Thief Skills Before rhe Thief

[talysman]

Someone asked in my blog whether the LBBs explicitly say that every character can attempt to pick a lock or climb walls, or was it left up to the players to decide if that was something they wanted to try? My initial impulse was to answer it was entirely implied, but then I did a little searching. Men & Magic does mention, under the description for strength, that it affects the ability to "open traps". It doesn't say how, so it's left up to each GM to decide whether high/low Strength adds a modifier to a die roll, or each trap has a Strength threshold characters must meet before they can beat the trap, or whatever. Similarly, even though Find Traps was not originally a Greyhawk Thief function, but was added later, it's worth noting that the dwarven talent for noticing traps underground is not, as in later editions, limited to large stonework traps, like covered pits. It just says "traps". Again, no roll is given.

Climbing walls is not explicitly mentioned, but In Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, swimming sailors climbing onto ships *is* mentioned. The way it reads, climbing onto a ship is automatic.

The example of play in Underworld & Wilderness Adventures poison needles in the lock on a chest. No mention of anyone searching for or removing the needles, but interestingly, the GM never says "It's locked", even though a lock is explicitly mentioned. The player simply opens the chest and reaps the benefits.

So what I'm thinking is that, yes, at least some thief skills are explicitly mentioned in the LBBs as being something anyone could try.

[Stormcrow]

Anyone can try anything they want, but their abilities will affect their success.

Referee: "The chest appears to be locked."
Player: "I pick the lock."
Referee: "How?"
Player: "I try using some pin from that voodoo doll we found earlier."
Referee: "Not very likely." Considers the character's dexterity of 10 as too low have a significant chance with these clumsy tools; rolls against a 5% that he pulled out of his butt; fails. "You fiddle with the lock for a while, but it doesn't open."

[Deleted]

When you look at the early traps, they are things like pits with trapdoors, dropping portcullis, giant cages falling from the ceiling. These are things that could be undone with brute force rather than the darts and springing blades we think of today. As the OD&D example suggests, poison needles are just resolved with a simple Saving Throw. You don't detect them or remove them out side of saving from them.

The example of play in Empire of the Petal Throne offers some more detail about players being proactive.

Referee: "In the southeast corner of the room you see a small leather chest."
Player: "How is it locked?"
Referee: "There seems to be a simple hasp on the side nearest you."
Players: (Cautiously) "Our strongest warrior - number five in our battle order - is lying flat on his stomach and prodding the hasp with point of his spear. The rest of us are backed out into the other room."
Referee: (Mentally giving the warrior a 20 percent chance of being hit by the tiny poisoned projectile hidden in the hasp, rolling a die and finding that the spines missed the man) "A handful of little spines go zipping over the head of your warrior. He's not injured. the chest comes open."
Player: "He's being cautious, looking for other traps. What does he see?"
Referee: "No more traps. The chest contains a heap of yellow coins - about 5,000 Kaitars in all."
Players "We're searching the chest for secret compartments."
Referee: "You find none. That's all there is."

Later the party comes upon an altar covered in gold coins ...

Player: (After considerable argument) "Person number two is carefully reaching out with the point of his spear. He pushes one coin off the altar towards himself. What happens?"
Referee: (Laughing fiendishly) "That's all it takes to set off the trap. A great metal cage falls clanging down over all of you. I believe you were all up near the altar - nobody specified leaving any of the party behind to guard the door, and I thus assume you were all within the 20 foot square area covered by the cage. (Rolling percentile dice, giving the party a 20 percent chance to have one or more stragglers out side the cage area - none were). When the cage falls, you also see that the idol on the altar begins to arise. What you thought was it's metal surface was actually its armor. At the same time secret doors in the north and south walls also swing open, and fifty smaller versions of the idol file into the room expectantly. You have now encountered the Demon Kurritlakal, the Cracker of Bones, Eater of Skins, Father of One Thousand Progeny, Spawn of the Great Durritlamish ..."

[Deleted]

Anybody can try anything. D&D characters are considered to be competent adventurers, not bumbling amateurs. I think adding skills in general is the worst thing that ever happened.

[talysman]

Jul 25, 2013 16:17:18 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Anybody can try anything. D&D characters are considered to be competent adventurers, not bumbling amateurs. I think adding skills in general is the worst thing that ever happened.

I agree. Not only did adding skills cause a slight shift towards "Anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden", but also, looking back over the examples of the dwarf finding traps and the sailors climbing onto ships, I notice that adding skills shifted us away from "some things are automatic".

A lot of the examples of so-called skills in the original rules are really checks to see if something goes wrong (traps, spikes slipping, drowning.) That's why crap like "Use Rope" is stupid: whether someone can tie a knot or not isn't interesting; knots slipping undone or ropes breaking *is*.

[Deleted]

Don't get me started.

"Use Rope" is one of the skills that makes me foam at the mouth. It's right up there with "Eat Food" and "Take Crap."

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 25, 2013 11:04:52 GMT -6 talysman said:

Climbing walls is not explicitly mentioned, but In Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, swimming sailors climbing onto ships *is* mentioned. The way it reads, climbing onto a ship is automatic.

I don't have the books with me, but I'm pretty sure I remember an example of climbing out of a pit trap is mentioned in the explanation of the sample dungeon at the start of U&WA.

[geoffrey]

Jul 25, 2013 16:17:18 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Anybody can try anything. D&D characters are considered to be competent adventurers, not bumbling amateurs. I think adding skills in general is the worst thing that ever happened.

I thoroughly agree. Of course we need quantification of combat and movement, but anything else that can be done in the real world is best governed by DM fiat. Thus the only non-magical class we need is the fighting-man. Classes with magical powers (such as magic-users, clerics, illusionists, druids, pyrologists, alchemists, witches, Carcosan sorcerers, etc.) can profitably be added because each one has unique magical abilities that can be attempted only by that class.

Use Rope, Eat Food, Take Crap, indeed.

[bestialwarlust]

Jul 25, 2013 17:03:02 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Don't get me started.

"Use Rope" is one of the skills that makes me foam at the mouth. It's right up there with "Eat Food" and "Take Crap."

See I'd have to rule that you urinate on yourself as you didn't explicitly mention that skill

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 25, 2013 18:23:48 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Thus the only non-magical class we need is the fighting-man.

Yeah but... Even Chainmail differentiates rangers from regular heroes

[Stormcrow]

Every character has (common) abilities. A class is a thematic package of special abilities with multiple levels. A subclass is a class whose special abilities have been modified by another package within the class's theme.

The fighter is not sufficient to cover every possible non-magic-using character. If you get away from the theme of using physical prowess to achieve goals, you're not a fighter anymore. A thief is not a subclass of fighter: it is not thematically related, and it shares none of the fighter's special abilities.

[blackadder23]

I've never really understood the animosity for the thief in D&D. None of the objections actually hold much water, in my opinion.

GENRE PEDIGREE: Appendix N literature is lousy with thieves. Seriously, there are too many to even consider listing them all. Thieves are right up there with warriors and sorcerers as genre archetypes.

UTILITY: The thief has a clearly defined role different from any other class: scouting, finding and disarming traps, taking things by stealth, attacking from behind. Also, it simply isn't true that "no one wants to play a thief" (a puzzling claim I've seen several times). In my experience they're more popular than any of the spell-casting classes.

SKILLS: I detest the modern versions of D&D, and I really don't like skills much in any RPG. What I hate most about them is every character has a lot of little random skills and everyone has to constantly study their character sheets to see what they can and can't do. It makes the game drag. None of this applies to the thief. All thieves have the same skills and the chance of success depends on level. Simple. In addition, there's nothing random about the skills that thieves have. They are all thing that thieves could realistically be expected to do as part of their profession. The flip side of this is that, since only thieves can pick locks, I don't have to worry whether a character of another class put 5% in Pick Locks so he could annoy the DM with constant hopeless attempts. He didn't because he can't.

REALISM: I find the argument "anybody can pick a lock" to be, with all due respect, fairly preposterous. In the movies picking a lock may involve sticking a hair pin in the lock and randomly wiggling, but in fact it's a learned skill and "success by random wiggling" is unlikely. Certainly fighters, clerics, and magic-users are all competent in their fields. Similarly, modern soldiers, clergymen, and scientists are competent in their fields. But I would guess the number of modern soldiers, etc. who could pick a lock is pretty small, and I don't see any reason to believe their pseudomedieval counterparts would be any more proficient in that area. Who usually can pick locks? Criminals - or in other words, thieves. The same applies to the other thieving skills. I really don't see any reason to believe that "anybody" can move silently, hide in shadows, pick pockets, climb sheer surfaces, etc. successfully without proper training.

To me, the thief is appropriate to the genre, useful in practice, and eminently "realistic" in capabilities (to the extent it's possible to discuss that issue in this context without bursting into laughter). I really don't understand the animosity. I wonder if people would be more accepting of the thief if the class had been included in the original LBB's, rather than bizarrely (in light of the genre prominence of this archetype) being omitted?

[Stormcrow]

Jul 26, 2013 11:26:56 GMT -6 blackadder23 said:

I wonder if people would be more accepting of the thief if the class had been included in the original LBB's, rather than bizarrely (in light of the genre prominence of this archetype) being omitted?

The classes of D&D didn't grow out of archetypes; they grew out of Chainmail. In that game, you have characters who fight in large battles: great fighting-men and powerful magic-users. D&D took both of these, expanded them, and added a half-and-half class, the cleric. Nothing in Chainmail led directly to the thief, so the archetype wasn't considered.

Once D&D was removed from the pure combat of Chainmail, players started looking for fantastic tropes that hadn't yet been turned into a class, and so came the thief, as well as various subclasses.

[Random]

Jul 26, 2013 11:26:56 GMT -6 blackadder23 said:

SKILLS: I detest the modern versions of D&D, and I really don't like skills much in any RPG. What I hate most about them is every character has a lot of little random skills and everyone has to constantly study their character sheets to see what they can and can't do. It makes the game drag. None of this applies to the thief. All thieves have the same skills and the chance of success depends on level. Simple. In addition, there's nothing random about the skills that thieves have. They are all thing that thieves could realistically be expected to do as part of their profession. The flip side of this is that, since only thieves can pick locks, I don't have to worry whether a character of another class put 5% in Pick Locks so he could annoy the DM with constant hopeless attempts. He didn't because he can't.

I almost want to agree, but not really.

While fighters and such obviously cannot cast a magic-user's spells, everyone can have a go at hand-to-hand combat, and likewise everyone can attempt to pick someone's pocket or silently tip-toe across a room. The odds of success suck for non-thieves*, and I make up for the annoyance of repeated failed attempts in my game** with the passage of time.

Oh, you want to spend a turn picking that lock? 5% chance of success, Mr. Magic-user, go for it! They'd average nearly two hours fumbling with it before getting it open, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

*And for thieves who've failed their first attempt. I only allow retries at untrained chances. It's still not an issue when they're worried about wandering monsters and whatnot.

**Disclaimer: We play AD&D, but this issue applies there as well.

[Deleted]

I don't really understand the hate for skills, but then again I prefer skills to classes.

[blackadder23]

Jul 26, 2013 12:56:35 GMT -6 Random said:

I almost want to agree, but not really.

Thank you for your support.

Jul 26, 2013 12:56:35 GMT -6 Random said:

While fighters and such obviously cannot cast a magic-user's spells, everyone can have a go at hand-to-hand combat, and likewise everyone can attempt to pick someone's pocket or silently tip-toe across a room. The odds of success suck for non-thieves*, and I make up for the annoyance of repeated failed attempts in my game** with the passage of time.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. I believe there are some things untrained people just can't do successfully, and that most thief skills fall in that category. I particularly don't believe that the typical fighter or cleric clomping around in metal armor would have any chance of moving silently. As far as solving the problem by punishing people for wasting time, I tend to be proactive in those situations. Keep in mind that such a player is wasting not just his time and mine, but the time of everyone at the table. I feel it's my job as DM to manage situations like that. I would much, much rather just tell a player "you can't pick locks because you don't know how" than tell him he has a 1% chance and watch him bull-headedly roll a hundred times to spite me. But that's just me.

[Random]

I didn't mean punish them for wasting table time; I meant "punish" them for wasting in-game time.

If you gave Crappy-Dex the Fighter a 1% chance per turn to pick a lock, that would probably amount to a hard day's work. They might as well bring some furniture and move in while they're at it.

Alternatively, just give them an initial small % and decrease it by one each time, so they can only make a half a dozen rolls or so until it's apparent they just aren't capable (but they still waste a bunch of time).

I really don't like saying "no, you absolutely can't do that" when the action in question is theoretically possible.

(For what it's worth, I've only attempted to pick a lock once in my life. I gave up after about ten minutes and simply bashed it in with a hammer.)

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 25, 2013 18:23:48 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Thus the only non-magical class we need is the fighting-man.

This may be true for a very specific type of campaigning; fightin' stuff. But to characterise all non-magical PCs as "fighting men" is a very blunt stroke indeed.

For a start, fighting men are not all one and the same thing. Armies of "fighting men" comprise cavalrymen, footmen, missile men, artillery men, and so on, which are very different roles. You'll see these (and other types besides) differentiated in most table top wargames. D&D is concerned primarily with footmen, sure, but that doesn't mean players should be limited to these only.  Even Chainmail differentiates rangers from regular heroes.

And that's just within fighting men.

Spare a thought for the ever popular fighting-monk character. Magic using? No. But he doesn't employ armour at all, has only a limited range of weapons, and has a bunch of mythic "skills" such as fighting open handed, parrying arrows, jumping/dropping incredible distances, running on water, the dreaded "quivering palm" attack, and so on. Is this character described by the fighting-man class?  Not really.

What about the (real world) bard?
What about the ship's navigator?
The alchemist?
The poisoner?
The beast master?
The street urchin?
The harem courtesan?
The troubadour?
The professional gambler?
The list goes on.

Arbitrarily pinning the label "fighting man" on all these (and many more besides) does them little justice, and in truth degrades the true fighting-man. If "everyone else" is given the fighting-man's advantages without any particular dedication or training, it implies that there is nothing special about the fighting class whatever. Which is not true. Fighting properly is a genuine talent that does take immense dedication and training. How could a street urchin who has never held a sword, let alone worn armour possibly be equal in combat to a proper fighting man?? It's absurd!  How could a professional fighter who has spent his whole life drilling for combat possibly be equal in picking pockets to the street urchin who does it every day to survive? It's equally absurd.

D&D is exceptionally generous in allowing the non-fighting classes to advance on the attack matrices; I suspect that reality would be much harsher. Imagine, for example, a gang of 20 university academics (today's "name level wizards") given staves and daggers and put on a battlefield in front of 20 grim fighting-men. The case for clerics I can merit if they're deemed to be templar-knight sorts, but if they're priestly sorts then they'd be no more effective in combat than would academics.

Ever notice how all the untrained fighters in table top games are classed as "levy", or "militia", or similar, and that they are really crap in battle? Those are your non-fighting-men in action, right there.


I've never understood the animosity from some quarters toward "skill characters". Let's face it; some players like magic, some players like combat, and some players like friggin' about. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact the 3LBBs state: "There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything".

Moreover, OD&D describes a number of "phenomena" (surprising enemy, finding secret doors, listening at doors) which are exactly analogous to various thief skills. Regular adventurers (fighters, clerics, m-us) have 2 chances in 6 of doing most of these things, so how is it a game breaker if a thief (or other skill character) has 3 or 4 chances in 6 of doing these things? There's already precedent for this in the 3LBBs too; elves are especially "good at" finding secret doors and have 4 chances in 6 of doing so. There's no reason I can see why an "expert treasure hunter" wouldn't be "good at" finding secret doors too.  It makes perfect sense.

Moreover, I have never understood why a thief's pseudo-magical ability to, say, "hide in shadows" gets bad press while the cleric's pseudo-magical ability to turn undead is all fine and dandy.  They're hardly so very different people!

Any character can rebuke undead with a Holy symbol, but only a cleric can TURN UNDEAD away with a Holy symbol.
Any character can hide in a wardrobe, but only a thief can hide IN THE SHADOW of the wardrobe.

[Vile Traveller]

I personally love thieves and play them whenever I get a chance. I don't have a problem with skills, but then I'm a RuneQuest fan. I don't have a problem with thieves' skills, specifically, because they allow thieves to do things no normal person can do in my games. I don't think four classes are too much.

Mainly, though, I think thieves add an important fourth side to the character quadrangle - you have a strong/tough guy, a wise guy, a smart guy, and a sneaky guy.

Plus, of course, that fighter: "You're too big to be a thief."

[dizzysaxophone]

I also enjoy the thief. It is by far my favorite class to play. I fitted the thief into my mostly lbb only game. Probably because I wasn't raised on OD&D (I mean, I was only born 15 years after its release >.>). I find it to be a staple, and a good fit that doesn't step on anyone else's toes.

The skills don't bother me (though more in-depth skill systems like NWP, or what came in 3/3.5, I'm not a fan of in a class based game like D&D). I've been trying to push my thief into using the LotFP thief skill system, so he can customize his skills a bit more, and it also gives everyone else a chance to do thief skills. Not that it is entirely likely, but better than 'nope'.

[Vile Traveller]

Oh, totally forgot to throw in this link on thieves during the golden age of Islam, via Dragonsfoot. Setting aside game mechanics for a moment, this is the real reason for thieves in my games.

www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=62298

[Random]

Jul 27, 2013 18:54:40 GMT -6 dizzysaxophone said:

Probably because I wasn't raised on OD&D (I mean, I was only born 15 years after its release >.>)

Eh, doesn't matter. I was born in 1986. The game is still fun. I played some AD&D just this afternoon, and we rocked it. (Although I'm wasted now, pretty much.)

[austinjimm]

Jul 25, 2013 16:17:18 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Anybody can try anything. D&D characters are considered to be competent adventurers, not bumbling amateurs. I think adding skills in general is the worst thing that ever happened.

This.

I do use a house-ruled thief class, but the only thing I think they are really *necessary* for is "picking" locks. The same thing can be accomplished by any other character with a heavy hammer.

[Porphyre]

What about the (real world) bard?
What about the ship's navigator?
The alchemist?
The poisoner?
The beast master?
The street urchin?
The harem courtesan?
The troubadour?
The professional gambler?
The list goes on.

Most of those could just be "Normal men", with some field of expertise , i e in D&D terms "specialists" (the ships navigator and the alchemist are part of the list in Underworld & Wilderness Adventures ; as is the poisoner, if you interprete the Assassin in that way).

Some others can be of any class.
The real world celtic bard was trained by druids , so he could be a cleric with a harp. Norse skalds usually were fighters ( see the Hallfredr saga) who could versify.


EDIT: as a matter of fact, it could be an interesting idea to turn the official lists of specialists into a list of skills a PC can choose in place of, say, an additionnal language.
A fighting-man who also is a sailor could be a pirate; another who is an animal trainer could be a "beast master", and a fighting-man who  is an armorer could be Conan's father (in the film, at least)

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 29, 2013 6:07:53 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Most of those could just be "Normal men", with some field of expertise

I agree, most of them could, and should be represented as normal men if they are NPCs.

But the intention was to suppose a player wanted to play any of these types as a PC.


The beast master PC (just for example) -- with mythic powers of animal training, affiliation, healing, possibly even animal ESP and/or some form of lycanthropy -- is not IMHO well represented as a bog standard "fighting-man".

The same principle applies to many other character types.

The more general question is: why try to constrain play when the 3LBBs specifically suggest we shouldn't?

[Stormcrow]

Jul 29, 2013 6:39:34 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Jul 29, 2013 6:07:53 GMT -6 Porphyre said:

Most of those could just be "Normal men", with some field of expertise

I agree, most of them could, and should be represented as normal men if they are NPCs.

But the intention was to suppose a player wanted to play any of these types as a PC.

See my definition of a class, above. Add to it the understanding that levels are achieved by gaining experience through adventuring.

If you want to play one of these professions as a player-character class, you'll need to define their special abilities and their levels.

[aldarron]

There's a number of arguments on this board about which this could be pointed out, but here's as good as any: there are exactly two ways to look at any classification system - lumping and splitting.

Usually a person will be inclined to consistently either lump or split. Lumpers tend to take a "big picture" approach and see similar things as practically equivalent. Splitters tend to be more micro focused and see similar things as notably distinct.

Lumpers and splitters will talk past each other all day, and there is no objective right or wrong since in the end its a matter of philosophical perspective.

That said, I'm a lumper. I don't see any evidence for super skilled thieves as some kind of literary or mythic archetype distinct from the rough and tumble fighter type. In fact, the original archytypical thief in fantasy literature is no doubt Conan. Need I say more?

In my view, it is less good to separate out "thief skills" and assign them as a lump to a seperate class. It takes away from character creativity. There is no reason, for example, a cleric couldn't also be an expert pickpocket or climber or what have you. Real life, is of course, full of such people. The EPT example Hedgehobbit pointed out are great ones and I think that's the spirit of the 3lbb's in line with what Talysman wrote. There are two "thieves" in my campaign. Both are Fighters who have a fondness and a certain skill for acquiring things from unwilling owners.

However, thieves, or almost any other "class" can be made to work at a gaming table if that's the way the DM prefers it. It's up to you of course, and if I sit at your table I'll play any class you hand me.

[Porphyre]

Jul 29, 2013 8:24:20 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Lumpers and splitters will talk past each other all day, and there is no objective right or wrong since in the end its a matter of philosophical perspective.

Sorry, couldn't help it:


www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY

[Koren n'Rhys]

You can put me in the camp that likes having them in, I suppose. That said, I like the super-simplified version from Delving Deeper, as well as other specialized classes using that same model. For NPCs you can get away with winging it, but for PCs, you need to have a way to improve over time, IMO.

I agree with Blackadder, up above. Granted, medieval locks are pretty crude, but a hammer will be loud and break things, not just open them. I don't think picking a lock, or being especially quiet is something anyone can do at all. You CAN train and improve at climbing, hiding, sneaking, breaking and entering or observation, just as you can at fighting. No matter what you do, if you want to get better at anything, it takes time and focus to do.

Anyone can stab someone with a knife, or shoot a gun. That doesn't mean you'll be successful at it. Modern soldiers and police spend time practicing to maintain skill, let alone improve it. Anyone can punch someone, but I guarantee that as a black belt in karate, I can do it a hell of a lot more effectively and efficiently than most people. And as far as all that mythical monk stuff goes? I've seen video of a master in my style catching an arrow out of the air, shot from a modern compound bow, so it is certainly possible. Useful in combat? Probably not, but cool to see! :-)

[Deleted]

The problem with making "thief" a fighter with skills in D&D is that the system is not sufficiently fine-grained to make "warrior with light armor" a viable choice. This comes, I think, from CHAINMAIL, because in medieval combat, historically you wore as much ironmongery as you could get your mitts on in most cases; it was only in the 16th and 17th century that soldiers started discarding it and figuring "a potte of ale was better defense".

The "Thief" class is given enough differentiation to make "light armor sneak with a rapier" a viable choice. The idea doesn't work well in the OD&D combat system if you try to make that character a regular fighter, trust me.

In a skill based system it would be a more viable choice (q.v. The Fantasy Trip).