|
Post by calithena on Jul 2, 2007 8:20:29 GMT -6
So, I'm sometimes tempted to just chuck thieves.
On the other hand, we can tap into Joseph Campbell: we get the hero and his companion (fighter), the mentor (magic user), the rogue (thief) and the goddess (the cleric - get yer girlfriend over to play the healer right now!).
I do think the thief archetype is helpful in some ways to filling out the party. On the other hand, the main problem is that it does open up a whole can of worms - niche protection on skills means suddenly fighters have trouble with recon and sneaking (which every S&S fighter ever has been good at), and then too having these special abilities opens up the possibility for universal skills systems (the Runequest route which has now taken over mainstream RPGing) and endless class proliferation (the Arduin route which has completely taken over D&D).
Thoughts?
I voted to keep them in, but it's close.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 2, 2007 10:53:39 GMT -6
The thing about the thief, is that it brings the game into a whole other realm of adventure style.
Without the thief the game is similar to a combat simulator, one step more evolved than a set of miniatures rules. With the thief you have the option of sneaking and we add a new layer of depth in terms of traps and so on.
I prefer a game which is 98% white-box, but with the thief added in.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jul 2, 2007 11:33:27 GMT -6
There's a lot of good to the thief. There's also a lot of bad.
I've never quite come to terms with the feeling that the thief and traps are self-justifying.
Really, the root of the problem I have with the thief is that so much of their ability is tied to something separate from the rest of the game. Sure, they interract with the exploration part of the game, yet no other class has defined abilities in that part of the game, it's always been part of the game managed mostly by informal rules.
Thieves also turn out to be the weakest in combat, unless their backstab ability is allowed to be used frequently (this is one area I think 3.0 did something really good, they made the rules for when sneak attack applied very specific AND they made them interract with the actions of the other characters - unfortunately, they are still hard to balance).
This all adds up to the thief's contribution being very dependent on what the GM allows, and how the GM structures the game. The other (basic) character types all have more ability to strike their own balance. Things getting too boring for the fighter, most GMs will allow the fighter to lay in with his sword, the cleric and mage can similarly spice things up. The thief is left to try and steal from the PCs, or the king, or random NPCs, or to try and convince the GM to let him sneak up and backstab someone.
I think part of the solution would be to add more structure to the exploration part of the game, and set it up so there are tradeoffs between using the thief's abilities, the fighter's strength, or the casters spells. Also, as noted, it should be more possible for all characters to sneak (while making the thief (and ranger?) the best, and making the others perhaps have to take special precautions or set aside some of their "power" (the fighter taking off his plate, and perhaps his big sword, for example).
Frank
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Jul 2, 2007 11:37:22 GMT -6
Anybody not in metal armor should be able to sneak, and elves and hobbits should be able to sneak really well. Dwarves can already spot traps, elves can spot secret doors, and all demi-humans have keen hearing. If you've got a rope and a grappling hook (not on the equipment list in vol. I but clever players will ask about it) climbing shouldn't be a problem. All that's left is picking pockets, opening locks, and disarming traps. The first I'm not convinced is something that's necessary to the game, as I've rarely seen it used in dungeons (more often the thief tries to pick somebody's pocket in town, gets caught, and the entire session is derailed dealing with the consequences). Opening locks and disarming traps are valuable skills and make a thief (assuming he's high enough level to be able to do them with a reasonable chance of success) a useful (but not IMO essential) addition to an adventuring party -- without a thief you rely on brute force, keys, or magic (knock) to open locks, and you simply avoid traps once they've been detected by dwarf, magic (find traps or wand of secret door and trap detection), or player trickery (assorted Indiana Jones-type stuff involving sand, marbles, 10' poles, iron spikes, rope, etc.).
My second issue with thieves, beyond the troublesome precedent of the fiddly percentage-based skill system and the slippery slope to RQ it introduces, is that the skill-set IMO doesn't really match the archetype. In my experience, players who play thieves do so because they want to be the dashing swashbuckler/rogue/trickster-figure -- the Gray Mouser, Kickaha, Han Solo, Robin Hood, etc. -- the guy who doesn't wear heavy armor and instead relies on his speed, stealth, and wits; the guy who doesn't play by the rules; the guy who's so dreamy he makes all the ladies swoon. This is a legitimate literary archetype and it's no wonder some players want to play a character like this. But the thief class isn't really it, because his primary function in the game is actually as the "trap monkey," the meticulous tinker-engineer MacGyver-type guy who spends most of his time examining things looking for traps and then figuring out how to disarm them. These two roles don't seem compatible to me -- the "trickster" character should be a fighter or elf with high Dex and Cha (and perhaps some house-rule additions to allow him to use Dex as his prime requisite and so on), the "trap-monkey" stuff is best handled as ad-hoc additions to the dwarf or perhaps to the magic-user (since they're "bookish" and smart).
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jul 2, 2007 11:47:07 GMT -6
Foster: I like your analysis.
A good swashbuckler fighter sub-class would be a good addition. The ranger and the paladin are both good for what they are (later editions did perhaps try and stuff the swashbuckler into the ranger with light armor and dual wielding). (Of course the paladin has issues, and some might argue the cleric is plenty good of a holy warrior type, but fundamentally, the idea of a holy warrior is good.)
Adding more locks and traps ability to the dwarf and mage would be an interesting way to go. And perhaps it's not something that has to advance with level (but perhaps new levels could add new things that could be detected rather than improving the chances of success). If advancement of success is part of the game, then the elven and halfling sneak abilities should also improve.
Frank
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2007 17:38:50 GMT -6
I like thieves, and in fact I love to play them.
I think this point goes beyond simple character skills. I mean, c'mon, anyone can pick up skills, as you say. What's great about thieves is their flavor. They can add a little depth, they can be good-aligned, they can be trustworthy but not trusted, and in general add a little spice to things.
I adore the 'Trickster' archetype that you mention. While it's possible for any type of character to have this personality, a thief shows it in skills and in dubiousness. I've also played fighter-thieves just to add this flavor to my swordswomen.
I'd also like to point out that thieves are very appealing for me as a female character because then I don't have to invent characters who are abnormally strong for women to get stat bonuses. I can put it in dex and get the fat stax of skills that are quite useful, and just be naturally nimble rather than speaking for paragraphs about how much they exercised to get a 16 in Str.
So I vote keep 'em ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Jul 2, 2007 23:59:49 GMT -6
Campbellian bullshirt be d**ned, I like playing thieves and I like running games for thieves. But Foster is right, too -- on a dungeon expedition, the thief is either a trap monkey (usually sharing the fate of thiefy types in Conan short stories unless the players start to become obsessive paranoids, which slows down play too much for my liking) or dead weight. The problem with them, is that they are most fun in city adventures, which is kinda outside the usual scope of OD&D, and that the trick to being a good thief is to play outside the rules. Fighting men, magic-users and clerics have a solid footing there - their abilities make it possible to stand their ground one way or another. Thieves shouldn't touch rules with a 10' pole if they can help it. Therefore, the idea that they are superfluous as a separate class has some merit - it is the mindset which is most important.
When it comes to cities, though, I prefer to be a thief (otherwise, my pick is almost always Plain Vanilla Neutral-alignment Fighter).
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Jul 3, 2007 0:02:05 GMT -6
Thieves also turn out to be the weakest in combat, unless their backstab ability is allowed to be used frequently (this is one area I think 3.0 did something really good, they made the rules for when sneak attack applied very specific AND they made them interract with the actions of the other characters - unfortunately, they are still hard to balance). Coincidentally, this is the rule that sold me on 3.0 when I first read about it. But my complicated love-hate relationship with 3.0 is material for another board, so I will say no more.
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Jul 3, 2007 13:21:51 GMT -6
Hey Fin -
Thanks for opening these boards! Just read the sub-board descriptions - I'll treat them topically instead of according to the actual books that contain things from now on!
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Jul 8, 2007 16:21:11 GMT -6
Never had a need for them, but will allow them in my campaign if the player really wants one.
|
|
|
Post by meepo on Jul 9, 2007 6:52:34 GMT -6
Never had a need for them, but will allow them in my campaign if the player really wants one. Yuppers. I agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Jul 9, 2007 20:55:50 GMT -6
We use thieves in the main campaign (the heroic campaign) but not so much in the others. My players have a different way of playing thieves, they are much more fighter thief than pure thieves and some of the skills such as pickpocket or more in the context of spying type collecting info or items without the enemy being aware of it, instead of used on random strangers on the street. The way we handle thieves they are compatible or more compatible with paladins.
|
|
serendipity
Level 4 Theurgist
Member #00-00-02
Bunny Master
Posts: 140
|
Post by serendipity on Jul 10, 2007 7:59:34 GMT -6
I think thieves add another dimension, but not if you only use them as trap disarmers and pickpockets. I think my thief more resembles Crimhthan's concept of a fighter-thief. Perhaps rogue is a better term? She has a short bow (C&C rules) so she can (mostly) hold her own in battles, but she does much of the sneaky stuff required for strategic encounters. Obviously she's not a gronk type, but then, if I wanted to play one of those, I'd choose a regular fighter.
--Sere P.S. Order of the Stick fans: Haley Starshine rocks!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 10, 2007 8:11:06 GMT -6
I think that some of the more classic thieves of literature are Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. (Of course, Lankhmar is a city of thieves.) Part of their charm is the fact that they have the ability to do thief type actions that many other fighters of literature (such as Lancelot, King Arthur, Honger Carlsen) cannot do. Of course, other fighters like Conan can do some of these things as well, but he has a barbaric background which at least explains the woodsy part of his sneakiness.
I think there is a difference between being able to move quietly and the ability to pickpocket or disable a trap. The tricky thief actions are specialties that should be kept as a special thing that only trained characters can attempt. To me, thieves fill a necessary role in the party and the assumption that all fighters can do sneaky stuff takes away from those who have such skills. If a character wants to be a fighter-thief, he or she needs to take the levels in both classes.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by crimhthanthegreat on Jul 10, 2007 18:53:35 GMT -6
Not all my fighters can do thief stuff, we just play our thieves as much tougher fighters than the standard thief and the emphasis is not on crime. Maybe we need a better name than thief. I have thought at different times over the years of just rolling it all into bard, but we like having them be separate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2007 9:05:44 GMT -6
Gotta have thieves, man. That's the one big thing missing from the white box.
|
|
|
Post by Rhuvein on Jul 19, 2007 10:43:54 GMT -6
We've always had thieves in our games, they seem to make the game complete so I voted yes.
I would however, be willing to run a D&D game straight by the 3 books, just to see how it goes.
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on Jul 24, 2007 10:47:06 GMT -6
The Arhcetype for the thief IMHO is found especially in the Middle East with characters like Aladin, Ali Babba, etc. As for the Robin Hood type I think they fall under another Archetype- The Archer/Woodsman/Huntsman. I do agree that the way thief skills are determined should be redone witht he idea in mind that the other characters can sneak the thief however can do it better and can do other things while sneaking. I also feel that the thief character should have a touch of the shrewd merchant about them. I could even see having the CHA score effecting some thief skills. As to determination of thief successes and failures I think they should be a combination of #in # on d6, %, d20 chart, etc. Much like the opening doors, Bend Bars/Lift Gates, and saving throws, this I feel plays more like the OD&D system and expresses the abilities better.
|
|
jdjarvis
Level 4 Theurgist
Hmmm,,,, had two user names, I'll be using this one from now on.
Posts: 123
|
Post by jdjarvis on Jul 30, 2007 8:57:16 GMT -6
There's a lot of good to the thief. There's also a lot of bad. I've never quite come to terms with the feeling that the thief and traps are self-justifying. Really, the root of the problem I have with the thief is that so much of their ability is tied to something separate from the rest of the game. Sure, they interract with the exploration part of the game, yet no other class has defined abilities in that part of the game, it's always been part of the game managed mostly by informal rules. there were mechanics in the game for dealing with tricks and traps in the game already: find traps spell, wands (and some swords) able to detect traps, ring of xray vision, traps a re usually only spri "Doors must be forced open by strength, a roll or a 1 or 2 indicating the door opens, although smaller and lighter characters may be required to roll a 1 to open doors." "Traps are usually sprung by a roll or a 1 or a 2 when any character passes over or by them. Pits will open in the same manner." So some of the thiefly functions are already covered by the rules before the introduction of the thief. The thief class adds and expands to that coverage. I feel they are a worthy addition to the game that does expand on the opportunities available to all. Bilbo in The Hobbit is recurited as a burglar becasue of his natural abilities, courage and ingenuity.
|
|
|
Post by tgamemaster1975 on Jul 30, 2007 21:09:44 GMT -6
We usually play without thieves unless someone decides they just have to have one, which is not too often with my regular players. We usually just let the fighters do most of the thief things with hobbits, elves and dwarves having advantages over each other and humans on specific things.
For instance hobbits and elves are great at hiding and moving silently. Dwarves are great at traps. Etc.
|
|
Thorulfr
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 264
|
Post by Thorulfr on Nov 21, 2007 13:16:46 GMT -6
<first post>
I had to vote for them - I love playing them too much to want to see them left out.
Looking over the chart for the Thief abilities, they are all neatly divisible by 5 - it would be easy enough to cinvert them to a d20 roll, if anyone wanted to avoid the "slippery slope to RQ"...
|
|
|
Post by Wothbora on Feb 9, 2008 23:18:43 GMT -6
Even though I loved playing a Thief back in the day, I realize now how much the system becomes unstable once various "skills" are brought into play. Honestly, there are two types of characters: Mundane and Magical (either through mystery or deity). Maybe that's the problem: Magic has two classes in Clerics and Magic Users and perhaps the Mundane Fighter should as well. All it really takes to make a Thief are the restriction of various armors for Dexterity's sake and using Dexterity as the Prime Requisite for calculating Experience. Has anyone ever looked at The Big List of Fantasy Archetypes? www.zombienirvana.com/miscdebris/FantasyArch.pdfThere is an endless choice of variations that one could be. Still, if you want to be an Adventurer you must have the ability to access Magic or know how to Fight; otherwise, you're a goner.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Feb 10, 2008 9:19:31 GMT -6
I think the real main impetus for Thieves came from those pesky locked and trapped treasure chests. Instead of having to haul the chest to a locksmith in town or use Knock to avoid the trouble of breaking a chest (if indeed it was breakable), a Thief could open it in the dungeon (and reduce the likelihood the trap would spring when the party opened it by whatever method). Adventurers were less likely to find that a heavy haul was just copper.
To a certain extent, the environment altered to protect the Thief's "niche." Dungeon doors formerly just stuck became locked. The "Remove Traps" roll got applied to things besides treasure chests (I've seen DMs rule that a Thief can simply roll to negate any sort of trap without rationale as to how), and traps tended to function reliably (not just 1/3 of the time) if not disarmed by a Thief. Hiding and sneaking got harder for non-Thieves. Magic leather armor started to appear. In most games IME, high-level Thieves were allowed to use magic scrolls without recourse to Read Magic, something even MUs could not do.
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on Feb 10, 2008 9:28:44 GMT -6
It was posted at the OD&D guild by one of the C&C society play testers for the original rules that the rules originally did have the thief class included but it was dropped before publication much to the surprise of many of the people playing them there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 16:38:23 GMT -6
I'm someone who happens to like the "Thief" class. I find it to be a great character class alternative that doesn't unbalance the game at all (at least IMO). As for the thief skills, I don't see a problem with them: the % roll is just a class feature. I like thorulfr's recommendation: if your bothered by the % roll, divide them by (5) & use a d20. I suppose the bottom line is, if it doesn't fit in you campaign, either (a) don't use them at all, or (b) tweak the s**t out of them until you get what you like.
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Feb 12, 2008 23:41:18 GMT -6
One of my bright ideas is that a high Dex gives a Surprise bonus. However, I don't give the Surprise bonus unless the whole group has it and nobody is in metal armor. This means that a dexterous Fighting Man could do well to limit himself to light armor, both for Surprise and general mobility, and scout ahead of the rest of the party. My notion is that if Surprise is gained, the surprising party may choose to sneak past the other party if circumstances allow. So that takes care of sneaking. Hiding is possible if there are sufficient conditions for hiding (and it should require less if you're properly dressed and not carrying a steamer trunk full of melee weapons and coins on your back), so nothing beyond the purview of a FM there, either. Climbing is possible if not encumbered and if sufficient handholds, etc. are present... it may or may not require a roll. Hearing noise is already covered. What does that leave? Just traps, locks and 'pockets'. But pockets aren't invented yet so let's forget those. Locks seem to me to be the purview of the boxman, a specialist who can be consulted in town. Or just bash the chest open with a handaxe! Traps are the only lacuna. You could handle them like secret doors, or just with description. After all... how does Indiana Jones find out that there's a dart trap in the ancient temple? He sees suspicious-looking features of interior decoration, and tests a hypothesis with a torch. THWOCK! Yep, there was a trap alright.
|
|
jrients
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 411
|
Post by jrients on Feb 13, 2008 9:26:38 GMT -6
More and more I am coming around to the conclusion that I find thieves to be self-justifying, at least in dungeon-focused games. If I run OD&D without the thief, I put in fewer traps and locked doors and locked/trapped chests. I don't eliminate them altogether, but I put in a lot fewer than when I build a dungeon under the assumption that thieves will be in play. Thus the existence of the thief drives me to change my dungeon designs in a way that doesn't happen with the other three classes. So what happens when the party doesn't have a thief or when the low level thief blows his rolls, which I think we can all agree start at pretty shoddy percentages? The parts of the dungeon made for the thief end up slowing down play and interrupting an otherwise smooth flow of game events.
Thus I am led to the conclusion that thieves are not a necessary part of the dungeon experience, at least the way that I referee dungeon expeditions. Though to put my opinion in context, I will admit that there's very little in the Supplements that I consider useful for OD&D play. If I'm going to start adding that stuff in, I'd rather just play AD&D 1st edition.
|
|
|
Post by Zulgyan on Feb 13, 2008 10:23:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Feb 13, 2008 10:28:47 GMT -6
Jeff, I tend to agree with you about the self-justification of thieves. However, they are clearly a popular class to play.
Perhaps this does mean we need to find a good way to "fix" the thief.
We certainly do need to work on preventing the thief from bogging down play. I think it would be easy to run the game such that we don't have the pickpocket/robbery scenario in town that goes wrong and results in an entire session of play revolving around the thief. Some of the in dungeon stuff should be able to be avoided also.
As to their combat ability, I'm inclined to borrow a bit from 3rd edition, and make the backstab ability more reliant on objective tactical positioning and not the "mother may I" situation we had back in the day. Perhaps not quite so automatic and simple as flanking, but still make it much easier.
Frank
|
|
Stonegiant
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
100% in Liar
Posts: 240
|
Post by Stonegiant on Feb 13, 2008 22:26:25 GMT -6
More and more I am coming around to the conclusion that I find thieves to be self-justifying, at least in dungeon-focused games. If I run OD&D without the thief, I put in fewer traps and locked doors and locked/trapped chests. I don't eliminate them altogether, but I put in a lot fewer than when I build a dungeon under the assumption that thieves will be in play. Thus the existence of the thief drives me to change my dungeon designs in a way that doesn't happen with the other three classes. So what happens when the party doesn't have a thief or when the low level thief blows his rolls, which I think we can all agree start at pretty shoddy percentages? The parts of the dungeon made for the thief end up slowing down play and interrupting an otherwise smooth flow of game events. Thus I am led to the conclusion that thieves are not a necessary part of the dungeon experience, at least the way that I referee dungeon expeditions. Though to put my opinion in context, I will admit that there's very little in the Supplements that I consider useful for OD&D play. If I'm going to start adding that stuff in, I'd rather just play AD&D 1st edition. One of the problems with the thief is that his ability chances do suck. Imagine if a Magic-User had only a 15-25% chance that their spell would work at 1st level. One thing that would make the thief a more important aspect of the party would be if they were able to actually have a better chance of doing their thiefly stuff than the fighter standing their flipping a coin saying yes or no there is a trap their.
|
|