|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 16, 2012 7:25:05 GMT -6
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: (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: (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; . Foiling locks, . Disarming small mechanical traps, . Climbing walls, . Picking pockets. 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! . Taking enemy by surprise, . Breaking down doors, . Locating secret doors, . Listening for enemy behind doors, . Locating traps, . Moving silently, . Hiding, . Foiling locks, . Disarming small mechanical traps, . Climbing walls, . Picking pockets, . Reading languages, . Reading spell scrolls.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 16, 2012 8:29:08 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Apr 16, 2012 9:15:10 GMT -6
I have a very good feeling that we'll be seeing Way's thief skills in a certain appendix very soon. :-)
|
|
norse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
And it's cold, so cold at the Edge of Time.
Posts: 233
|
Post by norse on Apr 16, 2012 9:25:27 GMT -6
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).
Exalt!
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 16, 2012 9:28:06 GMT -6
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: (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: (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; . Foiling locks, . Disarming small mechanical traps, . Climbing walls, . Picking pockets. Really nice analysis Ways! I'm right with you up to this point. 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! . Taking enemy by surprise, . Breaking down doors, . Locating secret doors, . Listening for enemy behind doors, . Locating traps, . Moving silently, . Hiding, . Foiling locks, . Disarming small mechanical traps, . Climbing walls, . Picking pockets, . Reading languages, . Reading spell scrolls. 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. Hmm, that's actually an interesting idea....
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 16, 2012 20:00:22 GMT -6
Thanks, as always, for your insights Aldarron My responses inline below... 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.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 16, 2012 20:08:28 GMT -6
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
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Apr 16, 2012 20:38:53 GMT -6
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!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 16, 2012 20:50:11 GMT -6
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? Avoid traps, including opening pits: 3-6 in 6 (only sprung on a 1 or 2) That's interesting... The player doesn't necessarily have to say he is doing this, it is assumed. So is it a feature of the trap, or of the character? 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. Alertness (avoid being surprised by monsters): 3-6 in 6 (party surprised by monsters on 1-2) This one I roll as the monster's (or monsters') ability to surprise the players. That way it's a monster skill rather than a player skill. Avoid wandering monsters each turn: 1-5 in 6 (wandering monster encountered on 6) That one is particularly interesting to me... player activity (or lack of it) could certainly determine whether they attract unwanted attention. Avoid pursuing monster: 3-6 in 6 (monster continues to pursue on 1-2) or 2-6 in 6 if use a secret door Another good one. Tight grip: 2-4 in 4 (drop an item on a 1 when surprised) Another case, I think, of a reactionary thing rather than something the player would specifically say he is doing. This is when surprised after all. 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. Great post Zenopus, thanks for sharing
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 16, 2012 21:43:48 GMT -6
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
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2012 2:17:57 GMT -6
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. Quite so. 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
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 17, 2012 6:17:17 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Apr 17, 2012 6:28:10 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Apr 17, 2012 7:21:26 GMT -6
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?
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Apr 17, 2012 8:56:28 GMT -6
This is a lovely discussion! See, this is why it's tempting to view the 3LBBs as a type of scripture; close reading reveals more and more and more... @coop: I think you make a really strong point here, too, about separating some abilities from the level progression altogether.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 17, 2012 12:22:56 GMT -6
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. Righto, so in the interests of continuing to clear any (well, my) confusion, the question is whether your thinking in terms of a thief class at all or whether you are thinking that the thief skills list could be added to all adventurers using 1 or 2 in d6? Adding the unaccounted thief skills (minus the read magic stuff) to an oD&D list along the lines of what Zenopus posted seems perfectly sensible to me. It also seems perfectly sensible to me that some PC's could be, or become better at some of these adventurer skills, either because of thier race or their level. ....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! Saving throws are class specific in that each class has it's own saving throw target numbers. They represent the skill members of a given class have to avoid a given hazard or reduce the effects of it. <shrug> Was sleepy last night but meant to add that in addition to using more complicated dice rolls, class specific talents also require rolls against tables of some kind.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 17, 2012 13:19:59 GMT -6
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! I made a stab at it when I was analyzing the rolls for my Liber Zero project: I call them "Situation Rolls", since most of the time, I see them not as skill rolls, but as a chance that something good or bad happens. Eventually, I reorganized and condensed the rolls when I realized that, instead of defining low = good, high = bad, I could define it as low = situation stays the same, high = situation changes (for better, if character is trying to change a bad situation; for worse, otherwise.) With that redefinition, almost every roll becomes "5+ on 1d6 means something changes". The few exceptions can be expressed as modifiers to the roll: "subtract 1 from the roll for exceptionally dangerous accidents, like stumbling into a wandering monster"; "doors subtract 1 from listening rolls except for characters with exceptional hearing (elves, dwarves, halflings.)" I actually don't roll for most of the dwarf abilities. i consider those automatic.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 17, 2012 17:07:12 GMT -6
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? Exactly Cooper! Exalt. (What's this?? Waysoftheearth and Cooper agree on something?! Is this the right discussion board? ;D ) Saving throws are class specific in that each class has it's own saving throw target numbers. By that logic the fundamental ability to attack is class specific, because each class has its own attack matrix. That's fine if you want to view it that way Aldarron, but that is rather tangential to the discussion of dungeoneering "skills" at hand. My view is that finding secret doors, finding traps, surprising enemy, listening at doors, and all the other mundane dungeoneering deeds are general skills that everyone has. Sure, it says elves or dwarves or halflings are "good at" these. But these deeds are not performed exclusively by members of those races. Therefore these are not only racial abilities.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 17, 2012 21:03:16 GMT -6
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? Exactly Cooper! Exalt. (What's this?? Waysoftheearth and Cooper agree on something?! Is this the right discussion board? ;D ) Saving throws are class specific in that each class has it's own saving throw target numbers. By that logic the fundamental ability to attack is class specific, because each class has its own attack matrix. That's fine if you want to view it that way Aldarron, but that is rather tangential to the discussion of dungeoneering "skills" at hand. My view is that finding secret doors, finding traps, surprising enemy, listening at doors, and all the other mundane dungeoneering deeds are general skills that everyone has. Sure, it says elves or dwarves or halflings are "good at" these. But these deeds are not performed exclusively by members of those races. Therefore these are not only racial abilities. ?? Um, as I said, the d6 mechanic is used for general skills and situations where racialy specific advantages apply. Coopers gnome is a good example of applying that principle in a race. If you wish to open all the OD&D d6 advantages up to anybody, so that anybody could find a secret door as good as an Elf, for example, then elves would loose a little of thier luster. <shrug> Likewise, a general adventurer or Rogue or what have you class who had access to these d6 kinds of bonus skills would be workable but out of sync with the other classes, having uber racial type skills but no progression method. I'm still not understanding your goal, and thus uncertain whether I agree or disagree. I agree that porting in the classic thief skills and allowing any character a 1 or 2 on a d6 chance of climbing a wall or hiding in shadows makes perfect sense and is precisely in line with the design of the game. But if the goal is to create a new thief class that always succeeds or fails at hiding in shadows or climbing walls on a 1 or 2 on a d6, then that's what I'm saying is out of harmony with the design principle of the game. Not that that would be badwrongfun, just different.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 17, 2012 22:35:25 GMT -6
A few thoughts:
Having a universal mechanic for "skill" resolution feels like a "d20" system, or having unified saving throws.
There's nothing in the original books indicating characters have the ability to open locks, remove traps, climb sheer surfaces or pick pockets. These all seem like they require some training. Are we postulating a world where all characters learn how to open 1 in 3 locks? If you are going to use a universal d6 resolution, I would think these would be 0 out of 6 for most characters, rather than 1-2. (You are treating the reading skills this way, why not the others?).
Giving all characters 1-2 (33%), and thieves 1-4 (66%) makes locks and traps too easy to circumvent. A party of three non-thieves, by taking turns, would likely be able to unlock any lock. It then seems like unnecessary rolling - you'll get everyone rolling for opening locks (which already can be tedious for secret door checks).
So thieves start at 1-4 of 6 and never increase in skill? All they gain from increasing levels is d4 hit points, improved attacks/saves and improved reading skills?
Here's a tidbit I noticed in Greyhawk: Thieves can open locks or foil magical closures - is this intended toapply to Hold Portal and/or Wizard Lock? If not, what does it refer to?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 18, 2012 2:08:15 GMT -6
There's nothing in the original books indicating characters have the ability to open locks, remove traps, climb sheer surfaces or pick pockets. These all seem like they require some training. Are we postulating a world where all characters learn how to open 1 in 3 locks? If you are going to use a universal d6 resolution, I would think these would be 0 out of 6 for most characters, rather than 1-2. (You are treating the reading skills this way, why not the others?). That's a fair point, Zenopus. I don't mind if people want to call those "thief specific", or else reduce everyone else to 1 chance in 6 on those particular skills. Perhaps with the exception of pick pockets, which is a pretty mundane thing within the capability of your average street urchin. I guess it's ultimately it's up to the referee to rule on what to do when Nevil the magic-user wants to pinch a bunch of keys from a guard's belt... Giving all characters 1-2 (33%), and thieves 1-4 (66%) makes locks and traps too easy to circumvent. A party of three non-thieves, by taking turns, would likely be able to unlock any lock. It then seems like unnecessary rolling - you'll get everyone rolling for opening locks (which already can be tedious for secret door checks). I don't think it's insurmountable... the referee might well allow only the one roll, or perhaps one roll per player. Regarding locks: when time is not a factor it might be reasonable to assume that the players will get that darn lock open one way or another, with or without any die rolling. If time is a factor, they would require a turn on each check... meanwhile the referee happily rolls for wandering monsters, and burns their torches down... Regarding traps: traps have to be located firstly. And then a failed attempt to bypass it may well trigger it, so the players should still be cautious about flaunting their supposedly "endless" die rolls. So thieves start at 1-4 of 6 and never increase in skill? Why not? It's certainly a less complicated approach. And does it really matter whether a thief has 4 chances in 6 of success instead of 59%, or 62% or 77%, or 83.25%? Honestly, I don't think it does. The practical simplicity of a flat 4 chances in 6 goes a long way for me. Here's a tidbit I noticed in Greyhawk: Thieves can open locks or foil magical closures - is this intended toapply to Hold Portal and/or Wizard Lock? If not, what does it refer to? I think that's what it does mean, yes That might add weight to the case for open locks being thief only. But equally, we might have the general population tampering with "mundane" locks, while thieves alone are additionally able to foil magical closures. Just another 2 cp on the pile.
|
|
norse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
And it's cold, so cold at the Edge of Time.
Posts: 233
|
Post by norse on Apr 18, 2012 3:31:14 GMT -6
A few thoughts: Having a universal mechanic for "skill" resolution feels like a "d20" system, or having unified saving throws. True, it would if it was properly codified in the way that was discussed. Actually under the description of Strength it suggests a high strength might be useful for disabling traps, and I'm pretty sure picking locks is mentioned *somewhere* in the 3 lbb (although I can't check this right now). You're right that all of this would require some sort of training to be effective, but I reckon all could be at least attempted by other character classes, I'd probably ask for a percentage roll directly against an appropriate ability score unless they could give a good reason why they might have a better chance. I don't see why not. The majority of skills that the thief has strike me as the sort of thing a person wouldn't really use for real unless you were d**n sure you had a decent chance of pulling it off, and for much of a thieves career they are absolutely awful. I know there are inventive ways to limit the consequences of failure (whilst I dislike the mechanics of the thief, I have always enjoyed the challenge of playing one and do so at every opportunity), but it just doesn't gel. A first level fighting man is considered a veteran, but a first level thief is an incompetent. Yes, its possible to better or worse at these sort of skills than others, but I'd see that as a function of ability score rather than an arbitrary and fiddly percentile number. 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. 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. Not trying to pick on you zenopus, its just I'm on a phone so quoting everyone else would take an aeon.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 18, 2012 7:31:10 GMT -6
<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>
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 18, 2012 7:49:24 GMT -6
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. Please forgive me if I go a little *cough* off topic here, but... I have never understood why the concept of a universal mechanic gets such bad press. The way I see it: 1. Simplicity is a beautiful thing. 2. One system is simpler than more than one system. D&D already has a number of systems, including combat, morale, subdual, saving throws, spell casting, turning undead, and (among others) dungeoneering deeds. There is a lot going on there already so it is bemusing that any referee would actually want to pile on additional sub-systems for specific "skills". Moreover, there is no more possibility of a skill system subsuming all the rest than there is of, say, the saving throw system doing the same. One simple, cover all skill system is a beautiful thing that enables good play because; 1. It requires no preparation. The referee doesn't need to invent sub-systems to cover every conceivable situation (which is scarcely possible anyway). 2. It results in quick play. The referee doesn't need to think about which system to use, which table to refer to, which adjustments to apply, or whatever, at every turn during play. 3. It denies sub-system mastery. While the "system" is sufficiently simple players will focus on in game challenges, because these efforts will benefit them more than any out-of-character mastery of sub-system mechanics. I.e., you can forget scouring rule books and tables of modifiers for every last +1% adjustment you can eek out because there are none. So just get on with the game. 4. It covers everything. The referee will always be covered, always have a fallback, and always have a way forward. He will never be caught wondering "What is the system for that?", and never be told by a rules lawyer how some sub-system or other "is meant to work". The other thing which I continue to fail to grasp is why some folk are so eager to dismiss the foundations of exactly that sort of beautiful skill system which appears right before us in the 3LBBs. The 1d6 based system of dungeoneering "deeds" is a perfect and authentic skill system there for the taking. 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. Pity the poor referee running a thieves guild campaign where every NPC has a dozen thief skills at different percentages! Compared this to the blissful ease of running the same game with 3LBB 1d6-style skills. And then there is the notion of the level by level "advancement" of percentile skills, which is now the unfortunate "expectation" wherever skill systems are concerned. I say "unfortunate" because this idea has two fundamental flaws. The first problem is that it doesn't scale. There are only so many possible increments before the player is "topped out" and can go no further. Then what? Nothing can ever challenge the player again... he has effectively "won" at his chosen challenge, and that challenge is no longer any fun because he can't lose. Sure, we can drag it out a bit by forcing the player start with pathetic percentages, but this only prolongs the inevitable. The second problem is that it further complicates the already daunting task of the referee! Imagine the thieves guild game again... the referee could waste hours figuring out the skills of each thief according to "the system". On the other hand, with the universal 1d6 3LBB system there would be absolutely nothing to do -- and the game could continue immediately and without pause. The 1d6 3LBB based skill system (e.g., flat 4 in 6 chance of success if you are "good at" something) without advancement has neither of these problems. The player can start with worthwhile skills at level 1, and he can never top out. Additionally it is absolutely trivial for player and referee alike to understand and manage, no matter how many NPCs or PCs there are, of what level, and with whatever assortment of skills. Simplicity is indeed a beautiful thing -- which I think I may have mentioned already. And that, I believe, is what is commonly known as a "rant" ;D I have now said my piece.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 18, 2012 7:57:47 GMT -6
<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.
|
|
norse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
And it's cold, so cold at the Edge of Time.
Posts: 233
|
Post by norse on Apr 18, 2012 8:13:10 GMT -6
Nice rant waysoftheearth, and despite me apparently being the unwitting target of it, I agree with much of it.
Thing is, what you suggest isn't even a universal mechanic anyway so not sure how we ended up discussing it as such. It has a completely different basis to combat, saving throws, magic or turning undead.
I see the system that you propose as simply your chosen way of assigning probabilities to things. Some people might prefer to think in terms of percentages or assign it to a saving throw or just look at the ability scores and decide an outcome, or try their hand at scapulimancy for all I care. The result is the same.
I don't believe a codified system of 4 in 6 chances based on a d6 for thief skills feels in keeping with the tone of the 3 lbb, and so I don't agree that it can reconcile the thief skills. But as a quick way for a DM to pick a probability its a very good suggestion.
I do hate percentile thief skills based on level, which is why I suggested using the 'competency' approach above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2012 8:21:08 GMT -6
Here is another idea ... The GH thief assigns an 83% chance of success for a first level thief climbing a wall. This is the same chance as 1-5 (d6).
Why not "graduate" the Thief to a higher die with each step of combat ability for all his skills? IOW, every four levels the thief gains equals a bigger die and therefore a bigger chance of success:
1-4: 1-5 (d6) = 83% 5-8: 1-7 (d8) = 88% 9-10: 1-9 (d10) = 90% 11-14: 1-11 (d12) = 92% etc ...
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 18, 2012 8:23:29 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 18, 2012 8:24:21 GMT -6
A few thoughts: ....Giving all characters 1-2 (33%), and thieves 1-4 (66%) makes locks and traps too easy to circumvent. A party of three non-thieves, by taking turns, would likely be able to unlock any lock. It then seems like unnecessary rolling - you'll get everyone rolling for opening locks (which already can be tedious for secret door checks). Good point. Maybe that is exactly why there's only a 1 in 6 chance of successfully listening at a door. Looking back through the OP and your list, listening at a door does seems to be the only roll directly related to thief "tricks". Most of the others are a function of the circumstance, not of individual skill, so much. So maybe a 1 in 6 chance for any normal character to hide in shadows or similar tricky activities is a better rule.
|
|
norse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
And it's cold, so cold at the Edge of Time.
Posts: 233
|
Post by norse on Apr 18, 2012 8:33:09 GMT -6
Interesting suggestion DuBeers, deserves some consideration!
Another note on resolving character actions: I thoroughly recommend occasionally getting your players to make a complete tit of themselves by using a physical challenge. I've had people prove they can close doors over a gaping chasm, sing silly songs to deal with problematic statues or down drinks before. Notably, in my last session I got them to make convincing giant slug noises for 10 seconds without laughing in order to persuade some halfepedes that they were wandering monsters. It keeps everyone entertained, ensures people will remember the session and is an excellent suggestion for when you're stuck for a probability. Just don't do it very often or it will become tiresome instead of entertaining.
|
|