Post by countingwizard on Sept 16, 2019 8:10:02 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
Fighting-men are the base class of D&D, from which all the other classes are derived. Fighting-men are basically able to do everything a normal person could do, but better. To make the Magic-User or Cleric class, you remove capabilities in exchange for other capabilities a normal person wouldn't have.
Magic-Users give up attack competency, damage durability (hp), the ability to wield most weapons (and magical weapons), the ability to wear armor, and the ability to progress (level) as quickly; in exchange for the ability to cast a large repertoire of spells, use any magic item, and read any magic scroll. M-Us also give up some saving throws (like save vs. breath) in exchange for better saving throws against spells.
Clerics give up some attack competency, some hp, the ability to wield swords and magic swords; in exchange for the ability to cast a limited repertoire of spells, use a limited list of magic items, and read a limited list of magic scrolls. They also progress quicker and have better saving throws.
Thieves have never made sense to me. Thieves have a little less magic-use than Clerics, being limited by level and magic items and scrolls, and have a few specialized skills that were likely resolved via the 2-in-6 chance on a d6 rule of thumb before the class was introduced; but are placed somewhere between Cleric and Magic-User in terms of trade-offs. A magic-user can already do everything a Thief does, but with limited resources.