busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on May 7, 2008 15:43:03 GMT -6
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. Again, "can't do" isn't the question. You could have no classes and each player "could do" whatever they'd like. But, IMO, that isn't the point of D&D. D&D = classes. A choice: I'll be good at this and not good at this. A less armor, more movement based character that has what we think of as stealthy abilities as they grow in XP fits very nicely with both history and literature. I, personally, don't see the Barbarian as any sort of real substitute, other than Conan was called "the Barbarian" and he does thiefy things. Of course, I tend to think of Barbarian as more of a Race, or type of Men, than a class. You CAN make the FM into a thief like character and have the player take limits and gain bonuses based on their history etc, but it seems like a lot of machinations to avoid saying that you have a Thief class. Man, I wish I had a little more free time, I'm quite excited about where my Thief class is going.
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on May 7, 2008 16:55:11 GMT -6
D&D = classes. A choice: I'll be good at this and not good at this. I agree. The question is how you wield the scalpel to cut out your categories. I think OD&D's default divisions (physical, magic, or physical + magic) work well. That's not to say that other divisions aren't possible. I don't have a problem with the concept of a Thief class, in principle, but I don't like the Supplement I implementation and how it affects the earlier divisions and methods for handling actions. I'd prefer a subclass or some other method that fit the original approach better. If you're offering such things solely to get a Thief without having a Thief class, then I would agree. However, I don't think that's the case. I offered the example of a mountain barbarian being better at climbing, earlier; similarly, I would allow a PC with a fisherman background to have special knowledge in boat-handling and such, or a PC who is a noble special knowledge in recognizing heraldry or proper behavior at the Duke's court, etc. In my case, I don't quantify these things with rules; they're just assumed and handled in-play.
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on May 7, 2008 18:07:37 GMT -6
BTW, I think we're a lot closer in philosophy than may come across here. I, too, am not a huge fan of skills and where that leads. I think it's the skills thing that is getting in the way for a lot of people.
Argh, I'm going to allot some time tonight to try and bang out an on paper version of my thief class.
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on May 8, 2008 2:25:24 GMT -6
It seems the problem with the thief class (mechanics aside for a moment) for most people is the idea that once the thief is around no one else can do what they do. I think this lies in the definition of what the thief abilities can do/are-
Move Silently- (IIRC) EGG even defined this ability this way; anyone can move quietly under the right circumstances (no armor, soft shoes, etc.) but there is still a chance of hearing them even if they do everything right. The thief on the other hand when successful, moves silently (aka no noise, no chance of hearing them if they do it right) it borders on the almost magical.
Hide in Shadows- Were not talking about hiding in the dark here or around the corner in ambush. Hide in shadows is just that, the ability to blend into that grayish/dark spot in the corner, to use a cliche "To become one with the shadow".
Lock Picking- This is one of those areas that very few of us have the real life knowledge on how to do this to be able to role play it out (I happen to have apprenticed under a master blacksmith in my early 20's and got to see how to forge a lock, they are not a simple affair and often many of the original had measures in place to be able to foil a casual lock pick attempt (false holes, pressure plates, false notches to accept the keys teeth, etc.). This ability does require a roll determine success because it would be knowledge that is beyond the scope of most players that the character in question would have. The rules even imply that this ability would work on magical closures.
Pick Pockets- this is one of those abilities you have to pretty much dice for the affect just like you would roll To Hit.
Climb Nearly Sheer Surfaces upward or downward- Everyone loves to call this one Climb Walls but if you look at the title it implies (and again iirc) and EGG once defined this as the ability to climb a surface with the slightest toe or finger hold where a non thief would swear there was no way to climb, anyone can climb a rough surface with plenty of crevices to place hands and feet.
Hear Noise- This ability starts out on par with the non-human abilities to hear noises but over time exceeds even them again to almost magical level.
Removing and Disarming Small Traps (e.g. poison needles)- This is one of the thief's abilities that seems to bother people the most and how it forces the thief into the role of Mine Detector (Step one place fingers in ears, Step two close eyes, and step three begin pressing ground ahead with ones foot ;D). The title says it all they can disarm a trapped lock, maybe a trapped chest/container lid but nothing larger. IMO these types of traps operating on either small gears or movement (trip wires, catches and releases, etc.) would all fall into the realm of beyond player knowledge to able to role play out their removal, thus a dice roll to determine success. Larger traps such as pits, darts fired from the wall, spears fired from walls, etc. are all able to be detected by anyone in the party equally with the exception of dwarves who have racial abilities towards this type of trap. The mine detector is a role in OD&D that any character can play. On a side note I do find it interesting that such a vital skill such as the detection of traps never improves, a 1st level and a 12th level character both have the same chance of detecting a trap (I might have to house rule that one, hmm...). Look at the first Indiana Jones movie, a thief would have no better chance of finding those traps than any other class and absolutely no chance of disarming them.
Backstab- This one I am going to leave alone as I see this as more of a combat discussion.
It appears to me that some of EGG's inspiration for the thief class appears to have come from western stories of the ninja and also of radio show characters such as the Shadow and the Phantom (both of whom could do just about all of the abilities as described of the OD&D thief), lightly armored, often striking from behind, etc. Their abilities are not per say magical as they are also due to being highly trained both in mind and body. Come to think of this it would explain the thief's ability to read languages and eventually cast spells from scrolls, thus raising these characters up from common street thugs to something more.
I agree that I am not happy with the mechanics of the class 100% as written, but I am also against the idea that these are mundane abilities that are simply role played out, I wouldn't ask a thief character to role play his or hers powers anymore than I would ask a magic user to role play out his or hers casting of a spell (both smack to much of LARPing for my taste), I would role play with them how they plan on using their power or spell.
but hey YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on May 8, 2008 7:33:53 GMT -6
Stonegiant and Doc deserve a fair bit of credit for making the case for the Thief class.
I agree with Doc that there are examples in fantasy of the thief archetype; the suggestions made by others that these examples could be carried out by other classes are somewhat unconvincing to me.
I also think Stonegiant is onto something when he has detailed the various abilities and shown how they operate.
I think part of the problem is that we're so concerned about the introduction of a skills system that we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I mean, there are various adventuring abilities besides those associated with each of the original classes (FM, MU, CL) that are worthy of inclusion and some of those adventuring abilities come together under the idea of the Thief as a class.
I wonder if what we're debating is more about these "secondary adventuring abilities" more than whether or not Thieves merit inclusion. As an archetype, I think they do merit inclusion. But the system as set up in Greyhawk might be problematic.
Here's another idea - what if these abilities were available to ALL classes to a greater or lesser extent, but Thieves were the ones who excelled at them? Dwarves ought to be able to pick locks, Hobbits certainly ought to be able to move silently, MUs would really work at being able to hide in shadows, etc.
I'm trying ideas out here more than making a commitment to anything. What I'm also hoping is for more clarity in the actual discussion. I'm very interested in the responses of others.
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on May 8, 2008 10:57:32 GMT -6
I think one of the biggest things crippling the Thief class (as written) are poorly done mechanics (in exceptional Strength EGG uses at least three different methods of determining success with things concerning strength, why he didn't do the same with the thief, tying the mechanic to the ability I will never know). I also think the 2nd part of the problem here is twofold- 1st off allot of people have referred to what the thief does as skills (I myself have been guilty of this and this is do in part to the mundane names given to the thief's actions & IIRC they are called skills in some of the editions), what the thief does are abilities just like spell casting is to a magic user, turning undead to a cleric, etc. These thief abilities despite their mundane names border on the mystical (see my previous post for this). I think one of the best ways to rectify the thief class might be to redesign him along the same lines as the monk class (not as an eastern class but in the sense of the way abilities are gained at certain levels, etc. This also might work in the sense I have always felt that as far as the classes go the thief would be the best in a brawl abilitywise, fighting men would be the most damaging but the thief might actually get bonuses to hit, my reasoning is that in the city one of the most common ways of fighting is brawling and if they grow up on the street the thief would definitely be more proficient at this style of combat).
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on May 8, 2008 12:58:55 GMT -6
I think one of the biggest things crippling the Thief class (as written) are poorly done mechanics (in exceptional Strength EGG uses at least three different methods of determining success with things concerning strength, why he didn't do the same with the thief, tying the mechanic to the ability I will never know). I also think the 2nd part of the problem here is twofold- 1st off allot of people have referred to what the thief does as skills (I myself have been guilty of this and this is do in part to the mundane names given to the thief's actions & IIRC they are called skills in some of the editions), what the thief does are abilities just like spell casting is to a magic user, turning undead to a cleric, etc. These thief abilities despite their mundane names border on the mystical (see my previous post for this). I think one of the best ways to rectify the thief class might be to redesign him along the same lines as the monk class (not as an eastern class but in the sense of the way abilities are gained at certain levels, etc. This also might work in the sense I have always felt that as far as the classes go the thief would be the best in a brawl abilitywise, fighting men would be the most damaging but the thief might actually get bonuses to hit, my reasoning is that in the city one of the most common ways of fighting is brawling and if they grow up on the street the thief would definitely be more proficient at this style of combat). I agree, SG. I was working on my Thief last night, got a good couple of hours of work on him. Here's what I have, from memory, so far: Level names: I found myself rearranging these to accomplish 3 things: a) remove the Master Pilferer as I believe it detracts from the final Class name Master Thief (I brought Filcher over from AD&D names list) b) Split Thief and Master Thief to 5th and 10th level to bring a Hero/Superhero vibe to the class names. This help provide some structure for ability gains. c) Moved Burglar to 8th to coincide with Hobbit max level, because that makes me smile to myself. XP: per Supp I HD: As MU until 10th level where it comes 7+1, 7+3, 8+1, etc. Fighting Capability: per Supp I Saving throws: FM saving throws, but at 5 level increments. Use only Magic Daggers and Swords for magic weapons per Supp I. Don't restrict Armor type, but rather give bonuses if "properly" garbed. To whit: If lightly encumbered and without shield (or wearing Leather only, no shield; for non-encumbrance people): - gain -1 AC every 3 levels (1-3: -1, 4-6: -2, etc). (AC3 at 10th level with Leather.) - at 5th Level (Thief), gain 3" to movement - riffing off of Frank's excellent Thief example: ---- Wary: which translates to +1 to surprise checks until 8th level where it becomes +2 to surprise roll. ---- Sneak: which is -1 to enemies' surprise roll, gained at 4th level - Backstab: 2x, then +1x every 4 levels (1-4: 2x, 5-8: 3x, 9-12: 4x) (Purposely not codified, up to the DM when this is able to be used or not) - Other Thief skills (open locks, climb walls, etc): I was just getting to these last night when I realized it was nearly 2am and time to go to bed. My early thoughts on these was to jump off from Frank's Thief. But I'm enjoying the idea you've put forth here with gaining the abilities as levels progress. I'll ruminate on that today and see what tonight brings. Non-Armor affected abilities: - Some of the normal Thief Skills might land under here when all is said and done: Pick Lock for example, I can see being done with heavier armor on, Same with Detect Trap. - I changed the read languages, more in line with the flavor text in Supp I: Detect/Decipher Hidden or Secret Markings (on Treasure Maps but maybe elsewhere as well). At 3rd level gain the ability at 70% chance, increase to 80% at 5th level, 90% at 8th level and 95% at 10th level. - +1 to missile fire (debating forcing player choice of thrown vs. normal missiles) Things I'm trying to accomplish: - Robin Hood, Zorro, Conan, Grey Mouser, Bilbo all "fit" within the class. - A class that isn't an FM, but is still accomplished in fighting, with a penchant for ranged/sneaky/not face to face combat. I would hope you could play a Bard or an Archer/Ranger with this class as well, if you chose. - Roleplaying a situation isn't trumped by a roll of the dice, rather create a mechanic/framework for said roleplaying. - Flexibility for Chainmail/all d6 players or Alternate Combat/d20 players. It's still a work in progress.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on May 8, 2008 13:12:50 GMT -6
...This also might work in the sense I have always felt that as far as the classes go the thief would be the best in a brawl abilitywise, fighting men would be the most damaging but the thief might actually get bonuses to hit, my reasoning is that in the city one of the most common ways of fighting is brawling and if they grow up on the street the thief would definitely be more proficient at this style of combat). Fighting-men would also be proficient brawlers. Young men training to be knights are first taught wrestling, long before they taught weapons. But I agree with you that the thief would be better at close-in, back street fighting. Why? Because they fight dirty. Your knightly type, with his honor and all, would fight fairly; your average backstreet thug just wants to win.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 8, 2008 13:35:45 GMT -6
I'm making my new OD&D class line-up as follows: Fighting-men, Magic-users and Thieves.
Yesterday I was also working on the class, and came up with a rough sketch. Here it goes... I took ideas from here and there, and was much inspired by foster's "Knave". Also, mind that this is meant for an all human campaign. Also, there is only one type of magic.
THIEF Primer Requisite: Dexterity. XP Progression: sames as cleric. Attack: same as cleric. Saves: the best saves of all 3 classes, even better than the booted cleric. Hit Dice: 1d6 up to name level (8th); +2 hp thereafter. Armour: Leather only (no shields) Weapons: dagger, hand axe, sword, short bow, and light crossbow. Magic swords wielded by thieves have double their normal Ego scores. Backstab: as per Sup. I. Sneak + 1 surprise others. Hearing: +1 detect noise. Looter: Detect secret doors as elf. Scroll use and wand use: He may use any scroll. Roll 1d6 and higher than the spell being cast. If you fail, the spell may backfire. Roll 1d6 again and higher that the spell being cast. (Note that casting 6th level spells is impossible). Wand use is similar. The DM must assign a power level for the wand. Learn spells: 4th level onwards, the Thief may learn magic spells and scribe them in his rogue-like spell book. Maximum spell level is 2.
Spells & Level Level 4: 1 first level. Level 5: 1 first level. Level 6: 2 first level. Level 7: 2 first level. Level 8: 2 first level; 1 second level. Level 9: 2 first level; 2 second level. Level 10: 3 first level; 2 second level.
Level Titles: 1. Scamp 2. Scalawag 3. Scoundrel 4. Rogue 5. Rascal 6. Rapscallion 7. Thief 8. Master Thief
|
|
|
Post by coffee on May 8, 2008 14:08:33 GMT -6
I really like what you've done here! I don't agree with it 100%, but I do very much like the fact that you're taking a hard look at the class and giving it your own special treatment. Kudos (and an exalt) to you. Specific comments below: I'm making my new OD&D class line-up as follows: Fighting-men, Magic-users and Thieves. Or, as a friend of mine has called it since back in the 80's: "Wizard, Warrior, Rogue". I like this! Keeps the very powerful swords away from the thieves, but still allows them to use the "garden variety" +1. Not a big fan, but that's just me. We already have a wizard; if you need a lower level spellcaster, bring the wizard's apprentices along. Again, that's just me. Again, not a big fan. A lot of these sound pretty d**ned playful, like the guy is just a mischievous, lovable Dickens character. Whereas the thieves I've known (in D&D) have been anything but -- they've been gritty, "Thieves World", kill-you-for-your-last-silver types of thieves. And that, really, is my biggest objection to thieves in OD&D. They bring the tone of the game right down. Sure, it's swords and sorcery as opposed to 'high fantasy' but they drag it right down to the sort of penny-pinching low fantasy that I really don't like. Again, this is all just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 8, 2008 14:17:00 GMT -6
I took this from foster's Knave! kudos to him. What I really like about this, is that the thief can: - Put the guards to sleep.
- Charm the damsel.
- Read a message in a secret language.
- Hold a portal to escape from the guards.
- Become Invisible
- Find traps (because it's a M-U spell now)
- Knock open the treasure vault door.
- Locate the desired object.
- Fool the guardians with illusions.
All kinds of roguish stuff!!
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 8, 2008 14:49:12 GMT -6
The thief on the other hand when successful, moves silently (aka no noise, no chance of hearing them if they do it right) it borders on the almost magical. Hide in Shadows- Were not talking about hiding in the dark here or around the corner in ambush. Hide in shadows is just that, the ability to blend into that grayish/dark spot in the corner, to use a cliche "To become one with the shadow"... It appears to me that some of EGG's inspiration for the thief class appears to have come from western stories of the ninja and also of radio show characters such as the Shadow and the Phantom (both of whom could do just about all of the abilities as described of the OD&D thief), lightly armored, often striking from behind, etc. Their abilities are not per say magical as they are also due to being highly trained both in mind and body. Come to think of this it would explain the thief's ability to read languages and eventually cast spells from scrolls, thus raising these characters up from common street thugs to something more. Great stuff. While I prefer fighters, magic-users, and clerics to thieves, this interpretation of thieves is very cool. D&D thieves are not merely street thugs. They are almost magical.
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on May 8, 2008 15:53:49 GMT -6
I really like what you've done here! I don't agree with it 100%, but I do very much like the fact that you're taking a hard look at the class and giving it your own special treatment. Kudos (and an exalt) to you. Specific comments below: I'm making my new OD&D class line-up as follows: Fighting-men, Magic-users and Thieves. Or, as a friend of mine has called it since back in the 80's: "Wizard, Warrior, Rogue". I like this! Keeps the very powerful swords away from the thieves, but still allows them to use the "garden variety" +1. Not a big fan, but that's just me. We already have a wizard; if you need a lower level spellcaster, bring the wizard's apprentices along. Again, that's just me. Again, not a big fan. A lot of these sound pretty d**ned playful, like the guy is just a mischievous, lovable Dickens character. Whereas the thieves I've known (in D&D) have been anything but -- they've been gritty, "Thieves World", kill-you-for-your-last-silver types of thieves. And that, really, is my biggest objection to thieves in OD&D. They bring the tone of the game right down. Sure, it's swords and sorcery as opposed to 'high fantasy' but they drag it right down to the sort of penny-pinching low fantasy that I really don't like. Again, this is all just my opinion. That is why I have gone with the Shadow/Phantom/do-gooder type of thief vs. the other types.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on May 9, 2008 13:44:50 GMT -6
What I really like about this, is that the thief can: - Put the guards to sleep.
- Charm the damsel.
- Read a message in a secret language.
- Hold a portal to escape from the guards.
- Become Invisible
- Find traps (because it's a M-U spell now)
- Knock open the treasure vault door.
- Locate the desired object.
- Fool the guardians with illusions.
All kinds of roguish stuff!! It boils down to demarcation. What I'm seeing here is you've gone from: to [/i] guy that casts some Magic-User spells. [/ul] If you have a thief that isn't a spell using class, you have three distinct types, with no overlap. Besides, I see the thief class as being highly trained/skilled -- he should be able to do most of those things without magic. You could, if you wanted to (hey, it's your game...) allow some thieves to multiclass. Since there are only humans, it wouldn't ruin the game balance. Then you could also have fighters who could multiclass as magic-users. I'm just saying that's one way you could do it. I might actually use your thief; overall, he's pretty good. But if I do, he won't have spells. That's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on May 9, 2008 13:53:12 GMT -6
If you want his save tables PM me your email address.
;D The second guy casts "spells" really, cause there is not distinction bewteen 2 magics. Just one type of magic. No types really, just "magic".
I'll post at some moment the integrated tables.
Note that the casting for the thief is really minimum and not really something primary. At level 7 he only casts 2 1st levels!. Too little really.
Thanks a lot for the feedback, it is really valuable!
¿How do you find the scroll and wand use?
|
|
|
Post by coffee on May 9, 2008 14:12:33 GMT -6
¿How do you find the scroll and wand use? I wouldn't allow it until at least 6th level or higher, but I do like what you've done with it. (I was in a 3e game and I played the wizard. But the rogue grabbed all of the wands and such we came across, because he had a very high Use Magic Device skill. And the DM supported him (they were brothers). So all I had was my spells. It left me a little bitter. (I'm not bashing 3e, by the way; just that combo of player and DM.))
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on May 9, 2008 16:36:10 GMT -6
FWIW, the "thief skills are extraordinary abilities" approach is what I use when I allow thieves. RE: Lock Picking I defer to your experience on locks. I could see a skill roll required for this if the lock is complex. I tend to see locks in my campaign as being fairly primitive and simple, but there's no reason a given campaign couldn't include much more difficult locks. RE: Pick Pockets I agree this isn't something anyone can do. In practice, I find it rarely matters to the game, but again, that's campaign-dependent. RE: Climbing In addition to the "surfaces that no one thinks are climbable" nuance, I could also see this treated like the "urban climbing" you see in videos, where young, in-shape guys spiderman all over buildings and such. I could see that being a special ability. RE: Hear Noise & Hide In Shadows This one I'm not as keen on. I don't mind Thieves being really good at hearing things, but I don't like the idea of them being better than demihumans. I think the "almost magical levels" is what bothers me. I'd prefer for a Thief to have impressive abilities, but nothing beyond "peak human capability." Of course, if you set that as a limit, you need to decide exactly where that line is drawn, which is another matter... I have a similar view on Hiding in Shadows. I can see it, up to a point, but when it starts getting "nearly magical," I'm less enthusiastic. Removing/Disarming Small Traps Absolutely agree that it should be limited to small mechanical devices like spring-loaded or gear-driven needles and such. Like pick pockets, this is a skill that I find to be of dubious utility in the game. For example, once a poisoned needle is located, there are usually ways to bypass or avoid the trap without disarming it. ( Finding traps isn't an issue with the OD&D Thief, thankfully -- that's one thing I really don't like in later versions of the class.) I think part of my bias against the Thief class is the fact that I'm not keen on an "almost supernatural" or "ninja-type" character. Part of it is also (unfarily) the effect I think the Thief had on the game's development, and how the Thief's skills were often characterized in-play; I should try to shake that off and not let it influence me. WRT OD&D, I don't like the Thief's ability to use magic swords, although that can be offset by making magical swords prefer Fighting Men. Lastly, I'm not that impressed with the Thief's abilities -- I'm not sure that the class is "worth the effort," so to speak. In any case, I do see your point. I'll have to think about it some more; maybe I need to adjust my view on this.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 9, 2008 18:53:29 GMT -6
A cardinal difficulty with thieves is their "special abilities" all being mundane.
A cleric has two special abilities: spells and turning undead, both LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE in real life.
A magic-user has one special ability: spells--LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE in real life.
But climbing walls, picking locks, and all the rest can be done in real life.
The difficulty comes in assigning game mechanics to cover things that can be done in real-life. (Of course, the one exception is combat, rules for which are essential in a wargame.)
In other words, having rules for magic and turning undead in D&D makes sense because there is no way that the DM can use common sense and make a ruling for spell casting based upon real-life spell-casting. But that is PRECISELY what a DM can and must do for all the 1,001 things that PCs attempt that do not involve the supernatural:
vaulting onto a horse swinging on a rope across a ravine leaping onto a swinging anchor swimming across a swift river etc., ad infinitum
But suddenly the DM is supposed to leave his discretion at the door and consult rules when a character attempts to climb a wall? Why in the world does the DM need rules for that? People climb walls in real life! The DM can simply use his judgment and rule as Judge.
|
|
Bard
Level 3 Conjurer
The dice never lie.
Posts: 87
|
Post by Bard on May 10, 2008 6:08:49 GMT -6
I can't say, that thieves are necessary, so they in my mind no way completing the game, but I don't see them as inherently a wrong turn. I never know od&d, I learned to play on ad&d 2ed, and I always played and DM-ed that version. Thieves were "one of the four" core classes for me. And I had to unlearn this. I love the concept, that the classes are archetypes. So we must have the option to design any class we want, and mustn't let the four core category concept cloud our minds. So, The game is complete with the three LBB classes (side question: I know what LBB points to, but I don't know exactly which words the letters represent... Can somebody help me on this?). And the game is complete with the LBB + Supplement I = five classes. And so on. I feel that every class should be unique. Every player playing a different class may feel somehow that they are playing different games. If I have to define a mark where the road to hell began, then it's not any of the supplements, but ad&d, where they had already lots of cool classes, and they started to put them into categories. So the thinking, that the number of the classes can be somehow "complete" is the way to hell... Now, lets read what everybody else had said...
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 10, 2008 9:12:26 GMT -6
LBB = Little Brown Books
|
|
Bard
Level 3 Conjurer
The dice never lie.
Posts: 87
|
Post by Bard on May 12, 2008 13:31:17 GMT -6
geoffrey: Thanks! philotomy: I liked your interpretation, that the thief abilities are not skills, but really "abilities" that represent, or should represent things that normal men couldn't attemt to do. Like magic, or turn undead etc. If I look at the thief from this point of view, it makes a lot more sense.
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Sept 21, 2009 10:27:09 GMT -6
I voted to "Keep the Thief", but what I really want to keep is the archetype and class option - not the rules as they are written. It's really the "system" of Thief abilities that's a problem. It's separate from rest of the game and the other classes. That's why I have written an alternative Thief class. The Thief abilities are largely retained (I left out Pick Pockets though) but are not represented by a separate table of % chance. Instead the Thief gets a bonus to Surprise (instead of Move Silently and Hide in Shadows), a bonus to the normal detection of traps rules, etc. I agree with the posters above that I kicking out the Cleric "makes a lot more sense" than kicking out the Thief. The Thief is a much more commonly encountered archetype, and a hell of a lot more fun to play usually, than the crusading Cleric. Further, the Cleric is much more self-justifying than the Thief - the Cleric exists solely to heal HP faster in most cases, and then to Turn Undead when the DM throws too many of them at the players. Allowing HP to heal faster on their own and to providing alternative undead-fighting rules would make the demand for that class dry right up. Just to be on the record, I do not like the idea of "Thief skills = magical abilities." Most of the Thieves in literature are thoroughly non-magical, and those know a spell or two are usually very bad at it. The Thief as presented by Philotomy Jurament is almost a "Shadow Sorcerer", a cool concept maybe but not something that jives with the atmosphere I'm usually trying to create. Silk and Jimmy the Hand were not magic-users of any sort.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 3:20:18 GMT -6
I prefer to use core rules without a thief class. If there are supposed to be thieves in the party, then people playing other classes may feel like they don't need to look for clues, consider whether they can sneak past the guards, figure out how to open doors, etc.
|
|
|
Post by billhooks on Oct 10, 2009 14:06:22 GMT -6
If this topic is coming back, I might as well post my thief variant also (with thefts from Dr. Samsara and I can't remember who else). The main goal is to avoid impinging on exploration play by giving the thief reactive abilities -- that is, they only kick in AFTER he's stepped in the crap, so to speak. The exception is the very last special ability, which I consider the most potentially entertaining one.
Thief
--Uses Cleric XP, to hit and Saving Throw tables (see below about Saving Throws). Has d6 hit points per level. -- May only wear leather armor. (Or alternately, thief abilities only work in leather armor, but he may go as a slightly weak fighting man in heavier armor if he wants to. In this case his XP table should be *harder* than the Fighting Man's, not easier.) -- May use any magic item. With scrolls, however, there is a 5% chance per spell level that the thief will garble it, resulting in the spell rebounding on them in some way. -- Thief has the following saving throw-related special abilities: Saves as cleric of 4 levels higher. When successfully saving against a trap or snare, has 50% chance of disabling it. When successfully saving vs. spell or wand, has 20% chance of turning it back on its caster (not including area-of-effect spells). -- When alone, surprises on 3 in 6; may avoid or infiltrate past a surprised monster automatically. -- +1 to Reaction roll when making fraudulent offer
|
|
|
Post by irdaranger on Oct 10, 2009 20:37:33 GMT -6
-- +1 to Reaction roll when making fraudulent offer Love it! That's the bestest and most original suggested Thief ability I have seen in a long time, and really gives the Weasely/Scoundrel vibe. Just awesome - have an Exalt, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by gkaralunas on Oct 26, 2009 10:49:21 GMT -6
After Reading ALL 6 pages - - I Offer MY Humble Opinion:
#1 THE ONLY Thief I ever ran was forced upon me, via a GODLY Judgement.
History of GW
Started as a Paladin -Graylove -(Today's JIHADist's but LG - - i.e. Convert or Die) Lots of Dead Orc's & Goblin's. Made it to 8th Level, then killed a Fighter (who had the same Diety, but was CG). Lost standing (i.e. House, Armor, Weapon, etc).
Became a NG Ranger -Added Wisebear to his name. Made it to 7th Level, until the God's decided otherwise.
Became a CN Thief -- Shortened name to GW -- with many Magic Items & a nice Bank Account. Retired at 23rd Level - - NEVER joined a Guild (Actually fought one Guild to their demise, remember MANY Magic Item's). Currently has a Floating Castle/Stronghold, but occasinaly goes Pub Crawling for the fun of it. Been know to come out of Retirement for Special Missions.
Remember also that GW was in 3 Different Campaigns (3 Different DM Styles) and we use to play from Friday's @ 5PM till Sunday Noonish straight through. for about 4+ years (1977-1981)
So for the Above, I vote FOR the Thief Class.
|
|
|
Post by danbuter on Dec 25, 2009 21:08:02 GMT -6
The thief is one of my favorite classes. I do like some of the variants I've seen posted here and elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Dec 26, 2009 13:05:34 GMT -6
As long as this thread is live today, I'll chime in, too -- Like some others above, I feel that the Thief is flavor-wise better in many ways than the Cleric.
My reading of Supplement-I Greyhawk is that it contains a lot of Gygax's fixes for things that were missteps in the LBBs. In some cases he overreacted. But in my games I do actually kick out the Cleric and replace it with the Thief; I feel like the game would have been stronger if that had been your original trio.
|
|
|
Post by mgtremaine on Sept 15, 2011 11:23:23 GMT -6
Bit of thread necro but I couldn't resist. I love thieves, my first game ever I ran a Dwarf Fighter and Human Thief. [Sure they both died but I was sooo close to making it out alive with the Thief.] Having said that I voted that Thieves could be dropped. I really think all the important Thief abilities can be role played or researched. The "Sneaky Fighter" could certainly go and work for free at the Master Locksmith's learning the trade. All this while the Wizard is doing spell research. In the end the "Sneaky Fighter" has a new "skill". No need for a full class to handle that. While I'm on the ramble I believe that the Cleric could be folded into the Magic-User for a single unified Spell Casting class. [Yes it would be painful but it would liberating ] -Mike
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Sept 15, 2011 12:09:16 GMT -6
I disagree strongly on peoples opinion on the cleric. The cleric goes back all the way to CHAINMAIL as the zealot/crusader knights Mixing them with the magic user is misguided--as were later spells by gygax giving them more of a spell caster vibe, if one looks at the original spell list 90% are out of combat spells. Clerics are primarily and begin as--men at arms.
|
|