|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 24, 2008 22:27:19 GMT -6
Long have we heard that HPs are not only a measure of physical toughness, but also the ability to dodge blows, reduce impact, luck, fighting skill, resistance to fatigue, favor of the gods, etc... In the context of the 3LB books, this makes sense. Fighters should be the best dodgers, have the best fighting skills, the ability to turn a fatal blow into a mere scratch, etc. etc. Followed by the cleric and the M-U. This also totally makes sense when the ONLY thing that can modify Armor Class is... well, armor. Armor Class represents how difficult it is to defeat the protective metal defenses of the warrior. Note that dexterity does not modify AC. So... here is the hard question: If you introduce the "thief" class in this context, under these assumptions and interpretations of the rules, where HPs are not only a measure of physical toughness. Shouldn't the "thief" be the class with the highest hit points? Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Feb 24, 2008 22:51:01 GMT -6
They certainly need all they can get! I liked the article in the Strategic Review that gave bonuses to a thief's abilities if he had an exceptional dexterity. This would compensate for starting thieves being, well, weak overall to some degree. But I think the thing to remember here is that thieves are not front line combatants. They may snipe at you, or stab you in the back, but should never go toe to toe with a fighter.
As a side note I like to think of hit points kind of like fatigue, trauma, and pain threshold all wrapped into one. Novices get beat up quick, while veterans can take a few and still bear up.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 24, 2008 22:59:38 GMT -6
Having hight hit points won't prevent that a warrior kicks thief ass at toe to toe combat.
The warrior has the highest AC. AC 2 vs. AC 7. The warrior has the best to hit chance. The warrior probably deals more damage (nearly everyone has a house rule for this).
|
|
|
Post by doc on Feb 24, 2008 23:00:37 GMT -6
Remember, the thief as originally intended wasn't supposed to be a melee combatant. He was a trained specialist who had as much business going toe-to-toe with orcs and goblins as a magic user. A fighting man would know how to dodge and parry effectively, thus the extra HP. A thief, on the other hand, would know enough to not be in melee combat in the first place.
Doc
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 24, 2008 23:02:36 GMT -6
Good insight. Gotta keep thinking. I'm making a the thief class again and I want to get it right.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 24, 2008 23:09:54 GMT -6
Anyway, as I say, the thief class still won't be a primary combat class. He wears the second worst armor, and fights at secondary level.
In a fight, he'll be dodging and escaping rather than doing significant harm to the opponent.
Just being the devils advocate here, to see what others got to say.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 25, 2008 7:41:12 GMT -6
If I remember correctly, Greyhawk assigned d4 hit dice to the thief -- I've always used a d6 instead. (Of course, with true OD&D, everybody gets a d6. :-)
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Feb 25, 2008 8:09:19 GMT -6
I will note that when people developed the game in a crunchier direction and added abilities like dodge, luck, evasion/improved evasion, etc. etc. to the thief, this effectively winds up being the same thing as giving more hit points, in a specialized situation.
Zulg, I'm also redesigning the thief right now, and what I am leaning towards is a 'luck'-type ability that allows the thief to reroll or roll a dodge in certain situations.
|
|
jrients
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 411
|
Post by jrients on Feb 25, 2008 9:27:11 GMT -6
So what are thieves? This is the key question. Are they sneaky low-class cutpurses who have no business fighting but can be extremely useful in trapfilled dungeon? Or are they dashing swordsmen in light armor with a couple of unusual skills that are occasionally helpful? The latter version, I think, would be well served by starting with a standard Fighting Man, limiting him to leather (and possibly shield), and giving him a handful of limited abilities to compensate his lack of heavy defenses. But the other, more specialized thief? That class strikes me as more akin to the specialized training and indirectly supportive nature of the cleric. Go with cleric HPs, a limited selection of weapons (not including swords, in my opinion), and a suite of special powers each limited to narrow situations, the same way Turn Undead and most cleric spells are not as universally applicable as MU spells.
|
|
WSmith
Level 4 Theurgist
Where is the Great Svenny when we need him?
Posts: 138
|
Post by WSmith on Feb 25, 2008 9:42:44 GMT -6
I actually see three different kinds of PCs emerging from trying to reboot the thief.
1. The burglar / trap guy. This is your specialized finding and disarming traps, breaking in, opening locks, sneaking around type. This one would be weak in a fight, and prefer to cower in the shadows and stab the wounded enemy from the darkness. They would probably have some kind of "luck" ability to reroll a bad dice roll or a +1 to certain saving throws. This might be better served as a hireling than PC. But, I know players might want to play it.
2. The light fighter. This is the one that uses armor no heavier than leather. Not quite as tough as the fighting man, but a little bit more so than other characters. His weapons are more like akin to using finesse than brute strength. Almost a duelist of sorts.
3. The rogue wizard. This is similar to the rogue in T&T. They are somewhere in the middle of the fighting man and the magic-user, but not a master of either art. I would guess they would be somewhere around the power of the cleric. They could use little or no armor, very few weapons, very few spells if any at all, and might only be able to use the magic-user only magic items and scrolls with a chance of failure.
I am not sure how I would start fleshing these out, but this all just came to me.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Feb 25, 2008 9:53:33 GMT -6
I actually see three different kinds of PCs emerging from trying to reboot the thief. 1. The burglar / trap guy. This is your specialized finding and disarming traps, breaking in, opening locks, sneaking around type. This one would be weak in a fight, and prefer to cower in the shadows and stab the wounded enemy from the darkness. They would probably have some kind of "luck" ability to reroll a bad dice roll or a +1 to certain saving throws. This might be better served as a hireling than PC. But, I know players might want to play it. 2. The light fighter. This is the one that uses armor no heavier than leather. Not quite as tough as the fighting man, but a little bit more so than other characters. His weapons are more like akin to using finesse than brute strength. Almost a duelist of sorts. 3. The rogue wizard. This is similar to the rogue in T&T. They are somewhere in the middle of the fighting man and the magic-user, but not a master of either art. I would guess they would be somewhere around the power of the cleric. They could use little or no armor, very few weapons, very few spells if any at all, and might only be able to use the magic-user only magic items and scrolls with a chance of failure. In OD&D, these are most definitely the three archetypes lumped underneath the Thief class and I personally find they sit poorly with one another, making the Thief ultimately incoherent. My own feeling is that 1) is unnecessary since I prefer that all PCs, regardless of class, be able to attempt these things, with dwarves being better at dealing with traps and halflings better at sneaking, and so forth. 2) is just a variant of the Fighting Man, so, again, I'm not sure we need a separate class for it as such. 3) is a valid archetype and one that suits OD&D's literary inspirations, as well as its implied style of play. No class adequately covers this ground, so some sort of rogue wizard class strikes me as a reasonable addition to the roster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2008 10:53:12 GMT -6
Long have we heard that HPs are not only a measure of physical toughness, but also the ability to dodge blows, reduce impact, luck, fighting skill, resistance to fatigue, favor of the gods, etc... That pretty much sums up what HP stand for. IMC, I allow those with a Dex of 15+ to receive a +1 bonus to AC (regardless of class). As for the Thief, I consider him a specialist; someone who really should think twice about hand-to-hand combat; that's just not his forte. I redid the GH thief for my new campaign (I'm ditching R.C. for awhile & just running straight OD&D, with some house rules thrown in as well) this weekend, & I'm pretty happy with it. And yes, in my new campaign starting this coming weekend, ALL characters have d6 for hit dice. And damage.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Feb 25, 2008 10:56:24 GMT -6
Don't forget that the beauty of OD&D is that every character has a specific role and nobody steps on another class' toes. If a thief were a front line combatent, it would steal some of the thunder from the fighting man. If a fighting man was good at sneaking around, he would be hogging some of the thief's glory.
3.5 (I really can't call it D&D) has reached the point where any 12 year old munchkin with basic math skills can build a character who can fight, sneak, heal, and cast fireballs all by second level. This is exactly the sort of garbage that brought me back to playing OD&D. A thief shouldn't be swinging his blade at the charging minotaur; he should be sneaking in the shadows stealing the minotaur's treasure while the fighting men are busy swinging THEIR blades at the minotaur.
Doc
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 25, 2008 11:16:10 GMT -6
Awesome replies so far buddies, this is helping me a lot in re-doing the thief to make him fit in pure OD&D with no supplements. Keep the thoughts coming!
Oltekos: you have already redone the thief?? Show us what you did, it should be most interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2008 11:35:27 GMT -6
I didn't redo too much; just the HD to conform with the OD&D d6 progression, as well as the Saving Throws. I'm still tempted to mess around with changing % for abilities to a d20 or even a d6, but I'm not sure yet what I want to go with. As for the HD & Saves progression, here you go: HD (to 14th level): ------------------------ 1 2 3+1 4 4+1 5 6 7 7+1 7+2 7+3 8+1 8+2 8+3 Saves (to 14+): -------------------- Death Ray/Poison: 1-4 (10) 5-8 (8) 9-13 (5) 14+ (2) All Wands/Polymorph & Paralyzation: 1-4(11) 5-8 (9) 9-13 (6) 14+ (4) Stone: 1-4 (13) 5-8 (11) 9-13 (8) 14+ (6) Dragon Breath: 1-4 (15) 5-8 (13) 9-13 (10) 14+ (7) Staves & Spells: 1-4 (14) 5-8 (11) 9-13 (8) 14+ (6) --I can never seem to create a table here, so I hope it's easy enough to understand. As for XP progression & % chance for abilities, I kept GH.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Feb 25, 2008 11:46:01 GMT -6
3.5 (I really can't call it D&D) has reached the point where any 12 year old munchkin with basic math skills can build a character who can fight, sneak, heal, and cast fireballs all by second level. This is exactly the sort of garbage that brought me back to playing OD&D. Hear, hear! Me too! Another exalt for you!
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Feb 25, 2008 12:06:36 GMT -6
I actually see three different kinds of PCs emerging from trying to reboot the thief. 1. The burglar / trap guy. This is your specialized finding and disarming traps, breaking in, opening locks, sneaking around type. This one would be weak in a fight, and prefer to cower in the shadows and stab the wounded enemy from the darkness. They would probably have some kind of "luck" ability to reroll a bad dice roll or a +1 to certain saving throws. This might be better served as a hireling than PC. But, I know players might want to play it. 2. The light fighter. This is the one that uses armor no heavier than leather. Not quite as tough as the fighting man, but a little bit more so than other characters. His weapons are more like akin to using finesse than brute strength. Almost a duelist of sorts. 3. The rogue wizard. This is similar to the rogue in T&T. They are somewhere in the middle of the fighting man and the magic-user, but not a master of either art. I would guess they would be somewhere around the power of the cleric. They could use little or no armor, very few weapons, very few spells if any at all, and might only be able to use the magic-user only magic items and scrolls with a chance of failure. I am not sure how I would start fleshing these out, but this all just came to me. I agree with this anaylysis, and also jamesm's evaluation: #1 seems like it should already be covered by the Fighting Man class as it stands. Anybody should be able to find a trap if they look in the right place, and disarm it if they use the right methods. Sneaking and other stealth activities should be possible if you gain surprise and are not encumbered (you can't sneak up on somebody while in plate mail or carrying 4,000 gold coins); this is why I favor giving a Surprise bonus for good Dexterity. Climbing is also possible if you have sufficient handholds and are not encumbered. Picking locks is the odd man out, but that doesn't strike me as a strong adventuring archetype in itself; it could be handled as a background skill. #2 is a Fighting Man. The fact that he chooses not to be encumbered in heavy armor means he is more mobile and able to do some things that a heavy footman cannot. But in a stand up fight, it's unreasonable to expect that there should be conditions under which it is better to be wearing a poet shirt than a hauberk. That's just not how it works; armor was invented for a reason. #3 is a legitimate archetype, as others have observed. I think this archetype is already covered by the "Elf" character, again an observation not original to me. So if one were to allow a "rogue wizard", I think the question is whether you are allowing Elf player characters (and whether there are even Elves in your world) and how the dynamics of a rogue-wizard and an actual Elf would work out. Because our best examples of "crafty bladesman and magical dabbler", Gray Mouser and Cugel the Clever, appear in Elf-free zones.
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Feb 25, 2008 13:37:03 GMT -6
Dilvish the d**ned is a high-level version of archetype #3 in a world with elves. Also, Kane and Elric are F/MU who doesn't fall into any of those archetypes, though Elric is a little like #3 on steroids.
I think all three of the listed archetypes are pretty easy to handle. One house rule I've adopted sometimes is to allow human beings of noble or tainted bloodlines to multiclass F/MU like an elf - covering #3 and Kane and Elric besides.
Guys, I'm on record all over the internet basically agreeing with you about 3.5, but I'd really rather not read that stuff here. Granted we're all free to say what we feel but rather see us do our thing while others do theirs, the ships sometimes meeting and enriching each other with trade (as with Mearls and some of the Forge guys I've seen here) and sometimes passing quietly in the night. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Feb 25, 2008 13:46:26 GMT -6
#3 is a legitimate archetype, as others have observed. I think this archetype is already covered by the "Elf" character, again an observation not original to me. So if one were to allow a "rogue wizard", I think the question is whether you are allowing Elf player characters (and whether there are even Elves in your world) and how the dynamics of a rogue-wizard and an actual Elf would work out. Because our best examples of "crafty bladesman and magical dabbler", Gray Mouser and Cugel the Clever, appear in Elf-free zones. While it's undeniably true that the archetype originates in fantasy literature without elves, I'm not convinced that OD&D's elves occupy the same archetypal ground. To me, elf magic is "natural" magic, one part fairy tale hocus-pocus and one part Tolkienesque attunement to the song of Creation rather than any kind of learned arcane mastery over the world. Consequently, there is a place, I feel, for a non-elven "rogue wizard" archetype after the fashion of the Gray Mouser or Cugel the Clever.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Feb 25, 2008 13:51:23 GMT -6
As far as mentioning 3.5 goes, I apologize to any who were offended.
I play that version, when it's the only game around, but I'll never run it. It just can't compete with OD&D.
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Feb 25, 2008 14:47:32 GMT -6
re: Elric - he is a member of a humanoid race that is magically-inclined, lithe and pretty. Sounds like an Elf to me!
Xulrua isn't going to include any of the standard demihumans or humanoids (except Bullywugs... which I'm calling Froglodytes just because) but, having pondered this thread, I'm considering allowing some type of Elf class, but human.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Feb 25, 2008 15:04:56 GMT -6
re: Elric - he is a member of a humanoid race that is magically-inclined, lithe and pretty. Sounds like an Elf to me! The Melnibonéans are most definitely "elves." They occupy the same place and indeed I seem to recall Moorcock's admitting that, as much as Elric is the "anti-Conan," his people are the "anti-elves." The whole Elric saga is, among other things, a sly commentary on the nascent conventions of fantasy stemming on the one hand from Howard and one the other from Tolkien.
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Feb 25, 2008 16:45:47 GMT -6
Hit Points should represent the amount of damage rolled that a PC can take before kickin' the bucket. Fighting-Types can take more punishment than anyone else so they get more. Magic-Using and Thieving types don't like combat as much, so they get less. Pretty straight forward to me
|
|
|
Post by doc on Feb 25, 2008 17:03:11 GMT -6
Here's the story I've heard concerning Moorcock and elves:
When LotR first became popular way back when, Michael Moorcock was a British teenaged hooligan who had eagerly read the books and decided that the part about elves was rubbish. His thought was that if there was an ancient race far physically and mentally superior to other races and with the abilities to live forever and master magic, the LAST thing they would be doing would be paving the way for Mankind to inherit the earth. Every lick of common sense dictated that the elves would do everything in their power to assert their dominance over the entire world and bring humanity to heel. So, when he began his Elric saga, that's how he portrayed them.
Indeed, I seem to recall men actually referring to Melniboneans as "elves" at least twice in the Elric books. Though I admit it has been nearly 20 years since I've read 'em.
Doc
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Feb 25, 2008 22:43:47 GMT -6
Here's the story I've heard concerning Moorcock and elves: I think that's more or less accurate, with the additional element of parody and commentary. Moorcock is famous for his disdain of both Howard and Tolkien, albeit for very different reasons. The Elric stories are at least partially intended to turn the convention of both sword & sorcery and high fantasy literature on their heads, with Elric being a physically weak and moral degenerate sorcerer (in contrast to Conan) from a race of decadent quasi-immortals who use their natural powers for self-indulgence (in contrast to Tolkien's elves). That's not all the Elric stories are, but it's a big part of it.
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on Feb 26, 2008 3:12:55 GMT -6
re: Elric - he is a member of a humanoid race that is magically-inclined, lithe and pretty. Sounds like an Elf to me! Xulrua isn't going to include any of the standard demihumans or humanoids (except Bullywugs... which I'm calling Froglodytes just because) but, having pondered this thread, I'm considering allowing some type of Elf class, but human. The only problem with Melniboneans as elves is that they would have to be allowed to be unlimited levelwise as they are portrayed in the novels the only limit to their power is their decadence and low birth rate.
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on Feb 26, 2008 3:26:37 GMT -6
As to the type of thief character in OD&D, I feel the intention of the thief class was to portray the archetypes of Aladin and Ali-Babba. Both were small street thieves, quick on their feet and with their wits, not very good in a fight, and they both seem to have very raw magical abilities, primarily centered around the use of items. In redesigning the thief I would probably make them harder to hit (penalties to those trying to hit them not to their AC), higher movement rates and unusual one (jumping, leaping balancing, etc.), a luck like ability, an ability to use almost all magic items (though not always correctly), weapons limited to what one might find/run into in the back streets of a city (clubs, knives, cleavers, etc. swords from the guards/nighthingych, slings , and so on), I would probably add staves to their list and also some weapons like bolas maybe? Another idea I would consider with the thief is that they should be able to fight well in a brawl (as I see the archetype), this being a type of combat from their "culture/social class".
As to the earlier three types of thieves, if going with them I would make the type dependent on the social class of the character.
As always YMMV
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Mar 2, 2008 14:52:37 GMT -6
To go back to the beginning of this thread, I think hit points embody all of the things initially listed. As such, I see no justification for giving thieves any extra hit points. But then I tend to very seldom have thieves in the game. I like having most of their abilities something any character can attempt and the backstab and pick pocket stuff I leave out. YMMV
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Sept 15, 2019 19:35:16 GMT -6
Hp is a number that reflects the character’s ability to evade THE Death Blow.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Sept 16, 2019 7:51:22 GMT -6
Long have we heard that HPs are not only a measure of physical toughness, but also the ability to dodge blows, reduce impact, luck, fighting skill, resistance to fatigue, favor of the gods, etc... In the context of the 3LB books, this makes sense. Fighters should be the best dodgers, have the best fighting skills, the ability to turn a fatal blow into a mere scratch, etc. etc. Followed by the cleric and the M-U. This also totally makes sense when the ONLY thing that can modify Armor Class is... well, armor. Armor Class represents how difficult it is to defeat the protective metal defenses of the warrior. Note that dexterity does not modify AC. So... here is the hard question: If you introduce the "thief" class in this context, under these assumptions and interpretations of the rules, where HPs are not only a measure of physical toughness. Shouldn't the "thief" be the class with the highest hit points? Discuss. I would honestly have zero problems with Thieves having more hitpoints than they do. The class in OD&D is incredibly gimped and encourages undesirable play styles as it is: hiding all the time to get a backstab, sneaking off for solo exploration, and not participating in combat due to AC 7 and M-U quality hitpoints. It's made even worse if you stick with the HD die size change from Greyhawk for each class. Basically the only way to make it to higher levels is to abstain from helping the group during combat situations, which causes everyone to hate that player.
|
|