Letting players use thiefs class?

[leicamaster]

So I was talking to a couple of my players today and one of them was interested in using the thieves class. I took a look at the class in Greyhawk, but I am still not sure if I should let him. We are going to be going through Stonehell so it might be useful, but I fear it might ruin the game. I was just planning to use the three LBB's.

[Falconer]

I definitely encourage you to NOT allow the Thief class, especially if you are already so inclined. Suggest the player consider playing an Elf or Hobbit.

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Jan 9, 2012 0:24:56 GMT -6 Falconer said:

I definitely encourage you to NOT allow the Thief class, especially if you are already so inclined. Suggest the player consider playing an Elf or Hobbit.

I'd agree. There isn't any particular function that couldn't be handled elsewise, if you're sticking to the 3lbb's.

[waysoftheearth]

It's well documented that I stand against whatever anti-thief dogma is getting about, so I shall dutifully chip in here too

EGG wrote up the original thief well before it ever appeared in Greyhawk (indirectly illuminated in my first three posts in this thread. So, the thief class is at least as "original" as any material from The Strategic Review.

There was also a recent (rather epic, but entertaining I hope) discussion on the pros and cons of thieves here which you may (or may not) find interesting.

Me personally, I'd allow the thief. Why not??

Regardless of all that, it is you game and ultimately it's your choice. Enjoy ;D


edit: p.s. you could try my "simplified" thief, described as the Sneak in the 3rd post here.

[aldarron]

Jan 9, 2012 5:30:56 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

It's well documented that I stand against whatever anti-thief dogma is getting about, so I shall dutifully chip in here too

EGG wrote up the original thief well before it ever appeared in Greyhawk (indirectly illuminated in my first three posts in this thread. So, the thief class is at least as "original" as any material from The Strategic Review.

True that. But, that's no more reason to include it than the merchant or the barbarian - classes Arneson was using at the same time.

Except for th 50/50 Cleric, Arnesons' extra "classes", unlike Gygax thief, were really just fighters with with some specialties. If you don't like the thief, there's no reason you can't just let your player have a character with some background in some thiefy skills (using any of the methods proposed in the threads Ways liked too). If you want the thief skills to improve over time, you could use a seperate XP system or some such method for them - there's no particular reason they should be tied to the class level - or tie them to the saving throw categories or whatever you find easy. In short there are lots of role playing ways to customize your players without going the route of creating whole new "slots" to peg them in.

[talysman]

Jan 9, 2012 5:30:56 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

It's well documented that I stand against whatever anti-thief dogma is getting about, so I shall dutifully chip in here too

I don't think the objection to the thief class is because of its questionable provenance, but because of its implementation and how that affects other classes. Which is why there are like a thousand replacement thief classes, including yours,

And mine. My proposed thief assumes that anyone can do what the thief does with the proper training, but thieves get a modifier to surprise rolls, which makes them better at that. Also, in keeping with Greyhawk (and, apparently, none of the other versions of the class,) thieves can open magical locks. My experience table is adjusted to assume Dex 3-5 is the default and all others get xp bonuses, so if you don't want to calculate xp that way, just use the MU table and halve all xp requirements.

[premmy]

If I were the OP, I'd ask the player in question why he wants to play a Thief. It very well might be that he has some completely legitimate desire about gameplay which he tries to fulfill with the class - and then instead of introducing the class into the campaign, you could just change the rules accordingly.

While I'm no fan of the Thief class as presented in traditional editions of D&D, I must admit that D&D as a system has some deficiencies when it comes to modeling certain thief-like activities. To wit, it's abysmal at handling any form of stealth or legerdemain. A high-level, high DEX character wearing no armour should find it a lot easier to creep up on (or past) the enemy than a low-level, low-DEX knight in his clanging armour - and yet, the rules make no provisions for such a differentiation. Same thing with hiding or picking a pocket. An adventure game where these sorts of things can be expected to crop up regularly should address such possibilities with something meatier than "Your DM will make a case-by-case call", "You can't do it" and/or "Sure thing, you can try. Your name level elf has the same pitiful chance of stealth as a first level dwarf, it's called "rolling for surprise", good f**king luck, sucker!"


I believe that the much of the Thief class' popularity stems from the fact that it addresses these deficiencies of the system - only they address them for a single character class. Fix these problems for everyone by changing the rules, and there's no need for the class any more.

[Finarvyn]

I like thieves in the campaign and I have some players who really enjoy playing them. To me, the "big four" is fighter, cleric, magic-user, and thief.

Part of what I like is the fact that each class has some special things that it can do that others can't. Fighters bash things best, with high hit numbers and high hit points. Magic-users blast things from afar best. Clerics heal and have a neat blend of attack and defense. Thieves sneak, pick locks, and scout.

Of course, the very advantage of the thief becomes its disadvantage. The problem is that other classes no longer feel like they should be able to sneak since they aren't thieves.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 9, 2012 11:22:15 GMT -6 talysman said:

I don't think the objection to the thief class is because of its questionable provenance, but because of its implementation and how that affects other classes. Which is why there are like a thousand replacement thief classes,

Totally agree, Talysma; nice observation.

The move into percentile based skills is the key problem for me. It a) adds unnecessary complexity, b) gives low level thieves terrible odds of success, and c) gives players of other classes the impression that they cannot perform these functions. All bad.

I think the world would have been a happier place if thieves simply had 4 in 6 chance of performing all thief functions, while others were stuck with the regular 2 in 6.

Jan 9, 2012 15:41:30 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I like thieves in the campaign and I have some players who really enjoy playing them. To me, the "big four" is fighter, cleric, magic-user, and thief.

Part of what I like is the fact that each class has some special things that it can do that others can't. Fighters bash things best, with high hit numbers and high hit points. Magic-users blast things from afar best. Clerics heal and have a neat blend of attack and defense. Thieves sneak, pick locks, and scout.

Totally agree with you here, Fin.

Jan 9, 2012 15:41:30 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Of course, the very advantage of the thief becomes its disadvantage. The problem is that other classes no longer feel like they should be able to sneak since they aren't thieves.

I think the important thing here is to let players of the other classes know they can still do that stuff, just not as well as the professional thief.

[Mushgnome]

I like the Searchers of the Unknown system, a d20 roll modified by AC, so essentially anyone can become a "thief" by taking off their heavy armor.

The only way the original % based system works for me, is to use it for exceptional skill challenges and give ordinary challenges automatic success for all PCs. Set off a trap by probing ahead with a 10' pole? Automatic success, get on with the story. Pull an Indiana Jones swap the sand bag for the idol trick? Thief skill! PCs are roped together and use hammer & pitons? They climb the mountain, get on with the story. Free-climb the wizard's tower in a driving blizzard? Thief skill! Otherwise the % at 1st level is just so low, it's discouraging to make thieves roll for every mundane thing.

But at the end of the day, I am so in love with the chance-in-6 skill system, it's the perfect most elegant solution IMHO.

[Necropraxis]

I consider these two sources to be the best discussion of thieves in an OD&D context. If you haven't already read them, I would recommend it.

www.philotomy.com/#thieves
web.fisher.cx/robert/infogami/On_thief_skills_in_classic_D&D

Also, you might think about pointing your player at these sources and asking for his or her opinion. Obviously, players have different levels of engagement, so know your group. Perhaps the player could craft a custom class (to be approved by you).

Another option, if you want a slightly more formalized chance-in-6 skill system, you might want to think about importing the LotFP specialist.

Free legal download here:

www.lotfp.com/RPG/uploads/downloads/GrindhouseRulesMagicFree.zip

Begin shameless plug:

I also have a take on the thief class on my blog. Comments and critiques are always welcome! I tried to design this with the concerns noted in this thread in mind.

untimately.blogspot.com/2011/12/thief-draft.html

I think everyone should create at least one thief class. It's a rite of passage.

End shameless plug.

[Deleted]

The fact that most people use thieves badly is no excuse not to use thieves.

Let the player use the thief. Read the rules and use them as written; the thief abilities come in for EXCEPTIONAL circumstances. Most thieves should never have to roll for a simple climb or lock. In games with a "drive" skill, only an imbecile makes somebody roll multiple drive skill rolls to drive to the store to get a carton of milk. The same principle applies.

There's nothing wrong with the Greyhawk thief as written, and I say that as somebody who's been using it since 1974.

The biggest danger is that the person will think their thief is a "rogue" and try to be a heavy damage dealer, but that's self correcting behavior.

[Deleted]

I also roll my eyes whenever anybody talks about "pure OD&D."

OD&D was about as pure as a backalley wh0re. It doesn't borrow from other genres, it follows other genres into alleys and mugs them and goes through their pockets for loose ideas.

[Professor P]

Jan 11, 2012 10:41:57 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

... the thief abilities come in for EXCEPTIONAL circumstances. Most thieves should never have to roll for a simple climb or lock.

If you would not mind, could you elaborate upon exceptional circumstances vs. mundane circumstances?

Could any untrapped lock be picked (without a roll) as long as the thief has the proper tools? Does the exceptional circumstance mean that the thief is under some sort of time pressure? Or rather is it based on lock complexity? Or some combination of the two (and/or other factors)?

Would hiding in shadows or move silently also only require a roll in exceptional circumstances? If so, what makes a situation mundane vs. exceptional?

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

[Deleted]

The correct answer, I'm afraid, is "whatever you think."

An ordinary medieval type lock, even a first level thief could get open in five minutes or less if undisturbed.

For that matter, I've hidden in shadows. I stood next to a bush in the corner of an outside chimney at night and had half a dozen people walk by me close enough to touch and never see me because they weren't looking.

Quite frankly, the answer is 'however you want it to be.'

[Falconer]

Mike, I think it’s still a good idea for groups new to OD&D to try to make due without the Thief class for a while. It helps to figure out how to manage without them, so that when you do introduce Thieves, it’s clear they are **experts** whose abilities allow them go above and beyond normal sneakiness. Perhaps they should be allowed as referee-controlled NPCs before they are allowed as PCs.

[Deleted]

Jan 9, 2012 0:24:56 GMT -6 Falconer said:

I definitely encourage you to NOT allow the Thief class, especially if you are already so inclined. Suggest the player consider playing an Elf or Hobbit.

I have been running a 3 LBBs campaign now for 30 months and counting and I do not use the Thief Class. My players can each attempt anything that a thief can do and it doesn't matter if they are fighter, mage or cleric. It works quite well this way.

Caveat: I don't use thieves because I just don't care for them, for me they just don't fit as an openly used character class. YMMV

[Professor P]

Jan 11, 2012 23:13:16 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

The correct answer, I'm afraid, is "whatever you think."

An ordinary medieval type lock, even a first level thief could get open in five minutes or less if undisturbed.

For that matter, I've hidden in shadows. I stood next to a bush in the corner of an outside chimney at night and had half a dozen people walk by me close enough to touch and never see me because they weren't looking.

Quite frankly, the answer is 'however you want it to be.'

As it should be.

[talysman]

Jan 11, 2012 23:54:27 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Mike, I think it’s still a good idea for groups new to OD&D to try to make due without the Thief class for a while. It helps to figure out how to manage without them, so that when you do introduce Thieves, it’s clear they are **experts** whose abilities allow them go above and beyond normal sneakiness. Perhaps they should be allowed as referee-controlled NPCs before they are allowed as PCs.

There's something to be said for that.

On the other hand, for my replacement thief, I reimagined most of the thief abilities as being surprise-related. For example, a party that doesn't have a thief can get past a locked door by breaking it down, but that means that any monster behind the door won't be surprised; the way I see it, a thief's Pick Locks talent is a chance to surprise the monster anyways. A non-thief who nevertheless knows how to pick locks won't be any better at avoiding surprise than a fighter bashing the door down; the non-thief version of the talent is thus just a way to avoid damaging a locked door or chest.

[cooper]

Human, leather armor, all weapons, all demi-human search and stealth abilities (sloping passages, new construction, hidden doors, increase surprise), automatically "keen eared" , mu scroll use at 10th level.

Viola, gray mouser/thief class.

[Professor P]

Jan 12, 2012 13:35:20 GMT -6 cooper said:

Human, leather armor, all weapons, all demi-human search and stealth abilities (sloping passages, new construction, hidden doors, increase surprise), automatically "keen eared" , mu scroll use at 10th level.

Viola, gray mouser/thief class.

I've thought of doing the same thing myself. Would yours fight as a cleric or MU? What about hit dice?

[cooper]

Mu HD and attack progression. Open doors; same chance as other PC's, but attempt makes no noise.

[waysoftheearth]

It is often part of the ref's role to educate the group.

This is pretty obvious when the players are new to D&D in general, but can be equally so when the players are new to "old skool". Perhaps especially then.

The more experienced players might need to dump a whole lot of baggage they've accumulated down through the versions, and it's mainly up to the ref to help them out...

Judicious use of the thief can be a compelling part of this "eduction", IMHO.

[coffee]

Jan 14, 2012 2:10:07 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

It is often part of the ref's role to educate the group.

And this is not acknowledged enough in our hobby. Have an exalt for bringing this up again.

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Jan 14, 2012 4:30:05 GMT -6 coffee said:

Jan 14, 2012 2:10:07 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

It is often part of the ref's role to educate the group.

And this is not acknowledged enough in our hobby. Have an exalt for bringing this up again.

People often think I'm joking when I tell them, but I'm absolutely convinced that this hobby is what inspired and equipped me for a life in education, training, and public speaking. I learned so much by the use of imagination, description, explanation, creating scenarios (aka "lesson plan"), leading group discussions, bringing other people into a group... and I could go on and on.

[sorry for the O.T., but I get pretty passionate about this]

[Professor P]

Jan 14, 2012 6:50:03 GMT -6 Sean Michael Kelly said:

Jan 14, 2012 4:30:05 GMT -6 coffee said:

And this is not acknowledged enough in our hobby. Have an exalt for bringing this up again.

People often think I'm joking when I tell them, but I'm absolutely convinced that this hobby is what inspired and equipped me for a life in education, training, and public speaking. I learned so much by the use of imagination, description, explanation, creating scenarios (aka "lesson plan"), leading group discussions, bringing other people into a group... and I could go on and on.

[sorry for the O.T., but I get pretty passionate about this]

I could definitely see this. I can't wait to introduce my 3 year old to D&D.

[leicamaster]

I finally decided to not let my player use the thief's class and so far it is going well. Thank you all for the help!

[tombowings]

I'm going through this as well - whether or not to allow the Thief class in an upcoming campaign. My plan thus far is to present only the three classes from Men & Magic. If anyone specifically asks about being a thief, range, ect. I'll be more than happy to accommodation.

[ragnorakk]

Gronan - your examination of OD&D's respectful approach to genre-appropriation made my day (and has gone into my signature). Thank you!

[premmy]

Just to be a prick: you realise he hasn't invented that line, right? It's a paraphrase of something one James Nicoll once said about the English language and its vocabulary.