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.
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.
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? )
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.
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? )
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.
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #19 on Apr 17, 2012, 11:35pm »
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?
"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
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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?
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.
"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: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 216 Location: Greenlawn, NY Karma: 4
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #22 on Apr 18, 2012, 8:31am »
<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>
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"
<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.
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #25 on Apr 18, 2012, 9:13am »
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.
"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: Nov 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 1,555 Location: Austin TX USA Karma: 152
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #26 on Apr 18, 2012, 9:21am »
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:
....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.
Joined: Jan 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 233 Location: Gloucestershire, UK Karma: 10
Re: Reconciling Thief Skills with the 3LBBs « Reply #29 on Apr 18, 2012, 9:33am »
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.
"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://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/Ways_100x100.jpg "[avatar]")
)![[avatar]](http://i51.tinypic.com/34oeau1.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_u00qWD-_dM4/TNyW0RtBXkI/AAAAAAAAAI4/pHmT9bbqfrk/s400/backswords%2526bucklers.jpg "[avatar]")
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/90x90.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i48.tinypic.com/1hp7pj.jpg "[avatar]")