Late to the party - a "rogue" to replace the cleric

[kuburanar]

Over the past several years I read a lot of Appendix N and Moldvay's 'Inspirational Source Material'.
Also I read through delta's blog and house rules (oedgames.com). Then I went back and read the 3LBBs.

It was like, ok, the Cleric is sitting out my next game. I'm a fan of the Cleric but it seems goofy to me now:

Class Source Examples

FTR   Conan, John Carter, Aragorn, Elric, Fafhrd, Kane, etc.
M-U   Gandalf, Turjan, Merlin, Prospero, etc.
CLR   uhh Van Helsing? Moses? Jesus?

What's missing? I think:

XXX   Cugel, Grey Mouser, hobbits? (any others?)

The Thieves from Greyhawk, Moldvay, and Delving Deeper are cool, but I'd like to try eliminating skills and backstabbing.
Also the name "Thief" seems limiting.
"Rogue" is still not great but it's close, especially if you've been exposed to (forged in) roguelikes,
i.e. the original unix Rogue, Nethack, and Diablo 1.

My next game will use 3LBBs and Moldvay/OSE as a base, minus Cleric, plus something like this:

Class: Rogue
Prime Req - Dex
XP, HD*, Attacks - as Cleric
Saves - as Moldvay Thief (or M-U minus 2)
Armor** - leather, chain, shield
Weapons - all missiles + single handed melee

* I'll probably use flat HD/lvl, i.e. FTR d6+1/lvl, THF d6/lvl, M-U d6-1/lvl.
** FTR <= plate + shield, ROG <= chain + shield, M-U <= leather. All casting with heavier armor than listed will have failure rates.

As to rogue class abilities:
- Able to make use of all magic items (including a chance of effect reversal or failure, yoooo Cugel).

- (OPTION #1) A limited arcane spell progression starting at level 4, maxing out at spell level 3, with a baked-in reversal/failure rate:
  1 / 2 / 2-1 / 2-2 / 2-2-1 / 3-2-1 / 3-2-2 ... (so maybe a sketchy fireball at level 8).

- (OPTION #2) I'll give fighters the option of picking feats at certain levels (per delta).
  Instead of a spell progression, the rogue could pick either a feat or a failure-free spell slot at certain levels.
  I like this idea more than a progression because it follows that not all rogues will necessarily mess with magic,
  and those that do will rarely become better casters than any magic-users.

- (if I use OPTION #2) Use Cleric saves, and a +1 to hit with all missile weapons. As a jokey nod to Diablo.

Thoughts and suggestions welcome.

[Finarvyn]

It's an interesting discussion.

(1) If you have no thieves (or rogues, or whatever) the assumption is that ALL characters can do thief-like stuff.
(2) If you have thieves the assumption is that those things are best left to the thief to handle.

It does change the dynamic of the game somewhat. I agree that clerics don't really fit the source literature, and so if I need to pick only three classes my choice is wizard, thief, fighter. When I do this, however, I have to be aware of the lack of healing and make healing potions more available.

[captainjapan]

You could always replace the fighter and magic-user with a cleric. Fighters are the most common npc adventurer, so you can still utilize them, in the game. Just hire them, as needed. Magic-users can be the villains, the "dungeon masters", if you like. Keep the thief with all his skills. Now, there's a real odd couple; a cleric and a thief.

[hamurai]

Or, just play with only fighters and magic-users. Two classes.

The second is highly specialized while the first can be played like anything between Conan and the Grey Mouser, with role-playing setting the focus on the fighting or adventuring/thieving aspect - as a bonus, you can shift that focus over the course of the campaign (like Conan) without the need for multi-classing.

If you like rogue/thief specialists, you can still include the thief class as a specialist who has an easier time doing "thievy" stuff than the fighter, of course.

[Aralaen]

You could make the cleric into a Ranger by changing the name and dropping the weapon restriction. Or give the cleric spells and turning to the magic user.

[Piper]

If you're looking to eliminate one or more classes from your D&D game, may I make a recommendation?

The Fantasy Gamer's Compendium by Gamesceience. That link takes you right to their site where it is still available and at a reasonable price of 11 USD.

The work has much to recommend it. In particular, however, I'd like to draw your attention to the excellent skill system. One eliminate a class and use the skill system to fill in needed skills. Make healing a skill, and allow other PC classes to acquire it. It can be magical, practical, or an innate ability like The Force.

It's just a suggestion and, as always, your campaign needs may vary.

[Deleted]

It's noteworthy that the typical RPG trope for pretty much every system after D&D is that there's a balanced trinity of Mage, Thief and Warrior. This appears in settings as diverse as Tunnels & Trolls and Elder Scrolls. It's certainly a far more common trope and one far more grounded in classic pulp fantasy.

And yet...there's just a certain appeal to the balance and flavor of the three little classes in 3lbb for my sentiments. The Cleric is almost a halfway point between the other two. Not as excellent in arms as the Fighting Man or as fierce a spellcaster as the Magic-User, and yet far from a mere supporting role. Also, my second favorite FPS from the nineties (nothing topples DOOM), Hexen, uses the Mage, Fighter, Cleric paradigm. So, I'm a-ok with it this way in my campaign world.

[kuburanar]

I could've just posted this:
Everyone knows fighters are drummers and magic-users are guitarists. Help me find out who is playing bass.

@ Finarvyn
Your points are great, and really the most bothersome consequence of introducing the thief IMO (especially #2 and getting players around that mindset).
And yes I should have mentioned that alchemical HP supplementation ought to be available in a clericless gameworld.
(And btw great forum you have here - it's provided me with many 'whoa' moments with respect to the game and its history.)

@ captainjapan
Hah! This is good stuff, like an inverse Searchers of the Unknown. Most fighters are just hired meatheads anyway!
Funnily enough, back in the dark ages of MUDs I was a big fan of playing either a cleric or a thief, never a fighter or M-U.

@ hamurai
FTR + M-U is so appealing and yet a little thin somehow. I should probably just try it.

@ farmer
Both of these ideas rule. I'd almost want to call that Ranger a Druid though. I do feel uncomfortable getting rid of a wisdom-based caster.
I want to try using only the Dying Earth Spells for D&D by Shadrac MQ, just shelving both cleric and M-U spell lists. And maybe repurpose turning undead to turning elementals of some sort, or managing any summoned beings.

@ Piper
That looks pretty cool, thanks for pointing that out. GS knows what's up. Flexibility is the ultimate goal.

@ ampleframework
Exactly! FTR-THF-WIZ is the most-high triumvirate. But I do like that the Cleric doesn't make a perfect equilateral triangle with the others.
And HEXEN! This is kind of blowing my mind. Was that why I was so happy to find the 3LBBs? Many co-op games were played.

[linebeck]

I wonder if the inclusion of the Cleric was due to the popularity of the Exorcist in 1973 — right around the time the game is being drafted. The film was apparently a cultural phenomenon that included backlash much like what later occurred with D&D.

To answer the question, I have noted from playing just the 3LLB OD&D without thieves that all the characters start behaving like thieves as the game progress. we sneak around, make plots, interrogate victims, act duplicitous towards NPCs, etc.

So I don’t think you really need the class at all.

[kuburanar]

@ linebeck
Great point about the Exorcist. Have to wonder if the game would've had just 2 classes if it started later with Conan, etc in the theaters.

The cleric: great ludo-logically, poor thematically
The thief: great thematically, poor ludo-logically.

The thief/rogue, in most manifestations, is a class in search of a problem. Maybe the effort should be placed in changing the cleric.

[Punkrabbitt]

Honestly, I've never liked the presentation of the Cleric. I have always felt that they were a quasi-Knightly Order/Templar type that should be a single-target melee monster with a plethora of healing, controlling, and warding spells (as opposed to Fighting Men who are great against multiple opponents in melee and also have the advantage of ranged weapons.) Destructive spells should have remained the realm of Magic-Users. But that interpretation of the Cleric is very dependent on a semi-Euro Feudal setting with its Church and everything, so I've never really pursued it too far. Wait, what? A Paladin? Yeah, kinda like that... that's kinda my idea of a Cleric.

[hamurai]

We've tried to make the cleric basically a Healing-Magic-User we called a priest, taking away armour options (weapons stayed in our test) so they'd be more of a support and healing spell MU with the extra ability to ward off undead. It worked well enough, but it still didn't feel like a very balanced class.

[tombowings]

Nov 1, 2020 2:01:04 GMT -6 hamurai said:

We've tried to make the cleric basically a Healing-Magic-User we called a priest, taking away armour options (weapons stayed in our test) so they'd be more of a support and healing spell MU with the extra ability to ward off undead. It worked well enough, but it still didn't feel like a very balanced class.

I've been considering something similar. I'd like to hear more about this experiment.

Why didn't it feel well balanced?

[hamurai]

Well, I have to say in advance that I don't feel the cleric is a balanced class as-written in the first place. They get very good abilities and level up faster than the rest.

Even when taking away their ability to use armour that didn't really change. We used the MU spell progression, so they felt rather powerful compared to the MU. One thing I'd probably do is adjust their XP table, or work the other way around: give the MU the option of white magic and grey magic, with white magic being the cleric spell list and grey magic the standard MU.

The last idea was formed during our playtest with the priest and sounded good for our group. We'd give the White MU the cleric's spell list and turning of undead, while the MU got the MU spell list and turning of summoned creatures like demons, working exactly like the cleric's but for other creatures.

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 31, 2020 21:06:30 GMT -6 kuburanar said:

The thief/rogue, in most manifestations, is a class in search of a problem.

For me, thieves are the perfect dungeoneering class. Their essential manifesto is: Get in, avoid combat, get the treasure, get out. Achieve that (unseen) and you will do pretty well at the "Dungeons" part of the game. For the "Dragons" part? Bring a Hero (or a Wizard). It's hand and glove.

More and more I've been leaning toward "Sneak" as the best title for these because, well... Fighters fight. Magic-users use magic. And Sneaks sneak. It works better than "thief" in this sense because "thief" is not great as a verb.


That said, I think the bigger challenge is around the question raised in the OP:

Yes, Fighters have Achilles, Perseus, Hector, Arthur, Lancelot, Conan, Aragorn, Alexander, and the list goes on forever.
Magic-Users have Merlin and Morgan Le Fay, Prospero, Thoth Amon, Gandalf and Sauraman, Glinda and The Wicked Witch, Turjan, Mazirian, Dumbledor and Voldemort, and more.
(For me Elric is the classic "combination figure").

But who are the legendary/literary sneaks a class could be built around? Here are a few ideas to get the ball rolling...


. Loki. Norse mythology's God (or Jotunn, meaning: "giant" which kinda means "feys" and includes dwarfs, trolls, etc.) of mischief.
. Autolycus (not the son of Deimachus who accompanied Jason and the Argonauts, but Autolycus the master robber who had a helm of invisibility).
. Stingy Jack/Jack O' the Lantern whose deceptions rivalled those of the Devil himself. The reason we carve pumpkins on Halloween.
. Smeagol (a superlative sneak) and then (with the help of a magic ring, pah!) Bilbo Baggins. Rarely employed weapons.
. Robin Hood and his Merry Men (arguably fighter types, but at least employing deception and trickery over stand up fighting).
. F a g i n and the Artful Dodger (the infamous pickpockets from Oliver Twist). Never touched weapons--the Dodger is a child.
. Gord the Rogue (Gygax's self-referential exemplar thief).
. The crop of literary rogues and "Gentlemen/Lady Thieves" in recent/current popular culture such as Catwoman, Lock Lamora, and others (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman_thief).
. The ninja. Widely revered sneaks attributed with near-magical powers of stealth; a compelling mix of history and mythology now deeply ingrained in fantasy.
. There must also have been real-life spies and spymasters throughout the ancient-medieval period of D&D interest (can't think of any right off the top of my head).
. Historical sappers (and other "combat engineers") who specialised in engineering, mining, and similar roles ahead of full-frontal fighting might also be of interest...


Doubtless there are more, but it seems to me that what all these figures have in common is a certain cunning/cleverness enabling them to win by deceiving/outwitting their opponent rather than by force of arms. Something to consider, maybe?

[Zenopus]

Treasure-hunters like Allan Quatermain, a forerunner of Indiana Jones (who is more altruistic).

SPOILER: Click to show

King Solomon's Mines includes a treasure map and a "dungeon" with a trap that must be circumvented to get out with the treasure. Due to the prevalence of firearms in the story there is a great deal of use of firepower to overcome enemies, but there is also a certain amount of relying of wits to befriend or outmaneuver.

[retrorob]

For me all characters are thieves. In a nutshell, D&D is about robbing, right? And all men can climb, sneak, backstab etc.

Robin Hood - fighter or Ranger
Grey Mouser and Cugel - fighters with a little magical ability
Hobbits - fighters ("Remember that they are able to blend into the background and so make excellent scouts") etc.

As for the Cleric archetype, it's a catholic priest and monk. Don't forget about the medieval flavour of the game. Medieval priests sometimes participated in combat like bishop Odo of Bayeaux. In literature there are bishop Turpin and friar Tuck.

I like the original Thief concept though, and by original I mean Daniel Wagner's, a fighter with some technical skills (basically lockpick, tinkering etc.). It's good to have fourth XP/HD progression, as it adds some variety to the game.

[kaiqueo]

Nov 2, 2020 10:43:21 GMT -6 retrorob said:

As for the Cleric archetype, it's a catholic priest and monk. Don't forget about the medieval flavour of the game. Medieval priests sometimes participated in combat like bishop Odo of Bayeaux. In literature there are bishop Turpin and friar Tuck.

That's what makes me want to keep the cleric sometimes, a more medieval vision of the original booklets. But only in settings where there's one single dominant human religion.

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 2, 2020 10:43:21 GMT -6 retrorob said:

For me all characters are thieves. In a nutshell, D&D is about robbing, right? And all men can climb, sneak, backstab etc.

Sure, but--just to play devil's advocate--all characters are fighters too. In a nutshell, D&D is about slaying monsters, right? And all men can hack, slash, stab, dodge and parry etc.

The way I see it, the above types of comparisons are true in a general sense but don't extend to the level of expertise/specialisation exemplified by the classes. This argument holds that sneaks are the best sneaks in exactly the same way that fighters are the best fighters

[retrorob]

waysoftheearth

Some strong points The same can be said about Ranger - all can track and hut, but Rangers do it better. Maybe there should be 5 classes then (original 3 + Thief & Ranger)? LotFP introduces the Specialist, maybe that's a good solution.

[tombowings]

There are good arguments in favor of original triumphant. There are also strong reasons in favor of expanding it or exchanging the cleric for the thief (sneak, rogue, etc.). The game is simple enough that DMs all around the world can customize the basic framework to suits world, their preferences, and their players. Sitting down at a new table can be a completely new experience. That's the beauty of it.

[waysoftheearth]

It's really about what you want your own variant of the game to be.

The 3LBBs essentially have a: two capabilities (fighting and magic) to three classes (F-M, M-Us, and clerics) system, like this:


Clerics have some of the strengths of both F-M and M-Us, so they fall somewhere along that spectrum. In this arrangement "Sneaking" is not considered an especially important feature of the game, so all classes perform it more-or-less equally. Or it is delegated to NPCs.

With the arrival of the Wagner (and later GH) thief, consensus apparently was that sneaking was a fun part of play too, and some players wanted a class differentiated by this capability. So we moved to a three capabilities (fighting, magic, sneaking) to four classes (F-M, M-Us, clerics, and thieves) system, like this:


The next logical leap from there would be to fill out the (vacant) fighting-sneaking and magic-sneaking intersections to arrive at a three capability six class system, like this:


What those additional classes would be is up to the individual ref but it seems to me that the Bard (or similar) is a natural fit for the magic-sneaking position. The fighting-sneaking position could, perhaps, be the Assassin or a Sapper-type figure? For me, Rangers work more as a fighter variant (who trade away the right to joust, rule a barony, and use hirelings etc. for their tracking and survival skills) than as a new type built around a whole new capability area. 

That aside, whether you want two or three (or more!) main game capabilities, and whether you want two, three, four, five, or six core player types built around these capabilities, is one of the things that will make your campaign setting unique and memorable

[Piper]

Nov 3, 2020 6:10:09 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

It's really about what you want your own variant of the game to be.

Nothing to add to this, but ... I am continually impressed by your ability present old information in a new light (or at least boiled down to its essentials). Thank you for this post.

[Piper]

Okay, now I have something to add:

Fighter - Scout - Thief - Nightblade - Magic-User - Battle-Mage - Fighter


Some suggestions for the in between classes.

Scout: I thought of "Ranger" but knew that carried the weight from LotR's Aragorn/Strider, so I went with scout. Light armor, missile weapons, infiltration.
Nightblade: in the vein of Lieber's famous duo. Uses magic to enhance steatlh, detection, and getting into where ain't supposed to be.
Battle-Mage: yes, I know we already have the Cleric, but perhaps this could be an alternate choice for Neutral player-characters or replace the Cleric entirely. Light or medium armor, any weapon, rather slower magical progression and perhaps slightly fewer spells per level.

[captainjapan]

Piper, you may enjoy playing an elf.

[delta]

Nov 3, 2020 6:10:09 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

That aside, whether you want two or three (or more!) main game capabilities, and whether you want two, three, four, five, or six core player types built around these capabilities, is one of the things that will make your campaign setting unique and memorable

What a wonderful illustration and analysis! That said: Arguably, if we make free use of the OD&D multiclassing ("changing class") rule, then players can mix-and-match and dial in where they want to be on any of those continua, without adding more classes/rules. We see that as the basic technique for creating most of the literary/legendary figures in Sup-IV, Deities & Demigods, Giants in the Earth, etc. I'm a pretty big fan of the elegance of that.

[waysoftheearth]

Thanks delta FWIW I considered adding the Elf F-M/M-U in the bubble alongside clerics but decided it might detract somewhat from the overall clarity.

That said, I agree that we could have F-M/M-U, F-M/Thief, and M-U/Thief combination figures at the appropriate intersections (and F-M/M-U/Thief at the central nexus) in order to have a nice, neat three-capability-three-class system. If I were going this way, I'd probably want to smooth out/clarify some of the btb "changing class" mechanics to make it a bit easier/more pragmatic. Definitely doable

[cometaryorbit]

Nov 3, 2020 8:04:21 GMT -6 Piper said:

Scout: I thought of "Ranger" but knew that carried the weight from LotR's Aragorn/Strider, so I went with scout. Light armor, missile weapons, infiltration. 

I've been thinking for a while that the Ranger might actually be better off as a "Scout", a fighter/thief or rogue hybrid. Aragorn is cool, but the (sub)class concept is fairly narrow.

--

I wonder if an alternate "rogue" class could be something like a "human demi-human", mechanically? The demi-humans have detect secret doors/traps type abilities without needing the % mechanics... they could have some limited spell ability as well, sort of like a split-class elf...

[retrorob]

cometaryorbit

Aren't Hobbits scout-types?

[Vile Traveller]

I like thief-only parties.