The Thief Class

[Scott Anderson]

Michael, did anyone warn against adding the thief class, or did you all like it? Or what?

[Deleted]

Nobody "warned" against the thief, because we'd all read Fafhrd and the Mouser. What's to "warn" against?

Although if we'd known how badly people would fail to understand the intent behind it, we'd have urged Gary to be a little more elaborate in his explanations.

But most people are booger-eating morons, so it probably wouldn't have helped.

[howandwhy99]

<checks fingers>

What is the Thief class intended to be then? Just to get your idea on things?

My thinking is Thieves steal and get XP primarily for stealing. Their class abilities appear to assist in accomplishing this. By that they are definitely not warriors, masters of magic, or clerics. But being a PC ("adventuring"?) Class, like the others they have some ability in all three other focuses. But basically Thieves thieve. And as a subclass Assassins specialize in life-stealing and spying out information. But then I don't reward XP for GP except to thieves (and then in only certain situations).

[Scott Anderson]

Whenever the thief does his thing, everyone else stands around waiting. When everyone should be trying to do thief guy things. It's not the idea of farfd (or Conan) that is wrong, what was wrong was investing in one characters sometjing everyone should be trying.

There is also the separate issue of people misunderstanding when to roll thief abilities but that's correctable.

[Deleted]

Aug 22, 2017 10:51:36 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

Whenever the thief does his thing, everyone else stands around waiting. When everyone should be trying to do thief guy things.

Baloney.

I'd rather stand guard for wandering monsters while the thief does whatever. Not everybody wants to do that sort of thing, and some people want to specialize in it.

The shortstop doesn't complain that the pitcher is the only one throwing the ball, and the infantry doesn't complain that the artillery is inflicting all the heavy casualties.

The WORST thing that ever happened to this game... EVEN WORSE THAN MODULES... is the switch in player mentality from "We are part of a team" to "ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!"

[Scott Anderson]

The switch from troupe-based play to character-based play and the problems inherent in over-specialization are not mutually exclusive. I agree with you with your assessment that the problem you have brought up diminishes the game experience for Refs and players.

But the real sin of the thief class was increasing the number of moving parts. The three core classes were self-sufficient without the thief. You have a martial character, a magic character, and a gish. The thief as a separate class isn't necessary. It broke symmetry. And in doing so, opened the door for the game to turn into something different.

Different is not per se worse. But. Different in this case means more special abilities, more powerful special abilities, and more degenerate ability interactions. Like playing Conmander or Vintage Magic, where the interaction of several innocuous cards becomes degenerate.

These abilities, in addition to being degenerate in some cases (looking at you, 3.X edition), the proliferation of abilities - remember, my thesis is they are initially there to differentiate classes - requires more and more text both on the sheet and in the book. This encourages face-down playing, highly-regulated interactions, and a de-emphasis on player skill.

(n.b. - I am not indicting the Paladin in the same way despite 1) their contemporaneous debut and 2) the paladin arguably stepping on the Cleric worse than the thief stepped on everyone, because the vast majority of people don't consider a Paladin a "core" class that then suggested further proliferation of classes.)

Again, I will defer on the lesser included sin of the thief class of inspiring 40 years of DM adjudication ignorance not because it is less bad in play but because it is a problem not of the class, but of bad play.

[sixdemonbag]

Hindsight and all that, but if the thief had been treated like OD&D paladins, rangers, etc. then none of this would even be an issue. Give the thief some minimum ability score requirements (i.e. 17 in Dex), and suddenly there isn't anything to complain about.

[waysoftheearth]

Well, much has been said about the negative. But what about the positive?


I've always been a thief fan-boy, in part because I find thieves the best-fit class for the principal dungeoneering objective. Which is: get the treasure, avoid combat, avoid traps. Tick.

For me, the quintessential description of thieves boils down to these two lines:

GPGPN#9 "Thieves are generally not meant to fight".

SSGJ#9 "They are able to get into places where other characters would find it difficult or dangerous to go".

Tick.

But the real sin of the thief class was increasing the number of moving parts.

This is an interesting assertion. I try to separate the implementation (the class design), and how certain players employ the class, from the class concept. A thief class can be implemented and/or played well. Or poorly. (A matter of personal evaluation/opinion).

Anyways, what are all these additional moving parts of the (GH?) thief?

Many of the GH thief's "distinct advantages" (GH p4) merely extend what's already in the 3LBBs. Opening locks? There's forcing doors and knock spells for that. Removing traps? Anyone can foil a trap with common sense. Listening for noise? U&WA p9. Move stealthily? See elves and hobbits and elven boots and fly spells and just plain being quiet. Striking from behind? CM already explained how advantageous it is to attack from behind (or flank), and U&WA's surprise rule capitalises on it. Reading treasure maps and spells scrolls? There's read magic and language spells and magic reading swords for that.

So that leaves pick pockets, climb sheer surfaces, and hide in shadows. Granted, hiding in shadows is awesome if the ref reads it literally; elves and hobbits bring some of this, and anyone can hide normally. That's not a lot that is genuinely NEW to the thief, and there's nothing stopping anyone else from trying those thing either.

I like it that the thief is just "good at" a grab-bag of plain old skills; he can't rely on armor or a Holy Cross to save him, or on magic to bend the rules. No. He lives (or dies!) by player skill and cunning alone.

My main issue with the Greyhawk rendering of the thief class is the % skills business. It's fiddly; low level thieves are a liability; skills approach 100%. But that's a fault with the specific design, not with the class concept. It's a simple matter to toss out % skills in favor of d6-style throws we see throughout the 3LBBs.



p.s. worth noting the Wagner/Aero thief predates the GH thief/paladin.

[foxroe]

Aug 23, 2017 4:13:05 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

My main issue with the Greyhawk rendering of the thief class is the % skills business. It's fiddly; low level thieves are a liability; skills approach 100%. But that's a fault with the specific design, not with the class concept. It's a simple matter to toss out % skills in favor of d6-style throws we see throughout the 3LBBs.

Certainly a matter of personal taste and not necessarily a design fault... why not d20 (it's used for combat and saves), or any other die type for that matter? Granted, 1d4 probably isn't enough of a spread, but one could also argue that 1d6 isn't enough of a spread either. The d6 is simple, and it's fine for determining the success of basic dungeoneering activities because they don't generally improve with character level, so there's no need to worry about "the spread".

I will however agree that having d6 based thief abilities would mesh better with non-thief characters attempting the same activities - it helps to eliminate the mental block that some players seem to develop when a "thief-appropriate" situation arises. Using a different die to determine success implies to the inexperienced player that those activities are off-limits to the non-thief, IMO.

And just out of curiosity, why do you feel thieves are a liability at low level?

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 23, 2017 5:44:36 GMT -6 foxroe said:

Certainly a matter of personal taste and not necessarily a design fault... why not d20 (it's used for combat and saves), or any other die type for that matter? Granted, 1d4 probably isn't enough of a spread, but one could also argue that 1d6 isn't enough of a spread either. The d6 is simple, and it's fine for determining the success of basic dungeoneering activities because they don't generally improve with character level, so there's no need to worry about "the spread".

Any single die throw (d100, d20, d6) has the same problem with "progression"; you reach the top.

Aug 23, 2017 5:44:36 GMT -6 foxroe said:

I will however agree that having d6 based thief abilities would mesh better with non-thief characters attempting the same activities - it helps to eliminate the mental block that some players seem to develop when a "thief-appropriate" situation arises. Using a different die to determine success implies to the inexperienced player that those activities are off-limits to the non-thief, IMO.

Yes, I think this is a strength of using a d6. The listen skill is an example of what might have been applied more broadly.

FWIW, elegant things can be done with d6s. E.g. If any Joe requires a throw of 5-6 on a d6 that's 33% chance. Neat.

Now if a thief requires at least one 5-6 on two dice that's 55% chance. At least one 5-6 on three dice is 70% chance. And so on. The neat thing is there's a diminishing improvement, so it never hits 100% chance. Add one die per "tier" (normal, heroic, superheroic). Done. This is kinda-sorta inline with the backstab dice anyways.

Aug 23, 2017 5:44:36 GMT -6 foxroe said:

And just out of curiosity, why do you feel thieves are a liability at low level?

A beginner GH thief has, what, a 10, 15, 20% chance to perform his primary functions?

So... when the thief's life, and potentially the whole party's lives, depend on a 10% chance to remove that poison gas trap, or maybe sneak past the angry necromancer, is the beginner GH thief an asset or a liability to the party?

[Vile Traveller]

My ideal adventuring party is a bunch of thieves with a few specialists, like magic-users and a couple of clerics (in leather armour). Having even one fighter in there makes stealth a non-starter, cutting out all those cool adventuring situations of casing the joint, formulating a plan, hiding, sneaking around, getting in-and-out without a fight that I grew up on. The XP-for gold system pretty much makes actual combat a trap.

Re: d6 thieves' skills, the solution is to treat them more like spells. Thieves get more every level, but they are useful right from the start. Really, all thieves can do is climb for most of their career.

Just throwing in my support behind the thief, my class of choice since '83. YMMV

[Deleted]

Aug 23, 2017 6:57:43 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

A beginner GH thief has, what, a 10, 15, 20% chance to perform his primary functions?

So... when the thief's life, and potentially the whole party's lives, depend on a 10% chance to remove that poison gas trap, or maybe sneak past the angry necromancer, is the beginner GH thief an asset or a liability to the party?

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

That is NOT how the thief works! The thief's abilities are EXTRAORDINARY, a percentage ABOVE what anyone can do. Anybody can hide behind a door. A thief can hide in plain site.

People's poor reading comprehension has been the plague of the thief since Day One.

[tetramorph]

Aug 23, 2017 9:52:10 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The thief's abilities are EXTRAORDINARY, a percentage ABOVE what anyone can do. Anybody can hide behind a door. A thief can hide in plain site.

Wow. That is so obvious and yet I had not thought that way before.

I hereby apologize for my poor reading skills!
_______

Also, I designed a thief for my house rules, in conversation with waysoftheearth , where all I did was give the thief an increased chance on all the listed exploration abilities (off the top of my head: trigger a trap (with a ten foot pole), open a door (with skeleton keys or picks), listen at a door, find a secret door, surprised 1:6, surprises monster 2:3, etc.). Then I gave them read language 2:3. And cast a spell from a scroll (nod to the Grey Mouser here) on d6+HD compared with the spell's level: less than means failure, greater than means success, equal to means spell is "reversed," at referee's discretion. HD and XP follow clerical progression.

It is rules lite and has worked for me when I have (rarely) allowed a thief at the table.

Fight on!

[sixdemonbag]

I suppose if you're gonna go Full Greyhawk™ (never go Full Greyhawk™), then you might as well just use the Thief as is. It works perfectly fine within that system. Consider all seven (!) skills to be above and beyond. So, the thief gets the usual d6 check and if he fails, then he gets to roll again using his "Other Statistics". You can convert the d% values to d20, d6, or just use the Hear Noise column for everything. Whatever floats your boat.

On the other hand, if you want you want a more Men & Magic-themed Thief, then that's when things get interesting! Just for fun, let's brainstorm some thieves!!

OPTION A: Fiddly Strategic Review-Style™

- Ability Minimums: Either DEX 17 (like a Paladin); Or INT 12, WIS 12, and DEX 15 (like a Ranger)
- Hit, Save, HD, and XP like Cleric
- Read languages (5 in 6) at 3rd; Read M-U scrolls at 10th level (7th+ level spells are reversed 1 in 6)
- Backstab: +4 to hit, 2d6 damage; +1d6 at 5th, 9th level, etc.
- Leather only; Magic daggers and swords only
- Open locks, remove traps, pick pockets, move silently, hide in shadows, hear noise, and climb 3 in 6; 4 in 6 at 5th; 5 in 6 at 9th, 6 in 6 at 13th level

OPTION B: Less Fiddly 3LBB-Style™

- Hit, Save, HD, and XP like Cleric
- Read languages and scrolls 5 in 6
- Backstab: +4 to hit, +1d6 damage
- Be a little sneaker/tinker/climber/listener/etc. 4 in 6
- Leather only
- Magic daggers and swords allowed

OPTION C: Thieves Are So Annoying, Man! They're always stepping on everyone's toes, like a big jerk! Ditch 'em!!™

1. Roll up a Fighter
2. Don leather
3. Reroll any d6 checks
4. ??
5. Profit

[sixdemonbag]

Aug 23, 2017 6:57:43 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

FWIW, elegant things can be done with d6s. E.g. If any Joe requires a throw of 5-6 on a d6 that's 33% chance. Neat.

Now if a thief requires at least one 5-6 on two dice that's 55% chance. At least one 5-6 on three dice is 70% chance. And so on. The neat thing is there's a diminishing improvement, so it never hits 100% chance. Add one die per "tier" (normal, heroic, superheroic). Done. This is kinda-sorta inline with the backstab dice anyways.

This is awesome.

[Scott Anderson]

Aug 23, 2017 12:49:14 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Aug 23, 2017 9:52:10 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The thief's abilities are EXTRAORDINARY, a percentage ABOVE what anyone can do. Anybody can hide behind a door. A thief can hide in plain site.

Wow. That is so obvious and yet I had not thought that way before.

I hereby apologize for my poor reading skills!

This is a near-universal problem.  Almost every DM I have ever played with has treated the thief as a guy who is bad at his class abilities.

[Vile Traveller]

Aug 23, 2017 18:19:54 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

Aug 23, 2017 12:49:14 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Wow. That is so obvious and yet I had not thought that way before. I hereby apologize for my poor reading skills!

This is a near-universal problem.  Almost every DM I have ever played with has treated the thief as a guy who is bad at his class abilities.

It's one of those ongoing education things. You have to keep telling the new generation or the knowledge is lost.

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 23, 2017 9:52:10 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

That is NOT how the thief works! The thief's abilities are EXTRAORDINARY, a percentage ABOVE what anyone can do. Anybody can hide behind a door. A thief can hide in plain site.

People's poor reading comprehension has been the plague of the thief since Day One.

My point was not about when the ref should check (which, I agree, is pivotal), but that when you do check, when the thief is about to exercise his EXTRAORDINARY ability, a 10-20% chance of success is pretty pale. Not odds you'd sensibly back.


Also fun:

Example of a Thief in Action: Assume that a fifth level thief (Cutpurse) is a member of an expedition aimed at looting a known treasure on a dungeon level. After the guardian of the treasure has been dealt with, the thief goes into the area and examines several chests in the room. He notes that two have traps – which he has a 35% chance of successfully removing. He succeeds on the first, and a vial of poisonous gas is removed; however he cannot open the lock (the referee rolled above 40%) so it must be forced open -- a very time-consuming process. Failure to remove a trap, incidentally, activates it with regard to the thief and any others within its range. After lucking out on his second chest all around, the party is heading back when a slight detour takes them past a monster which immediately goes into persuit of the adventurers. As the party dasher around a corner to throw off the persuit, the thief remains in hiding. If the monster fails to notice him (35% chance) he can then slip into its lair and snatch the loot while it is elsewhere. This same Cutpurse later sees a man with some item he desires. His chance of removing the object, be it from the person of the owner or from his immediate vicinity, is 45%, the same likelihood as he has of moving with absolute silence.

EGG, GPGPN#9 circa June 1974

[foxroe]

Aug 23, 2017 20:34:40 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

My point was not about when the ref should check (which, I agree, is pivotal), but that when you do check, when the thief is about to exercise his EXTRAORDINARY ability, a 10-20% chance of success is pretty pale. Not odds you'd sensibly back.

Right, and that's a player decision. If an Apprentice Thief only has a 10% chance of disarming an extraordinary trap, and the consequences are detrimental to said Thief should he/she fail, then it's up to the player of that Thief to decide whether it's worth the risk.

First level Thieves are just like the other archetypes: they suck at what they do until they gain more experience. Low level Thieves are noobs at their craft; they get caught/killed as a matter of course. Only the luckiest or the smartest (player-wise) survive to higher levels and become "Master Thieves".

A first level Fighting-man only has a 20% chance of landing an effective blow on an AC 2 opponent. The consequences of taking that gamble and failing are obvious. It's up to the player to decide if the F-M should take on that opponent or beat feet. Maybe the player is feeling confident because the Fighter is also wearing plate, or maybe the player can figure out a way to flank or get the drop on that armored foe. The task should not be limited to just the determination of a die roll.

The same goes for the Thief, really. A 10% chance to disarm a trap is agreeably crap-tastic. The player should realize that and act accordingly - maybe figuring out a way to mitigate the effects of failure (takes respiratory precautions before trying to disarm a poison trap, etc.) or to gain an advantage (introduce a "wrench in the works" to gain a bonus to the disarming chance, try to bypass the trap without disarming it, etc.), or simply to walk away. Even if a DM was to house-rule that a starting Thief has a flat 50% chance of disarming a trap, that's still a sizeable 50% chance of failure, so the player would still need to weigh the risks.

Sorry for the ramble...

(PS) BTW Ways, I like your multi-d6 mechanic idea. Sort of reminds me of Shadowrun.

[howandwhy99]

EDIT: Just saw the other thread

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 24, 2017 1:39:00 GMT -6 foxroe said:

Aug 23, 2017 20:34:40 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

My point was not about when the ref should check (which, I agree, is pivotal), but that when you do check, when the thief is about to exercise his EXTRAORDINARY ability, a 10-20% chance of success is pretty pale. Not odds you'd sensibly back.

Right, and that's a player decision. If an Apprentice Thief only has a 10% chance of disarming an extraordinary trap, and the consequences are detrimental to said Thief should he/she fail, then it's up to the player of that Thief to decide whether it's worth the risk.

Yes and no. Yes, it's for the player to decide whether his thief will attempt to disarm "that" trap. But it's for the referee to rule whether to handwave it or roll for it. Sometimes it may be obvious, but other times it won't be. I.e., extraordinary traps can be purposefully disguised as a mundane la la, and vis versa. End of the day, the player doesn't know how the ref will rule. For sure it is his job as an exceptional player to try to find out before he commits, but... you get the idea.

Aug 24, 2017 1:39:00 GMT -6 foxroe said:

First level Thieves are just like the other archetypes: they suck at what they do until they gain more experience. Low level Thieves are noobs at their craft; they get caught/killed as a matter of course. Only the luckiest or the smartest (player-wise) survive to higher levels and become "Master Thieves".

A first level Fighting-man only has a 20% chance of landing an effective blow on an AC 2 opponent. The consequences of taking that gamble and failing are obvious. It's up to the player to decide if the F-M should take on that opponent or beat feet. Maybe the player is feeling confident because the Fighter is also wearing plate, or maybe the player can figure out a way to flank or get the drop on that armored foe. The task should not be limited to just the determination of a die roll.

I agree with the gist that it's up to players to make good decisions.

But the analogy between the veteran's THAC2 and the 1st level thief's odds doesn't ring true for me because:

1. Most of a veteran's typical opponents are not AC2. E.g., monster level table1 comprises: Kobolds AC7, Goblins AC6, Skeletons AC7, Orcs AC6, Giant rats AC8, Centipedes AC8, Bandits AC6/7, Spiders AC8. Etc.

2. A verteran's absolute odds of hitting an opponent is only half the picture. For the full picture, we need to consider the veteran's odds of hitting an opponent compared to that opponent's odds of hitting him in return. If the veteran is more likely to hit he has an advantage, and vis versa, regardless of what the absolute odds of hitting may be.

3. Even disregarding 2, a veteran's (stated) 20% odds of hitting AC2 is still double a human apprentice's 10% chance to Remove Traps* (GH p11 column heading, nothing more). FWIW, if the ref plays the "Leader" and/or M&T p5 rule, then a 1+1 HD veteran gets a +1 on his attack vs. normal types, bumping him to 25% odds of hitting AC2.

4. In combat, the veteran will typically get multiple attempts to attack, whereas the thief will typically get just one shot. "Miss" and he's botched it (footnote GH p11-12).

5. Combat is usually a team event with N many players versus M many monsters; a one player fail need not always equate to a total team fail. On the other hand, the thief's basic ability (GH p4) roll is typically a solo event where the individual fail often equates to total fail (footnote GH p11-12).


But, like I said, that's just what works for me. Equally viable to just ignore all that

[howandwhy99]

I agree with both your posts. About players needing to have a game to assess and make decisions about before acting, and that combatants can progress in difficulty.

Why I do is rate traps and award XP difficulty for overcoming them (not simply setting them off). Then I place traps in dungeons levels more or less appropriate for them.

For the Remove Traps roll, I see that as an abstraction of the activity any player could simply try and take. Like the Search Check. Some traps are simply going to be easier and some harder, so the roll needed isn't going to be static and assessing a trap matters to know why. Like Bend Bars depends on the metal, and lift gates on whether its a portcullis or massive city gate.

[howandwhy99]

FYI, that should be:
"What I do is rate traps and award XP by difficulty in overcoming them (not simply setting them off)"

I think there's a lot that can be done according to Culture and Intelligence scores too. And not just in regards to traps.

Kobolds probably know about snare traps and pit traps. Maybe even rolling log and swinging spear traps.

Bugbears probably know more about deadly traps involving weapons, using poisons, capturing enemies alive, and so on.

Dwarves got that whole mechanical metal forging and masonry thing down pat.

Giant Snails are just too dumb for any kind of trap. ...But you're still going to get stuck in their trails

So trap difficulty isn't just rating the dungeon level span of an environment, but the created environment of tricks and traps by the monsters who dwell there. (Or perhaps only once dwelt there) [edit: dwelled?]

[korvin0starmast]

Aug 22, 2017 16:22:20 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The WORST thing that ever happened to this game... EVEN WORSE THAN MODULES... is the switch in player mentality from "We are part of a team" to "ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!"

I keep saying that on a variety of internet venues, and I discover that I get grief for it from some players/DMs, support from others. 

You are dead right.  It's about the team.

(The 5e design team I think figured that out, at least in part, as they tried to figure out what to do next. )