korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Feb 13, 2008 23:01:23 GMT -6
To go along with what has been said, another problem with Thieves is that, when they're included, the party tends to check every door for traps. Even if the doors are totally identical.
In this way, it's like an arms race. Pity the poor DM who includes "antibacterial aerosol spray" on his homemade equipment list. It's a mathematical certainty that once that is done, the party is going to disinfect practially everything before they touch it. It would bring a new meaning to the "Monk" class. Once it's there, they'll assume that the DM is going to screw them if they don't use it.
----- DM: "Atop the glittering treasure horde of the slain wyrm sits an enormous, glittering, flawless diamond. You have never seen such beauty in your life - not even upon the Autocrat's diadem."
Player: "I Febreze it." -----
As a DM, I'd much rather just say "The door is unusual in that it has a leering skull carved in bas relief at about face level." Then hear what they think to do with it. Obviously you throw in a few red herrings just to keep things honest. But if they fling open the Skull Portal without even breaking out the 10' pole... well, I hope they had life insurance!
|
|
mearls
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 23
|
Post by mearls on Feb 13, 2008 23:12:16 GMT -6
I've thought a lot about this for my OD&D game, and I decided to stick to the original three without the thief.
As others have mentioned, the thief is a self-justifying class. More importantly, I'd rather the players use critical thinking and deduction to figure out traps, unlock doors, and so on. I'd prefer to allow any player of sufficient creativity and wits to figure a way past an obstacle. To me, that's the appeal of original D&D.
|
|
casey777
Level 4 Theurgist
Herder of Chlen
Posts: 102
|
Post by casey777 on Feb 17, 2008 18:43:17 GMT -6
Started with Holmes Basic and viewed Hobbits esp. as the odd-class out since there were thieves but halflings couldn't have those thief skills. It's only very recently that I've gotten versions of D&D without thieves & thief skills at all (OD&D & EPT) so this is something I'm reexamining.
Currently my thinking is: in a game with a thief class - allow at least halflings to either take that class or fold some of the skills in in a game without a thief class - try a halfling and see how it plays
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 5, 2008 19:24:03 GMT -6
Our dear Gary told me (I think in his ENWorld Q&A thread) that in his Greyhawk campaign very few of his players played thieves.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Mar 5, 2008 20:03:58 GMT -6
Pro or con? Uhhh, aren't thieves pro cons in the first place? Sorry, I've been resisiting it as long as I could. Doc
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 6, 2008 13:12:03 GMT -6
For my campaign, I figure the Elf and the Hobbit fill the niche quite sufficiently, albeit in different ways. If I weren’t doing a Middle-earth campaign right now but instead something like Hyborean Age, I might just rename them and tweak them. But I may have to rethink that when it comes to that point. Regards.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Mar 6, 2008 14:58:24 GMT -6
Our dear Gary told me (I think in his ENWorld Q&A thread) that in his Greyhawk campaign very few of his players played thieves. Yep. In fact, I believe Gary once said that Thieves were originally intended primarily as henchmen rather than PCs. They were specialists you brought with you if there were a particularly nasty trap you could disable on your own, but they weren't the stuff from which heroes were made.
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Mar 6, 2008 15:58:53 GMT -6
I recently stopped thinking of the Thief as one of the D&D archetypes. Now I've progressed to questioning WHY even have them? I must say that in my old AD&D campaigns, Thieves and even multi-classed Thieves probably made up less than 5% of the total character base.
I'm not sure why, and I don't recall designing my dungeons to cater for a lack of Thieves...my players just didn't like the role, I guess.
I've moved to the 'Thief skills as standard skills' camp, ala Open Doors or Hear Noise, I'm going to allow all characters to attempt to perform standard dungeon delving skills or tasks, such as hiding or moving silently, using 1d6 to determine success.
One of my oldest home brew AD&D campaigns had an Explorer class, which played like a Fighter/Thief, without pick pockets, kind of like a dungeon Ranger class. That said, I'm really into the three archetype structure right now, a thief is basically any person in the campaign who likes to rob other people (as is an assassin for that matter, except they accept payment for killing those people instead).
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Mar 6, 2008 23:25:33 GMT -6
Hmm. I think I'm completely unmoved by the arguments against thieves. I like them as a class, and I think they fit an archetype of a certain kind of hero-adventurer.
One of the things I have been considering has been to let *all* classes have some chance to do things thieves do, but thieves are the class that gets the regular boost in those areas. It's not that different from trained/untrained usage of weapons by fighters and non-fighters, conceptually speaking. Everybody can pick up a weapon, but fighters are the ones who use them well.
I will agree that there's a certain amount of chrome bolted onto the class of Thief which comes from all those percentages chances for things, but that's not that different from Rangers (who get all sorts of goodies as they advance). If I were to draw the line on classes that sound good but are mechanically flawed, I would have to say the original Strategic Review Bard: all fighter, half-MU, half-thief - and Charm and Lore options to boot! Two and a half characters for the price of one. THAT needs reworking.
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on Mar 7, 2008 12:25:09 GMT -6
Hmm. I think I'm completely unmoved by the arguments against thieves. I like them as a class, and I think they fit an archetype of a certain kind of hero-adventurer. One of the things I have been considering has been to let *all* classes have some chance to do things thieves do, but thieves are the class that gets the regular boost in those areas. It's not that different from trained/untrained usage of weapons by fighters and non-fighters, conceptually speaking. Everybody can pick up a weapon, but fighters are the ones who use them well. I will agree that there's a certain amount of chrome bolted onto the class of Thief which comes from all those percentages chances for things, but that's not that different from Rangers (who get all sorts of goodies as they advance). If I were to draw the line on classes that sound good but are mechanically flawed, I would have to say the original Strategic Review Bard: all fighter, half-MU, half-thief - and Charm and Lore options to boot! Two and a half characters for the price of one. THAT needs reworking. I use the bard from the SR but apply the following mods- No spellcasting Fight as clerics Limited to leather and shield They can however cast MU spells on a scroll if they make their Lore skill roll at the time of casting.
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Mar 7, 2008 21:16:31 GMT -6
Our dear Gary told me (I think in his ENWorld Q&A thread) that in his Greyhawk campaign very few of his players played thieves. Yep. In fact, I believe Gary once said that Thieves were originally intended primarily as henchmen rather than PCs. They were specialists you brought with you if there were a particularly nasty trap you could disable on your own, but they weren't the stuff from which heroes were made. This is how I read the "rules" from LBB to Greyhawk and beyond. It's the way I play my games. Any character can be stealthy, but if you want a job done real well, you hired a Thief on an expedition basis to get your way through; Dropping the bastard like a hot potato when the job's done. Paladins will NOT work with Thieves, period. So there!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2008 3:29:40 GMT -6
I find the hate against thieves a little strange. If anything, a lot of heroes of the pre-D&D sword and sorcery genre are more like thieves than knight in shining armor- sneaking around forbidden tombs, motivated by money, wearing minimal armor. Stealth characters are supported by literary archetypes and utility in any almost any campaign. I think a lot of the hate comes from the hack-slash mentality: "Thieves are not fighters and can't blast stuff with fire so they are useless. Useless unless there is a trap but there shouldn't be traps because we can't kill them." Game mechanics encourage tanks because anyone with common sense wears the heaviest armor he or she can. If thieves are kept around, what changes (if any) should be made. In my humble opinion, a couple little tweaks can make them more potent without unbalancing them. (1) Whatever particular system you use for thieving skills, make sure the thief is competent in them and certainly more competent than untrained people. (2) Thieves get shafted in combat stats. They should not be a good as fighter but should be at least a good as clerics (d6 hp/ to hits/weapon damage). (3) Lastly, give thieves one pick of the goody tree to reflect their style: fighter hit dice, fighter thac0 with missile weapon, fighter thac0 with melee, mu or cleric scroll use, or some kind of dodge bonus. The fighter is the king of combat but thief should a decent second.
|
|
|
Post by Thigru Thorkissen on Apr 23, 2008 5:59:37 GMT -6
I don't hate thieves, but recently (partially due to Philotomy's musings) I've come to appreciate the game without them. Want to search for traps? Describe how you do it and I'll see if you find them (if they are there). Want to move silently to infiltrate? Remove all of your armor and shed all of your extra belongings so that you don't make noise (there's a difference between just not wearing metal armor and wearing "sneaking attire"). Want to hide to ambush? Wear appropriate colored clothing and find the right spot. Climbing? Bring the right equipment. Many thief skills can be ad-hoc ruled.
So what do you do for a player who wants to play a "thief type" as a distinct type? Read the above, and also give him a chance to open lock and pick pockets (something reasonable, perhaps 3 in 6, allowing the victim to make a saving throw for the second).
Thigru
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 23, 2008 8:08:56 GMT -6
Just to point out -- this vote is a lot closer than I thought it would be. Clearly we have an equal split between the "LBB only" and "LBB plus" factions.
|
|
jjarvis
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 278
|
Post by jjarvis on Apr 23, 2008 15:16:47 GMT -6
I voted pro thief but while there is room for them in the game at large they really aren't needed in every style of campaign.
Historically thieves have been 20% or more of the party in campaigns I DM so the players i game with certianly enjoy thieves. Out of a party of about a dozen we had at least 4 thieves/multiclassed thieves on a regualr basis.
Thieves would be distateful to me in a chivalric campaign. Knightly daring-do doesn't work with backstabbing thieves in the party.
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Apr 23, 2008 15:37:22 GMT -6
I voted pro-Thief.
I don't buy into the whole self-fulfilling thing. By that definition, all of the characters are self-fulfilling; the whole game is self-fulfilling. We wouldn't have need for D&D if we didn't want to play D&D, so without D&D there would be no D&D.
If we want to allow everyone to do theify things, why don't we extend that and allow everyone to do clericy and magicusery and fightery things too? We can eliminate classes all together, and each player is a collection of 6 stats and what their imagination allows them to describe what they are doing and what the DM allows and rules with. It would work, I am sure, but how much would it be D&D?
The point of classes is to give players a focus and to separate powers into segments so that not all players can do everything.
Thieves carve out a niche that feels like a different type of player. Fighters usually armor up. Thieves don't. You *could* think of them as low armored FM, but that sells them short on all of the things they can do, just like thinking of Clerics as FM that can cast heal isn't accurate.
I am still working on my Thief for my campaign, but here's what I'm operating on now: Dex for Prime. As they go up in levels they gain attack dice at a much slower rate than FM, but they gain AC as they go up in levels. Basically, they don't gain experience in attacking more as they go up, but gain experience in avoiding more attacks. This is a very different mechanic than the FM, and it should give them a different feel than the FM as they go up. This frees them up from encumb(e)rance issues, which means they should be able move more in combat, etc. Gaining movement as they go up in levels as well. NOW you have Zorro, or Robin Hood: great fighters, who didn't wear plate armor to avoid getting killed. Add in some traditional (D&D) bonuses for traps/silence/hiding, etc and you have a nice solid class that stands out on it's own and is interesting to play.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Apr 23, 2008 17:43:04 GMT -6
It still surprises me a bit that this is even in question. The thief is a valued fantasy archetype and I feel that D&D would not be complete without it. Look at the literature: The Grey Mouser. Nifft the Lean. Bilbo Baggins. All of these folks helped contribute to the way that not only D&D, but fantasy fiction is viewed today.
If you wanted to exclude one character class, why not cleric instead of thief? Where are the iconic fantasy characters that serve a church and cast spells to heal their buddies? I can't think of any really prominant cleric types (they very likely do exist, but none come to mind easily, which is the point). Wouldn't it be far more simple to have the magic user cast healing spells and do away with the cleric? *
If there were no thieves, what would happen to the Thieves Guilds that feature so prominantly in so many tales of sword & sorcery? Sure, you could say they were populated by NPCs who steal stuff, but it really isn't the same as having a character join the guild and rise through the ranks over the years through more clever and daring capers.
Didn't I hear tell somewhere that the late, great Gary Gygax actually DID have thieves in his game at the time that the LBB came out but just didn't include them in the game? He understood the importance of the archetype. The man who preferred playing OD&D rather than AD&D wrote a whole series about the exploits of Gord the Rogue, a prototypical thief.
While a thief in the dungeon might not be as vital as a good warrior or sorcerer, he is of utmost importance in an urban setting. Given the right connections and circumstances, the thief will always be worth his weight in gold (minus the 20% cut to the Guild, of course).
So, what I'm saying here is simply this: "Please, just give thieves a chance!"
Doc
*Please keep in mind that I'm not advocating getting rid of clerics. I think they are great and add a level of role-playing that you couldn't get from the common warrior or mage who put THEIR faith in cold steel or magic. All I'm saying is that, if push came to shove, I'd ditch the cleric before I'd ditch the thief.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 23, 2008 17:55:29 GMT -6
If you wanted to exclude one character class, why not cleric instead of thief? Where are the iconic fantasy characters that serve a church and cast spells to heal their buddies? I can't think of any really prominant cleric types (they very likely do exist, but none come to mind easily, which is the point). Wouldn't it be far more simple to have the magic user cast healing spells and do away with the cleric? Doc, you are the "caller of the show"! I've thought about this very point quite often every time I read the "thief doesn't belong" threads on various boards. I'm not pushing to get rid of the thief either, but it seems like the thief has more place than the cleric in the game. My own personal theory is that the cleric is designed to fit the priest of The Omen or somesuch where someone gets posessed by a demon and Father Somebody has to show up and chase the critter away with his faith. That's as close to a real iconic Cleric as I can come up with, other than Clerics which are clearly taken from D&D and put into books much later than 1974 or so.
|
|
sham
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 385
|
Post by sham on Apr 23, 2008 21:01:03 GMT -6
I understand the whole 'archetype' approach and using fantasy literature as a reference. My viewpoint is coming from using OD&D Vol.s I-III as a reference, not various fantasy works.
In my *personal* OD&D interpretation, Clerics are not open for debate, but Thieves are. I just don't use any of the supplements. As far as all of the supplements, though, I would agree that the Thief is the most essential, the only one I would not call a 'subclass'.
I have taken efforts to simulate Thief type skills in my home brew, which in and of itself is a testament to that supplemental class. If a player begged and pleaded, I might brew up a Thief class. I just know none of my current players will do that.
I think some of the Grognards, or Neo-Grognards like me, just don't like reducing so many game features into simple game mechanics or dice rolling vis a vis role-playing. Maybe it's a question of which supplements you enjoy using?
What can I say, I like the original three class archetype of FM-MU-C.
|
|
tank
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 58
|
Post by tank on May 6, 2008 14:41:11 GMT -6
I voted against thieves. I like the archetype of a lightly-armored type surviving by dint of luck and lightning reflexes, but the implementation of thief skills just doesn't work out (for all the reasons discussed above.) It seems to me that the most reasonable approach to a game without thieves is to allow any lightly armored character to be stealthy (the bonus to surprise rolls method is very reasonable), to climb walls with proper gear, to hear noise at a door, to search for traps (1 on a d6, 1-2 if a dwarf, or by proper description of how the search is carried out), and to disarm/circumvent those traps if possible.
Opening locks is the odd man out. (I also don't view picking pockets as important to include, although it too could be replaced by a surprise check!) In my games, a character's background determines what odds and ends he should be allowed to try. Perhaps opening locks could be folded into that background?
With regard to including a lightly-armored fighting-type in the game, it appears as though one has already been provided for us: the berserker. Has anyone tried allowing berserker PCs? Would a +2 to damage rolls (due either to ferocity or swiftness of blade) be a fair trade off for being limited to leather armor?
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on May 6, 2008 15:25:42 GMT -6
I'm with tank on this; there are certainly examples of thief-like characters in literature, but I don't think the implementation of a thief class works well in D&D.
I, too, prefer to have thief-like characters merely wear light or no armor and to act in a stealthy manner. They tend to have a higher movement rate than anyone else, and can outrun foes in chain or plate, easily. I would also give them increased chance to surprise, if they're not accompanied by armored friends. Those are the benefits of being lightly armored, IMO. I don't think anything beyond that is necessary. I think the Fighting Man class handles all of this. Conan is a good example; when he's going into battle, he wears armor. When he's robbing the evil shrine, he wears no armor, scales the wall, and sneaks around.
There are a few Thief class skills that are truly special (e.g. the aforementioned open locks). I'd handle this kind of thing on a PC-by-PC basis. In many cases, existing locks will be crude, and I'd give any PC a slim chance to jimmy the lock, but if a PC had a background that would give him some advantage, I'd allow a greater bonus. For example, if the PC was an apprentice locksmith in his younger days (this is simliar to AD&D's concept of "secondary skills"). Another example is Conan's background as a mountain barbarian; I might give him a better than average chance to climb a cliff.
There are obvious drawbacks to this approach (consistency questions, questions of increasing aptitude, possibility of abuse by players, etc). However, I think the drawbacks to the Thief class (and Thief skills, in particular) outweigh any advantages.
If it helps, one could think of the Fighting Man class as "Man of Action." Really, that's how I see the classes:
Fighting Man - men of physical action. Magic User - men of spells. Cleric - a hybrid of spells and action; can do both, but is "second class" at both.
In other words, I think the original classes are imperfect as models of literature archetypes, but are a mix of literary archetypes and game concerns. This view explains why the Cleric is the "odd man out," there; I think the Cleric has a significant "gamist" element to its class makeup. That's okay with me, because the Cleric class works in the context of the game. The Thief class isn't okay with me, despite its literary support, because I think it fails to work well in the context of the game.
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on May 7, 2008 7:09:22 GMT -6
See I take a different view on allot of this because I am really of the mind set of eliminating the cleric (his spells would be shifted over to the M-U) the M-U himself would be strictly an NPC class and there are no PC races other than human. Magic items are rare and extremley dangerous, potions and elixirs are by far the most common of the magic items to be encountered. With the elimination of PC magic the Thief class becomes vital due to there being no magic to rely upon to do his job and therefore his skills can almost border on the magical. Also in this world the gods are are very active, petty, vain, and numerous; the only good thing about these gods is that they can bargained with and thus there are priests (anyone can be priest) to these individual gods. These gods may grant boons or curses depending on their whims and fancies. In this campaign world I have considered the ideas of a sage class and a noble class (as discussed in another thread). I honestly feel that the only class that can't be eliminated is the fighting man, all other classes are optional.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 7, 2008 7:39:27 GMT -6
I'm testing "Barbarian-men" as a PC race that has extra pip per HD and +1 to surprice others when unarmored.
That makes them pretty good thieves!
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on May 7, 2008 9:48:06 GMT -6
See I take a different view on allot of this because I am really of the mind set of eliminating the cleric [and making the M-U an NPC class]...the only class that can't be eliminated is the fighting man, all other classes are optional. Yeah, I agree that the fighting man is the essential class. The approach you outline sounds like a very cool swords-n-sorcery approach, by the way -- the PCs are all "men of action." If you eliminate the spell-casting considerations and make all PCs "men of action," then I can see the desirability of some sub-categories (i.e. break men of action down into two or three separate classes), from a game point-of-view. I'm not convinced the Thief class as it exists in Supplement I would be the best choice, though. I'm not sure exactly how I'd go about it; I'd need to think about it.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 7, 2008 10:29:59 GMT -6
Really, that's how I see the classes: Fighting Man - men of physical action. Magic User - men of spells. Cleric - a hybrid of spells and action; can do both, but is "second class" at both. The old Metamorphosis Alpha (1976) and Gamma World (1978) have a similar division: Pure Strain Humans - no mutations, but adept at technology
Mutated Animals - some truly wicked possibilities (giant mutated flying scorpions, etc.), but not adept at technology at all [These are analogous to fighters: the toughest right out of the gate.]
Humanoids - a hybrid of mutations and technological adeptness; can do both, but is second class at both [These are analogous to clerics.]
|
|
|
Post by hackman on May 7, 2008 11:28:12 GMT -6
I end up being conflicted in regards to thieves. I played a C & C game, or rather dm'd my wife and she played a fighter and MU and I threw in an NPC cleric. I used the random dungeon method from the dmg and set up a couple of special areas of my own. It was eye opening to me, even with traps etc. she did just fine, winged it throuhout. Now some of this was because of her newness, she'd never played, so a lot of those expectations were not present about classes etc.
However a longtime friend joined the game and he's played AD&D since like 1981 like me. An NPC thief ended up in the group and this friend was basically demanding the NPC thief search every unusual tile in the place. The party ended up in big trouble because of all the wandering monsters that converged on them. Some of it was my fault in that I let the thief keep searching and it really slowed the game down a lot, of course this guy would take 0 risks.
I'd probably prefer to not have thieves, but if I were a DM I'd be reluctant to rule one out. I'll probably just create my own modified class or borrow one of the ones you guys have proposed.
|
|
tank
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 58
|
Post by tank on May 7, 2008 12:23:28 GMT -6
I'm testing "Barbarian-men" as a PC race that has extra pip per HD and +1 to surprice others when unarmored. That makes them pretty good thieves! I'd love to hear how they turn out in play. Do you give them a +2 on die rolls due to ferocity, and if so which die rolls? Can they hold their own in combat with an AC of 7?
|
|
|
Post by trollman on May 7, 2008 13:58:20 GMT -6
Put me in the camp of fighters and magic-users only.
The only way I would like a thief-type class was if I was running a game that did not include players to use magic. In that case, I would come up with several subclasses of fighting men, including 1 or 2 "stealthy" types fighters that would have abilities roughly analogous to the thief (like a sneak attack, etc.).
Other than that, I don't see why a normal fighting man or magic-user can't do a lot of what a thief does anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 7, 2008 14:21:11 GMT -6
I'm testing "Barbarian-men" as a PC race that has extra pip per HD and +1 to surprice others when unarmored. That makes them pretty good thieves! I'd love to hear how they turn out in play. Do you give them a +2 on die rolls due to ferocity, and if so which die rolls? Can they hold their own in combat with an AC of 7? Barbarians can use all armor (just like Conan) and gain no bonus for ferocity.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 7, 2008 15:35:51 GMT -6
I'm still in the pro-Thief camp, mostly because I like a little more complexity and frankly, I feel some nostalgia for the poor guy. Yet having said that, I do recognize the nose of the camel coming under the edge of the tent, and get a little worried about it. Still thinkin', here.
|
|