Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 13:05:59 GMT -6
I'm a little bit skeptical of the virtue of making thief rolls DEX based.
What flaw with the current system does the DEX approach fix?
Does the DEX approach on net make a thief better or worse than they are at some thief skills under the current system? (I cannot tell at a quick glance.)
In general, I'm trying to figure out what the DEX approach changes, to what degree, and whether this is "better" (for some value of "better").
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on May 8, 2019 13:23:37 GMT -6
Currently, I do more or less the same with the thief PC in my Wilderlands campagn (with WhiteBox): a roll under DEX (or any other ability score). I do moste things with a roll under an ability, arther than using saves.
If conditions are good or action is well prepared, it's 1d12 under, so it can be an automatic success. Bad conditions are 1d20. I sometimes vary with 1d16 or 1d24, even 1d00 or more, according to the situation (I went up to 1d10000 for a silly question, and it was a failure).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 13:38:19 GMT -6
"Does that answer your question? If not, let me know. I'll try to explain it more clearly."
Maybe. If the principle concern is that thief skills are too low at low levels, why not just modify the existing tables to make the percentile chances better than they presently are?
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on May 8, 2019 13:45:39 GMT -6
Currently, I do more or less the same with the thief PC in my Wilderlands campagn (with WhiteBox): a roll under DEX (or any other ability score). I do moste things with a roll under an ability, arther than using saves. If conditions are good or action is well prepared, it's 1d12 under, so it can be an automatic success. Bad conditions are 1d20. I sometimes vary with 1d16 or 1d24, even 1d00 or more, according to the situation (I went up to 1d10000 for a silly question, and it was a failure). How long have you used this variant? And, how has it worked in play? It seems this would flatten the Thief's skill progression, but I think I'm okay with that. I mean, I would give boosts for level; and the back-stab would still scales upwards BtB. A few months, but we play at a very irregular rythm. The feedback from players is good. They enjoy it being simple, but with the pleasure of changing dice. Most of all, it makes a PC with a good score never fail a d12, so he looks like a profesionnal, while d20 and more is feels to be more difficult. Especially, it's interesting when I ask every PC the same roll (You want to move trough the volcan's smokes. Ok, every one roll 1d12 under Constitution), because the one who has over 12 is sure to get a success, while it's tricky for all others. It makes the difference of score very clear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 14:20:05 GMT -6
If the principle concern is that thief skills are too low at low levels, why not just modify the existing tables to make the percentile chances better than they presently are? Primarily because I like simpler rulings over more tables. I thought rolling under DEX might be an easy to employ guideline. Again, you keep using the word better. I'm not claiming to improve anything, I am merely trying to tailor the rules to new campaign concept I'm working on. When I say "better," I mean it as shorthand for something like "here's the objective you are trying to realize and here's why you think 'x' approach is more successful at doing so than the current rule." I think I get what you're aiming for now (though I'm still a bit skeptical, I think). |
|
|
|
Post by rustic313 on May 8, 2019 18:13:03 GMT -6
If you want a simple rule that matches the original odds on the tables fairly closely, you can use this:
ROLL 2d6. 10+ succeeds.
Add a bonus based on level: +1 @ 4, +2 @ 5, +3 @ 6, +4 @ 8, +5 @ 9, +6 @ 10, +7 @ 12.
If the character has high dex, add +1 or the level bonus, whatever is greater.
Give +1 to demihumans in the areas they are supposed to be good at. Let human rogues pick one or two things to get +1 in if you want to even the odds a bit.
The 2d6 curve gives a steep improvement in the mid-levels which replicates the original tables pretty closely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 18:49:34 GMT -6
I’m having some difficulty articulating what makes me skeptical, so maybe I shouldn’t be. But here are a couple of thoughts to chew on for the time being:
1. DEX doesn’t necessarily map well to all of the thief skills listed in Greyhawk.
Open locks and foil magical enclosures. DEX is apt. But one also could make a case for INT for figuring out complicated mechanisms and foiling magical enclosures.
Remove traps. DEX is apt, provided all that is required are fine motor skills or the like. I’m not sure that removing all traps comes down to DEX-related tasks though.
Listen for noise. DEX isn’t apt. None of the six ability scores seem apt.
Move stealthily. DEX is apt.
Filtch/pick pockets. DEX is apt.
Hide in shadows. DEX seems more apt than any other ability.
Climb sheer surfaces. DEX is apt to a point: agility and coordination. But STR is as or more important, I think. For extended climbs, CON could be relevant too.
2. While DEX checks would increase most thief skills, it seems like DEX checks could decrease a thief’s odds of climbing sheer surfaces unless the thief has an exceptional DEX. In Greyhawk, a first-level thief has a 13% chance of slipping; under the DEX-check system, a thief with a DEX of 14 would have a 16% chance of slipping if the rule is that he must roll under his DEX to succeed. (Maybe not too much of an issue though; don’t play a thief unless you roll a high DEX score.)
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on May 8, 2019 22:32:54 GMT -6
I think we used the DEX and INT bonuses to modify the thief skills so they would be better at low levels. Every +1 translates into +5% on the thief skills. That was part of our experiment to translate all thief skills into d20 rolls, which works nicely for most of them since they rise in 5%-steps. In the end, we translated other things into % to modify thief skills... Back in the day it was a nice exercise in game mechanics for us, I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 8, 2019 22:46:00 GMT -6
A seasoned Thief with a friggin' 15% chance to open a lock? That simply doesn't fit my vision, given how a 1st level FTR is already a notch above a bog-standard man-at-arms. Yeah, that has never worked for me either. And neither has the whole d% business; it implies a level of precision that is (IMHO) simply unnecessary. There have been a bunch of discussions around this kind of thing before, so I'll try not to bellyache too much  Regards the OP and use of DEX for resolving thief skills, I have two observations to throw out there: 1. Thieves already gain an XP advantage due to DEX, in the same way the other classes do (for their respective PRs). 2. Fighters don't really "fight better" due STR (at least, not by FC or attack matrix), M-Us don't really "magic" better due to INT, and clerics don't really turn undead better due to WIS. So should thieves really "thief" better due to DEX? For me, I still kinda like the "additional dice" mechanic discussed once upon a time on the (now vanished) DD G+ group. Essentially, it was something like this: 1. Stick to/extrapolate from the btb dungeoneering "skills" (like searching, listening, forcing doors, surprise, etc.) which are generally of the form: throw a d6, on a 5-6 you succeed. 2. A normal tier/low level thief then gets three dice (instead of just the one which "anyone" gets); success if any of them are 5-6. The heroic/mid-level thief gets four dice; the superheroic/high-level thief gets five dice. p(at least one 5-6)One die --> 33% Two dice --> c56% Three dice --> c70% Four Dice --> c80% Five Dice --> c87% Six Dice --> c91% etc. You could tweak the progression to your liking (e.g., maybe add a die every other level, or whatever). It might be nice if the progression aligned with backstab damage dice too, but prolly not absolutely necessary... Anyways, the point is that more dice yield a diminishing return so it never hits 100%, even with 50+ dice. Enjoy |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on May 8, 2019 23:33:52 GMT -6
Ability checks are always kinda awkward in OD&D to me. You could simply use the hear noise skill for all thiefy skills if you want some progression but without all the extra crunch. This doesn't solve the poor chances to be thiefy at low levels though.
Instead, here is my "one line" OD&D Thief that meshes well with the existing system:
Thieves wearing leather armor have a base 4 in 6 chance to do anything thiefy*.
*Thiefy things: Greyhawk skills, etc. Hobbits get bumped to 5 in 6 because they are tricksy Hobbitses.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 9, 2019 0:22:09 GMT -6
here is my "one line" OD&D Thief that meshes well with the existing system: Thieves wearing leather armor have a base 4 in 6 chance to do anything thiefy*. Just like this guy  I like it, but I've found that eventually players are looking for a bit of "progression". |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on May 9, 2019 5:01:09 GMT -6
In my Majestic Wilderlands I opted to make a 15 or better on a d20 the base chance of success. To this I will add a bonus depending on level and a small attribute bonus. Attribute bonuses are pegged at +1 per 3 points with12 to 14 +1, 15 to 17 +2, and 18 at +3. I did it this way because the commonly used where too generous, attribute roll under, or two restrictive, attribute as %, or not fine grained enough for a sense of progression, d6. After playing with it for a decade along the feedback from the supplement, it say my take feels more line with how the to hit table progresses and how spell slots increase as one levels. You can read about it here. It has my take on the thief, the burglar. www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2008.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by delta on May 9, 2019 8:00:45 GMT -6
Anyway, my reasoning started with the observation a starting thief's skills are pretty low. Take Open Locks and Remove Traps for an example. These two skills are two of the major reasons a PC party might find it useful to have Thief along. They have only a 15% and 10%, respectively, for success. The main thing that I've done to "boost" thief skill usability in this regard is to allow 3 retries per event (i.e., picking particular lock, pickpocketing person, etc.). This has worked quite well for the last half-year or so. (Given that, the exact roll I have them make is d20 + level + Dex bonus >= 20. That's a pretty close interpolation of the book percentages.) |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on May 9, 2019 10:12:56 GMT -6
Personally, I'd avoid too many modifiers of any kind. Too fiddly, for one. And ever since someone suggested it (JB at B/X Blackrazor, maybe? I forget who...) I've been thinking more and more that the problem with thieves is not going to be fixed by keeping the idea of skill rolls, but by just giving them auto success in some cases, or giving them an extraordinary thiefly ability that's otherwise impossible. One example of why it can't be fixed by adjusting the way the rolls are made: magic locks. Die modifiers would added or subtracted based upon difficulty. This allows me to have, for example, complex magical locks not so easily picked by a thief. Thing is, the Greyhawk thief can open magic locks, period. No modifiers. So adding a difficulty penalty for magical locks actually reduces their skill, something you're worried about... and even if you boost mundane lockpicking, you're still moving them closer to just some guy with mundane training instead of something that feels like a fantasy class. What I'm thinking of doing myself is just allowing anyone to train in lockpicking and stealth and climbing, use whatever roll seems appropriate (I gravitate towards simple 1d6 rolls, but have thought about others,) and say that the thief class is the only ones who can open magical locks, and can also automatically open any mundane lock of equal or lower level. Standard locks are all 1st level locks. Locks in dungeons have a level based on dungeon level. Thieves roll when the lock is a higher level and perhaps can't open locks too far above their level. The class progression doesn't improve the odds, it improves what level lock the thief can open automatically. Similarly, other thief abilities could be level based: - automatically surprise a mundane enemy of equal or lower level
- automatically pick the pockets of a mundane enemy of equal or lower level
- automatically remove mundane traps of equal or lower level
... etc. The "mundane" restriction avoids conflicts with things like monsters with a lower chance of being surprised. Even so, the thief's chance might improve if their level is much higher than the target's level. Perhaps at 4th, 7th, and 10th levels, thieves would get other bonus abilities impossible to non-thieves, like allowing automatic lockpicking for magical locks of equal or lower level. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on May 9, 2019 11:55:31 GMT -6
Just like this guy I like it, but I've found that eventually players are looking for a bit of "progression". Which reminds me that I really need comb through DD in more detail! For progression, I like using the "Hear Noise" skill for all thief skills as a simple "BtB" solution. However, low-level thieves still struggle some early on, which doesn't bother me, but I can see where it would be annoying to others. Another option could be using using the Cleric death/poison save progression for thief skills. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on May 9, 2019 12:18:57 GMT -6
Thing is, the Greyhawk thief can open magic locks, period. No modifiers. So adding a difficulty penalty for magical locks actually reduces their skill[...] Apologies, I worded that vaguely. I meant complex, magical locks of an unusual nature, not a typical magic lock or complex lock. And adding bonuses or penalties on the fly may be fiddly to some, and I can certainly see how it would be seen that way, but I've used that device for 40 years of FRPGing and it's second nature. We've all used bonuses and penalties on the fly for years. I'm not saying it's too tough. I'm saying: why bother? I've realized after years of it that too many modifiers and too much detail in how modifiers work doesn't really add much enjoyment. A simple +/-1 or 2, at most, for the overall situation, is probably all you need. And I'm leaning away from even that. I'm saying what you probably want to do is simplify to something like this: - Dex roll;
- Add 1/3rd thief level (maybe more than that, like 1/2 level?)
- No level bonus for extremely tough situations, including complex magical locks
- No other modifiers
This hits all your main points (switching to Dex, allowing thief level to matter, making thieves relevant in general, and allowing a modifier.) But it's way simpler and won't get in the way of enjoying the class. |
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on May 9, 2019 12:28:17 GMT -6
What does the Thieves Guild have to say about all this? It trains apprentices, for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on May 9, 2019 12:59:21 GMT -6
No problem. I was just thinking that the Thieves Guild could naturally act as the center of operations regards thiefly thieves. If it offers a cafeteria style set of training options, a thief could distinguish himself by the options he chose to train in. These would affect what he's able to do better than if the training wasn't selected. And that would add bonuses to the dice rolls for these endeavors.
|
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on May 9, 2019 17:08:41 GMT -6
Good luck with your campaign; it sounds great. It's funny, it's just true that any party with a thief, who is a member of the Thieves Guild is already defacto shady from a 'who do you know' basis. Parties without a thief don't have this degree of freedom connection. And, as you said, the large and organized Thieves Guild is a force to be reckoned with and so an awesome adversary should it come to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 10, 2019 1:50:16 GMT -6
I'll point out high prime requisites do make a PC more effective due to XP bonuses, so the base concept is not completely alien. So, in a way? A Cleric's faster level progression due to XP is exactly that: turning undead better due to WIS. Yep. That was exactly my point 1. All good fun to think about |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 10, 2019 1:55:59 GMT -6
The main thing that I've done to "boost" thief skill usability in this regard is to allow 3 retries per event (i.e., picking particular lock, pickpocketing person, etc.). This is cool. "Retries" are statistically just like throwing more dice (e.g., like my suggestion above) but with the added advantage of taking up more time (in game). This means there's then scope to differentiate between: succeeding immediately and succeeding eventually. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2019 11:05:56 GMT -6
TFT: ITL had really good rules for thievfefes.
They use their Roll VS DX system. And then a Ref can determine how tough the trap/lock is by stating how many dice are needed. With an average roll on 3d6 being 11, if you make a lock or trap a 4 die roll you now get 14.
The nice part about ITL is that it has 2 rolls. One roll is to detect that something is trapped, and another to remove the trap.
Since going back to not having thieves, I find things are much more interesting. Without mechanics involved in all resolutions, a trap now becomes an issue of telling me how you look for it, and then if you do find it, telling me how you remove it. It becomes a lot like the movies where they try to disarm a bomb, but don't know what wire to cut.
...as you carefully lift the lid to the chest you see a tiny string on the inside. Now the question is, do you cut the string and hope that keeps the trap from triggering?
Since Arneson was using roll stat or lower in his games, I use the same rule for just about everything I need a roll for on a d20. If I want to make something harder to do, I just add a +2, +4 etc. to the die roll.
But my die rolls are what I call "Grey Rolls" and not binary as a success or fail. I do a partial success/partial fail if the roll is close to the needed number. And in the case of locating traps, the die roll determines just how much information I reveal.
|
|
noteef
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 52
|
Post by noteef on Jul 3, 2019 16:31:51 GMT -6
I have enjoyed the discussion here (as well as the other threads about thieves).
To avoid derailing too far, I will simply say that I do not enjoy the Thief, as presented, in Greyhawk. I avoid all of the supplements in my game. For me, the Thief simply does what all characters can accomplish through good play.
However, I would be curious to get thoughts from all of you, on what would be two aspects a Thief class *could* bring that, for you, would make it unique from the other three classes?
|
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jul 18, 2019 12:31:14 GMT -6
I'm probably re-treading some material here, but I was thinking out loud about Thieves the other day on /r/osr. Basically some people seemed upset that the introduction of the Thief class somehow takes away capabilities from other players. What occurred to me then, that applies to this conversation, is that with the introduction of the Thief class, the rules for how to adjudicate certain actions were formalized. One important inference is that Thieves get better at Thieving with experience, Normal-types don't. So. A referee then must choose which method to use for the non-Thieves: - Adjudicate use of Thief skills for non-thieves as a level 1 or 0 Thief, with reduced effect (backstab to-hit/damage) or inability to perform (climbing sheer surfaces/hiding during combat).
- OR use the original OD&D way, for non-thieves, of adjudicating an action that hasn't been spelled out in the rules. And remember variety trumps monotony.
For example here are some rules of thumb (for non-thieves) I just made up for illustration:
- Pick Pockets: Player makes a d6 dex check (like a d6 open doors), target makes a standard surprise check (d6).
- Move Silently: Declare you want to move silently. When monster is encountered, grant a surprise check (d6).
- Pick Locks: Player makes a d100 dex check (equal or under to dex).
- Remove Small Trap Devices: Player makes a d100 dex check.
- Hide in Shadows: 0% unless you are considering this as just hiding in place during normal exploration, in which case it doesn't take skill it just happens and there is a d6 surprise check to see if a monster notices you.
- Climb Sheer Surface: Player makes a d100 dex check.
- Hear Noise: Standard d6 listening check for nonhumans (success on a 1).
- Read Languages: Players read whatever languages they already know. Or spend time outside the adventure learning new ones.
- Read Magic: Still limited only to magic-users and clerics.
- Strike Silently from Behind: Only possible if target is surprised when the encounter first occurs, those attacking from behind receive a +4 attack bonus a deal twice as much damage (or don't get a damage bonus).
Using these rules, the chances of success for a level 1 thief vs any unskilled person are:
- Pick Pockets: 20% vs 11%
- Move Silently: 20% vs 33% if non-thief. Ok this one is a bit wonky.
- Pick Locks/Foil Magical Closures: 15% vs 18% at best, but the Thief is able to open magically locked doors as well.
- Remove Small Trap Devices: 10% vs
- Hide in Shadows: This feature may be unique to Thieves, since I interpret it as the ability to hide from view during combat. Basically use anytime the group is noticed by a monster to determine the Thief's separate chance of remaining unnoticed.
- Climb Sheer Surface: 87% vs 18% at best.
- Hear Noise: 33% vs 17%
- Read Languages: This feature is unique to Thieves.
- Read Magic: This feature is unique to Thieves, but similar to M-U and Clerics and of lesser effectiveness.
- Strike Silently from Behind: Thieves able to attack from behind repeatedly during a battle, and their attacks from behind get more effective as they level.
I might add dex bonuses to the rolls if my game doesn't have a Thief class.
|
|
