Post by James Maliszewski on Feb 21, 2008 15:47:07 GMT -6
It's well established on these boards that many people consider the Thief an interloper class that doesn't belong in OD&D, because its existence as a "specialist" class seriously warps the notion of what a class is. Despite this, the reality is that most D&D players long ago accepted the Thief as part of the "Holy Tetralogy" of essential classes, so it's hard to sell many of them on the notion that the Thief doesn't fit the game.
Still, I personally haven't made my peace with the Thief and the reasons are twofold. First, the archetype of The Thief is proper to pulp fantasy and it'd be wrong to dispense with it. However, just because something is an archetype, that doesn't mean it needs to be a class (though it is a strong candidate for it). Conan was The Thief in his early career. The Gray Mouser is also The Thief. Cugel the Clever is The Thief. I could go on and come up with lots of other examples and what you'd discover, as I did, is that the Thief is, in many ways, the default role for all pulp fantasy protagonists. There are exceptions, of course, but you'd be amazed to discover how many pulp fantasy heroes are thieves, by vocation, if not by formal profession. And if you think about it, what is dungeon crawling except tomb robbery and what is tomb robbery except thievery? Given that, I think a truly pulp fantasy-inspired D&D needs to make it possible for any class to be The Thief. And when you consider that the Thief, as written up in Greyhawk is notable primarily for being able to do ordinary things very well -- things all characters should be able to attempt -- the rationale for the class lessens even further.
This brings me to my second problem with the Thief. A good character class is a solid archetype, something that transcends individual examples of it and that you can see uniting very different characters at base. The Thief's problem is that it's not one but two archetypes. The Thief is at once Nimble Fighter and Magical Dabbler. My solution is that the Magical Dabbler should become a separate class -- let's call him the Rogue -- which is the Gray Mouser/Cugel the Clever class in reality rather than as an afterthought. This probably means mugging bits and pieces of the bard and illusionist and stealing their stuff, as the cool kids say, but I'm fine with that, since I don't much like those classes and they don't really have a place in pulp fantasy, at least not as classically presented. Nimble Fighter could simply become a species of the Fighting Man, whether a sub-class proper or just a specific implementation of the existing class.
In any case, I think the Thief needs to go. Mechanically, I think his existence does violence to OD&D's more free form approach to action (not to mention the conception of classes as archetypes) and thematically he's not well suited to the pulp fantasy roots of the game.
Still, I personally haven't made my peace with the Thief and the reasons are twofold. First, the archetype of The Thief is proper to pulp fantasy and it'd be wrong to dispense with it. However, just because something is an archetype, that doesn't mean it needs to be a class (though it is a strong candidate for it). Conan was The Thief in his early career. The Gray Mouser is also The Thief. Cugel the Clever is The Thief. I could go on and come up with lots of other examples and what you'd discover, as I did, is that the Thief is, in many ways, the default role for all pulp fantasy protagonists. There are exceptions, of course, but you'd be amazed to discover how many pulp fantasy heroes are thieves, by vocation, if not by formal profession. And if you think about it, what is dungeon crawling except tomb robbery and what is tomb robbery except thievery? Given that, I think a truly pulp fantasy-inspired D&D needs to make it possible for any class to be The Thief. And when you consider that the Thief, as written up in Greyhawk is notable primarily for being able to do ordinary things very well -- things all characters should be able to attempt -- the rationale for the class lessens even further.
This brings me to my second problem with the Thief. A good character class is a solid archetype, something that transcends individual examples of it and that you can see uniting very different characters at base. The Thief's problem is that it's not one but two archetypes. The Thief is at once Nimble Fighter and Magical Dabbler. My solution is that the Magical Dabbler should become a separate class -- let's call him the Rogue -- which is the Gray Mouser/Cugel the Clever class in reality rather than as an afterthought. This probably means mugging bits and pieces of the bard and illusionist and stealing their stuff, as the cool kids say, but I'm fine with that, since I don't much like those classes and they don't really have a place in pulp fantasy, at least not as classically presented. Nimble Fighter could simply become a species of the Fighting Man, whether a sub-class proper or just a specific implementation of the existing class.
In any case, I think the Thief needs to go. Mechanically, I think his existence does violence to OD&D's more free form approach to action (not to mention the conception of classes as archetypes) and thematically he's not well suited to the pulp fantasy roots of the game.
