is to consider the thief in a similar way to the dwarf. Simply describe the Thief class as being "competent at disabling small traps, picking pockets and locks, climbing sheer surfaces" etc. In fact, I believe the class is already described as such so as a DM one could simply ignore the probabilities and pick your own as you would any other action. If you absolutely have to have thieves improve their skills as they level up you could say that first level thieves are competent at picking pockets, evading notice and capture and climbing, at second level they are competent at picking locks etc etc.
FWIW, IMC there are two thief characters, and we regularly switch between using the D@D rules, where there is a thief class, and the 3LBB's, where there isn't. What I usually do for the thieves when in 3lbb mode is have them roll a d20 on against whatever saving throw category seems relevant to what they are trying to do; like if they wanted to hide inconspicuously I might ask them to save v. paralysis.
Or you could allow the thief player to pick one sort of activity that they have become competent with each level. Thus one becomes a master thief when you've finally mastered all the techniques a good thief requires rather than because your percentile skills have finally become reasonably reliable.
<GrammarNazi> A mechanic is a person who fixes things, not a game rule. The set of game rules constituting a system may be called the mechanics of the game (note the plural), but you cannot isolate a single rule and call it a mechanic. It is a rule. </GrammarNazi>
Ahem.
Yes I can. So can Norse. Like any anthropologist, I have no interest in, nor do I subscribe to, the elitist and ultimately racist notion that there is one and only one divine and proper english, as espoused by some person or persons sitting on their god given throne. In the dialect I speak, a mechanic is well understood as used in the discussion. If my meaning is ever obscure, I apologize, and likewise for my current tone, as it touches on a very sensitive issue.
Yarr. What he said. Besides, a rule is something written down, and a discrete statement at that. Whereas a mechanic can be seen as a way of doing something. A little imaginary engine to power play, that might well be written down as a number of connected rules, or might be entirely in someone's head as a concept.
"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
I speculate the way it went down was, sometime between the 3LBB's and the supplements:
"Hey Mr. DM, what are those?"
"They're 20-sided dice with numbers from 0 to 9! If I roll two of them I can generate a %, for determining treasure and stuff."
"Cool, can I roll them too?"
And thus the Thief and Assassin were born.
Heh, maybe for the thief, since some guy named Gary Schwietzer created the class, then Gygax developed it. No mention has been made of which Gary brought in the percentiles. For D&D though you'd have to go a lot farther back. Arneson had a pair of d20 percentile dice he picked up in England and was itching to use them. So he introduced all sorts of percentile chances in his Blackmoor game, including his combat matrix. He also used 2d6 for a number of things (the turn undead table is the only surviving example in D&D).
Snorri has an interesting thread on underlying % in 3lbb's
....The introduction of percentile based skills was, in my opinion, and unnecessary and unfortunate fork in the D&D road.
Take the poor Greyhawk (and later, AD&D) thief for example. His thief "skills" are so feeble (and the consequences of failure usually dire) below 5th or 6th level that they are scarcely worthy of the title "skills". Seeing at most play occurs at levels 1 to 4, so called thief "skills" rarely exceed a paltry 30%.
Worse, the very fact that we now have percentile skills sets the expectation that adjustments as fine-grained as 1% are significant. The implication is that the referee "should" be accounting for all these fine-grained adjustments during play. And lo! Immediately we see tables of adjustments to thieving skills due to race and dexterity ranging from -15% to +15%, and rules lawyers who know when and what should be applied, and the sorry descent has begun.
I rather like the added drama a few percentage points bring to the table, myself. I take to heart what Tim Kask said about it on DF when discussing how he created the % based assassins table in Supplement II. "Once I had determined that point of equity, the chart filled itself out, so to speak. After all, these were base percentages that did not take into account a +3 Garrotte (15% bonus) or a +3 Ring of Protection (15% the other way), or any other items or artifacts the individual DM might introduce into his campaign. I threw in the 01's because, Hey!, it's fantasy..."
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #34 on Apr 18, 2012, 11:53am »
I must admit quite like percentile dice meself. But I don't like levelling percentages, for much the same reasons that waysoftheearth pointed out.
So, for those that like percentile based thief abilities but don't like them to level I have come up with this:
Intelligence, Dexterity or Charisma of Thief
% Chance for Competent Tasks
% Chance for Other Tasks
3-4
15%
5%
5-7
30%
15%
8-9
45%
20%
10-12
60%
30%
13-14
70%
35%
15-16
80%
40%
17-18
90%
45%
Possible tasks to become competent at include: Opening Locks, Removing Small Traps, Picking Pockets, Moving Silently, Remaining Unnoticed, Climbing Without Aids, Short Cons, Sleight of Hand, Escaping Bonds, Reading Scrolls. A thief is Competent at one of these tasks at first level, and becomes competent at one more task every time a level is gained.
Admittedly, as these are all in multiples of 5, you could just as easily use a d20, which is why I generally prefer percentile rolls to be made against modified ability score numbers.
"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
I must protest bitterly that my aircraft still has not been painted red.
Joined: Mar 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 1,596 Location: Schenectady Karma: 73
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #35 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:36pm »
Exalt Norse, that's a handy system. It occurs to me that you could add a whole range of things to the tasks list, and use it as an education system of sorts, for any class.
Yes I can. So can Norse. Like any anthropologist, I have no interest in, nor do I subscribe to, the elitist and ultimately racist notion that there is one and only one divine and proper english, as espoused by some person or persons sitting on their god given throne. In the dialect I speak, a mechanic is well understood as used in the discussion. If my meaning is ever obscure, I apologize, and likewise for my current tone, as it touches on a very sensitive issue.
Yarr. What he said. Besides, a rule is something written down, and a discrete statement at that. Whereas a mechanic can be seen as a way of doing something. A little imaginary engine to power play, that might well be written down as a number of connected rules, or might be entirely in someone's head as a concept.
So there
Sorry, off-topic there I know.
Not entirely off-topic. Watch me re-spin it!
"Mechanic" was originally an adjective, meaning "relating to manual or physical labor". Both the noun "mechanic" (meaning "person who manually makes or repairs items") and the singular noun "mechanics" (meaning "procedures or operation behind some complex system") were later editions, elaborations of the concept behind the adjective.
"Game mechanics", and the new singular noun "mechanic", are just another new addition, specific to gamer jargon. Languages change, new words and usages get added; people shouldn't get shocked or enraged at this. But more importantly, the lineage of the term "game mechanic" tells us that it's not just a rule, it's a special kind of rule -- one that requires a manual procedure, like rolling dice or tallying up damage. This is distinct from other rules, usually conditionals, which do not require any procedure, but merely express which things are allowed in the game and when.
"Thieves can pick locks, non-thieves can't" is a rule, but it's not a mechanic. "A successful roll of 2 or less with 1d6" is a mechanic.
I think the distinction is important, because it's my contention that, although mechanics are necessary, the *details* of each mechanic aren't really that important; only the non-mechanical rules are truly important. It doesn't really matter if Pick Locks is expressed as a percentile, a d6 roll low, a d6 roll high, a d20 attack or save, or even a 2d6 reaction roll, nor does it matter if you use a universal mechanic or individual mechanics for each system. You use the approach you prefer.
What *is* important is the non-mechanical rules surrounding Pick Locks: Should it be limited to thieves? Should anyone be able to do it, but thieves get a bonus? Should it be a skill? Should it be automatic? Should there be a chance for some kind of accident? Which rules you pick changes the character of the game, in a way that mere mechanical details don't.
Personally, I prefer to treat Pick Locks as a talent natural to thieves, but learnable by others (buy lock picks at character creation, you get to pick locks; otherwise, find a teacher and spend time and money in-game.) It's basically automatic for standard locks, but there's a risk of jamming the lock, for non-thieves, so there's a d6 roll for this. When picking a lock on a door, the purpose is to be able to surprise any possible occupants, so a surprise roll is involved in those cases. Failure means you have to break the lock or chop the door down, usually negating surprise.
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 663 Karma: 19
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #37 on Apr 18, 2012, 3:16pm »
Oh, and I have a vague idea for allowing Intelligence and Dexterity to affect lock picking and trap removal, but not in the same way as norse's percentile system. My idea: standard locks and mechanical traps can be picked or removed automatically by thieves, but require a roll for non-thieves to see if they jam the lock/set off the trap/otherwise break something. Non-standard locks or traps have minimum scores:
Complex Mechanism: minimum Int 10+ Tricky Mechanism: minimum Dex 10+
If non-thieves don't meet the minimum score, they can't pick the lock or remove the trap. If thieves don't meet the minimum, they have to roll for an accident, as would a non-thief.
Whether or not a second attempt is possible depends on what happens if a bad roll is made. Usually, no second attempt is possible: the lock is jammed, the trap goes off. Some traps, though, might automatically reset, which means someone could try to remove it again.
Joined: Mar 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 32 Location: Officer's Barracks Karma: 4
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #38 on Apr 18, 2012, 3:24pm »
Not everyone here speaks English as a native language. Native language aside, it is a breach of netiquette to correct someone's language or grammar on the wwweb. You'uns are out of line. I'll bet serious money you knew what meaning was intended and this is the purpose of language--to communicate.
Please drop it. There are forums and weblogs for those who enjoy nitpicking the grammar of others. Here is one to get you started: http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/
Yarr. What he said. Besides, a rule is something written down, and a discrete statement at that. Whereas a mechanic can be seen as a way of doing something. A little imaginary engine to power play, that might well be written down as a number of connected rules, or might be entirely in someone's head as a concept.
So there
Sorry, off-topic there I know.
Not entirely off-topic. Watch me re-spin it!
"Mechanic" was originally an adjective, meaning "relating to manual or physical labor". Both the noun "mechanic" (meaning "person who manually makes or repairs items") and the singular noun "mechanics" (meaning "procedures or operation behind some complex system") were later editions, elaborations of the concept behind the adjective.
"Game mechanics", and the new singular noun "mechanic", are just another new addition, specific to gamer jargon. Languages change, new words and usages get added; people shouldn't get shocked or enraged at this. But more importantly, the lineage of the term "game mechanic" tells us that it's not just a rule, it's a special kind of rule -- one that requires a manual procedure, like rolling dice or tallying up damage. This is distinct from other rules, usually conditionals, which do not require any procedure, but merely express which things are allowed in the game and when.
"Thieves can pick locks, non-thieves can't" is a rule, but it's not a mechanic. "A successful roll of 2 or less with 1d6" is a mechanic.
I think the distinction is important, because it's my contention that, although mechanics are necessary, the *details* of each mechanic aren't really that important; only the non-mechanical rules are truly important. It doesn't really matter if Pick Locks is expressed as a percentile, a d6 roll low, a d6 roll high, a d20 attack or save, or even a 2d6 reaction roll, nor does it matter if you use a universal mechanic or individual mechanics for each system. You use the approach you prefer.
What *is* important is the non-mechanical rules surrounding Pick Locks: Should it be limited to thieves? Should anyone be able to do it, but thieves get a bonus? Should it be a skill? Should it be automatic? Should there be a chance for some kind of accident? Which rules you pick changes the character of the game, in a way that mere mechanical details don't.
Personally, I prefer to treat Pick Locks as a talent natural to thieves, but learnable by others (buy lock picks at character creation, you get to pick locks; otherwise, find a teacher and spend time and money in-game.) It's basically automatic for standard locks, but there's a risk of jamming the lock, for non-thieves, so there's a d6 roll for this. When picking a lock on a door, the purpose is to be able to surprise any possible occupants, so a surprise roll is involved in those cases. Failure means you have to break the lock or chop the door down, usually negating surprise.
Interesting stuff, as always, talysman.
I guess I see the Thief's Abilities akin to Saving Throws - a chance to achieve an otherwise unachievable result. The normal man (much like ourselves), has zero chance of open standard locks, hiding in shadows, climbing sheer surfaces, picking pockets etc. The training of the thief at first level, allows for a chance at about 1 in 6.
Barring climb walls, the thief skills are really all d20 rolls (all are in steps of 5%; I think Norse mentioned this above). At first level they are about 10-20% chance, which is close to 1 in 6 (16%).
So, basically you could add a line to the Thief Table that says "Normal Man": 0% (or 0 in 6).
By moving F/MU/C, and by implication Normal Man, to 2 in 6, and Thieves at 4 in 6, you are just changing the goalposts and making locks, hiding, moving silently, etc overall easier - IMO, easier than in real life.
If a lock is easy enough for normal characters to open, just have them achieve the result without rolling. The Thief's Abilities are for situations that are beyond the normal. The dungeon should have difficult obstacles.
"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 have never understood why the concept of a universal mechanic gets such bad press.
Because not everything in the world can be adequately represented by a six-sided die.
Thanks for your input Stormcrow.
Might I clarify for the readership that the concept of a universal mechanic does not imply the use of any particular die, or even dice at all.
And thanks Stormcrow also for using the word "adequately" above. That is key. What is or is not "adequate" is entirely subjective and up to the referee.
My own personal take on it is that the more important systems should modeled in more detail, and the less important systems should be more abstract. The (alternative) combat system, for example, is at the heart of the game, and is modeled at the granularity of a d20 roll. This is the most granular system I want in my games. Everything else, including skill rolls, should be more abstract, and hence less granular.
Moving skills to a d% system making them more granular even than combat resolution. I don't believe this is right. FWIW -- I do believe all skill roles can be adequately represented with a throw of 1d6. The reader may or may not, and that is fine too.
However, as I attempted to explain in my initial post, there is a precedent for using 1d6 rolls given in the 3LBBs. There is no precedent given in the 3LBBs for d20 skill rolls, or % skill rolls, or whatever else.
By moving F/MU/C, and by implication Normal Man, to 2 in 6, and Thieves at 4 in 6, you are just changing the goalposts and making locks, hiding, moving silently, etc overall easier - IMO, easier than in real life.
If a lock is easy enough for normal characters to open, just have them achieve the result without rolling. The Thief's Abilities are for situations that are beyond the normal. The dungeon should have difficult obstacles.
I already conceded in a previous post that it would be reasonable to make some of the skills "thief only" if you didn't want others doing them. I agree that's a good idea... no further convincing necessary here.
However, I think it can be misleading to imply what is or is not realistic, especially in the context of a fantasy where player abilities are wildly exaggerated. School boys in the real world can pick locks in moments. Why shouldn't a profession thief be able to do so in a fantasy? Which is also why I think it pretty mean to give the thief player paltry odds like 20%, or 1 in 6 of performing his primary function.
In any case, regardless of what system of resolution may be used, it is always the ref's call as to when a roll is required.
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #43 on Apr 18, 2012, 7:10pm »
Waysoftheearth: I agree with you in many ways to a certain degree, but I must point out a few differences of opinion.
Firstly the granularity of stuff. Personally I find combat to be the absolutely least important part of the game, but the one that needs to be represented in reasonable granularity. The most important part of the game is generally resolved through discussion and off the cuff assignments of probabilities, combat really isn't all that important but being the nature that it is requires at least a certain grade of granularity to maintain a certain respect within the campaign.
Secondly, there is no precedent whatsoever set for 1d6 skill rolls either. There *are* precedents for some things being detected, or things not happening or only happening on a d6 roll. But there are also precedents for d% rolls to affect things too. For example "There is a 25% chance that any character surprised by a monster will drop some item" or the chances for NPCs to have magical items and such.
The first port of call throughout much of the 3LBB's was some sort of percentage roll. And if this happened to roughly equate to a roll on a d6 or whatever then that route was taken instead.
In other words, exactly the same sort of stuff that goes through your head as a DM/Referee when trying to assign probabilities to stuff. When you think probabilities you generally (or at least I generally, and the 3LBBs seem to agree with me) think in terms of percentages, and then you assign d6 rolls and such to it instead if the probabilities seem about the same and it would be quicker.
The most important consideration here, to me at least, is that what D&D brings to the table (as opposed to any other fantasy wargame of the period) is the six ability scores and how they interact with the world and the system of combat you are using. And the way that classes interact with these systems, which in general is a specific statement such as the weapons they can use, the things they habitually notice or are good at.
I'm afraid this all might be quite mangled. I've tried to make it as plain as I can, but I'm afraid that I'm quite, quite drunk and may not achieved exactly the statement that I was looking for.
"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
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #44 on Apr 18, 2012, 7:26pm »
Sorry for the double post but I thought I ought to point out that in fact that pretty much the entirety of the chance in 6 roll stuff for exploration rests solely on pages 8 and 9 of The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, whereas percentage chances for things can be found absolutely everywhere throughout all 3 volumes.
Which is not to say that chance in 6 isn't often the best way to go about things. Personally I resolve most things as a chance in 6. I prefer % pair when I can though
"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
![[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://www.jastabinksaviation.com/6614pf.JPG "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_u00qWD-_dM4/TNyW0RtBXkI/AAAAAAAAAI4/pHmT9bbqfrk/s400/backswords%2526bucklers.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/ICON18Spears.jpg "[avatar]")
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")
![[avatar]](http://i51.tinypic.com/34oeau1.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/Ways_100x100.jpg "[avatar]")