Post by The Fiendish Dr. Samsara on Jul 22, 2009 16:00:48 GMT -6
Yes, again. The original (and I use that term loosely) thread is here. And I'm pretty happy with the idea. But something else just occurred to me while rereading the article on Thieves in Knockspell #2.
One of the arguments against Thieves is the way in which they introduce and codify mechanics for doing thiefy things like sneaking and climbing, and that the old-school aesthetic wants to have those activities be open to Referee decisions on probability and what not.
OK, so what if you just said, "Thieves get a +1 bonus per every 2 levels (or however many) when doing thiefy things." End stop.
So, monsters get surprised on a 1-2 on a d6? A Thief operating alone surprises on a 1-3.
So, the Referee thinks that you might have a 3-in-8 chance to climb up that embankment? Thieves have a 4-in-8.
And so on.
Haven't decided what you would do if one of your players wants to pick a pocket or two? Decide when and if it comes up and remember that Thieves will do it at +1 whatever die you are rolling.
Am I missing any big problems with this?
One of the arguments against Thieves is the way in which they introduce and codify mechanics for doing thiefy things like sneaking and climbing, and that the old-school aesthetic wants to have those activities be open to Referee decisions on probability and what not.
OK, so what if you just said, "Thieves get a +1 bonus per every 2 levels (or however many) when doing thiefy things." End stop.
So, monsters get surprised on a 1-2 on a d6? A Thief operating alone surprises on a 1-3.
So, the Referee thinks that you might have a 3-in-8 chance to climb up that embankment? Thieves have a 4-in-8.
And so on.
Haven't decided what you would do if one of your players wants to pick a pocket or two? Decide when and if it comes up and remember that Thieves will do it at +1 whatever die you are rolling.
Am I missing any big problems with this?
