Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 10:38:47 GMT -6
See I'd have to rule that you urinate on yourself as you didn't explicitly mention that skill  I call that "zipper reffing". As in, "I hit the dirt!" "Well, you didn't specify you zipped up your pants, so when you hit the dirt you skin your peener. You take -2 to all die rolls for the next day." |
|
|
|
Post by bestialwarlust on Jul 29, 2013 10:41:06 GMT -6
See I'd have to rule that you urinate on yourself as you didn't explicitly mention that skill I call that "zipper reffing". As in, "I hit the dirt!" "Well, you didn't specify you zipped up your pants, so when you hit the dirt you skin your peener. You take -2 to all die rolls for the next day." Ouch! |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 29, 2013 11:10:48 GMT -6
I pondered the skill issue when I creating the Majestic Wilderlands supplement. What I came up is that any character can try anything but some are better at certain things than others. So anybody can pick locks but burglars are better at it. I feel it is the best way of adding classes or options that have non-combat differences without introducing the prohibitions of the traditional skill system.
This is why I don't call these additions skills, I choose to name them abilities. I feel abilities are the most D&Dish way of adding non-combat differences to characters.
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Jul 29, 2013 11:11:50 GMT -6
Not meaning to siderail the topic, but I am trying to find the XP table for the thief in GH and cannot find it. I see a "combat" reference to use the cleric combat steps 1-4, 5-8, etc., and for saves, but no reference to the XP required per level. I might need to have my glasses checked. Could somebody help me out?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 11:14:34 GMT -6
Not meaning to siderail the topic, but I am trying to find the XP table for the thief in GH and cannot find it. I see a "combat" reference to use the cleric combat steps 1-4, 5-8, etc., and for saves, but no reference to the XP required per level. I might need to have my glasses checked. Could somebody help me out? Page 9, bottom of the page. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 29, 2013 11:24:58 GMT -6
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". That's why I based my Beast Master class off clerics instead, using Turn Undead as an animal command/control ability. This thread wasn't really about whether thieves should be included or excluded, or how to represent other skilled characters, but what the heck, here goes: my solution is to separate the skilled characters from the "extraordinarily skilled" characters and handle the first as F/M-U/T/C with a broad bonus background and the second as one of those classes with the main power re-defined, or possibly a hybrid of two classes. So, taking your list from earlier in the thread, I see some of the non-magical versions of those concepts as either Thief variants or Cleric variants, depending on whether their abilities are based around skill or influence. - Real world bard? Cleric with charm abilities based on turn undead.
- Poisoner? Thief with poisoning replacing backstab.
- Gambler? Thief/Cleric hybrid with just thief manipulation abilities repurposed as card/dice manipulation, and turn undead repurposed as distraction and fast-talk.
Alchemist? That seems more like a magical class, and I've written them up as an M-U variant. But I could do a more mundane version (Apothecary) swapping chemical manipulation and identification for physical manipulation/stealth and replacing backstab with poisoning. The navigator, street urchin, harem courtesan, and troubadour seem more like backgrounds that could be added to any class, but if you could define what extraordinary ability or influence ability would be relevant to those backgrounds, you could do a Thief variant, Cleric variant, or Thief/Cleric hybrid version of them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 11:40:49 GMT -6
I'm going to have a go a specifying how various things are handled in a no-thief campaign based on the examples from early games:
Trap: Large mechanical devices like cages, portcullis and falling walls.
How to: Affects characters based on their location. Can be removed with a strength check
Trap: Poisons needles and such
How to: Saving throw to avoid.
Trap: Pits
How to: 1-2 or 1-3 on a d6 for first rank to fall in. Reduced chance for later ranks. Can avoid by probing ahead. Can get out with rope.
Trap: Shooting darts, spears or other bladed traps
How to: Either fixed percentage chance to hit or possible regular attack roll.
Skill: Hiding and moving silently
How to: Surprise check. Improved chance of surprise if invisible.
Skill: Climbing
How to: Reduced movement speed. Possible die roll or ability check if climb is difficult.
Skill: Picking locks
How to: ?? finding the key, maybe ?? I have no idea how this was handled.
Skill: Picking pockets
How to: Who actually does this?
I still believe that the "thief is Aquaman" however, looking at this chart makes me think that the regular thief skills aren't so bad, even at low levels. For example, a thief can avoid a saving throw with a remove traps roll, surprise an opponent more often by being treated as invisible, climb things normal characters can't climb, or open doors without having to find the key (most likely avoiding an encounter).
|
|
oldkat
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 431
|
Post by oldkat on Jul 29, 2013 11:46:27 GMT -6
Not meaning to siderail the topic, but I am trying to find the XP table for the thief in GH and cannot find it. I see a "combat" reference to use the cleric combat steps 1-4, 5-8, etc., and for saves, but no reference to the XP required per level. I might need to have my glasses checked. Could somebody help me out? Page 9, bottom of the page.  I'm making an appointment with my eye doctor tomorrow!  Thanx. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 11:52:47 GMT -6
No sweat, glad to help!
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jul 29, 2013 15:42:54 GMT -6
Talking about apothecaries as a mundane equivalent to alchemists prompted me to actually write up the class: The Apothecary |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 30, 2013 0:53:08 GMT -6
In fact, the original archytypical thief in fantasy literature is no doubt Conan. Need I say more? Surely you've read/heard of some of these too: Robyn Hood (15th century) Ali Baba (and the forty thieves) (18th century, or earlier) Lord Lister (1908) Zorro (1919) Simon Templar (The Saint) (1928) Conan the Barbarian (1932) Bilbo Baggins, Smeagol, Grima Wormtongue, etc. (1937) Jack Dawkins (the Artful Dodger) and F a g i n (1938) Aladdin Catwoman Etc. etc. etc. "original" is a always a dramatic word to use, but how original was the original? And besides, consider: Smeagol the fighting-man?! "Need I say more?" It takes away from character creativity. No piece of text takes anything away; the lazy player can dispense with creativity with or without guidance. 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. The self professed "lumper" argues the addition of unique skillz to the "lump"? It doesn't make a compelling case for lumping. I agree that real life is full of these people. That's why acknowledging "tha skillz" exist makes sense. That's not to say that the "percentage based thief skills" from GH are a good implementation; I don't believe they are. But I do believe that the elegant, d6 based system for "doing stuff" presented in the 3LBBs is a very good model to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 30, 2013 5:25:21 GMT -6
In fact, the original archytypical thief in fantasy literature is no doubt Conan. Need I say more? Surely you've read/heard of some of these too: Robyn Hood (15th century) Ali Baba (and the forty thieves) (18th century, or earlier) Lord Lister (1908) Zorro (1919) Simon Templar (The Saint) (1928) Conan the Barbarian (1932) Bilbo Baggins, Smeagol, Grima Wormtongue, etc. (1937) Jack Dawkins (the Artful Dodger) and F a g i n (1938) Aladdin Catwoman Etc. etc. etc. "original" is a always a dramatic word to use, but how original was the original? And besides, consider: Smeagol the fighting-man?! "Need I say more?" I'm not familiar with Templar, Lister, or Dawkins, but otherwise that looks like a great list of heroes and scrappers to me. Even Baggins fights or magics his way out much more often than any "thief" skills come into play. I see no reason to take back what I said about Conan being the original thief of fantasy literature, but I guess Baggins could be seen that way too. It takes away from character creativity. No piece of text takes anything away; the lazy player can dispense with creativity with or without guidance. 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. The self professed "lumper" argues the addition of unique skillz to the "lump"? It doesn't make a compelling case for lumping. .... I'm not trying to argue for lumping as a philosophy, certainly not on a gaming board. I'm merely pointing out that the two different outlooks will not communicate well. I didn't say there is a skills system currently in use in my campaign either, and skills systems have absolutely nothing to do with lumping and splitting in any case. Lumping applies to less classes and splitting would favor more classes. What I actually do is provide a bonus to saving throws involving certain of the activities which the "thief" characters in my campaign are skilled at. One of them is remarkably good at sneaking, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 30, 2013 7:51:49 GMT -6
I'm not familiar with Templar, Lister, or Dawkins, but otherwise that looks like a great list of heroes and scrappers to me. Even Baggins fights or magics his way out much more often than any "thief" skills come into play. That's freaky. Those characters are rogues, scoundrels, burglars, gentlemen-thieves, and pick pockets the lot of 'em. Baggins, in particular, spends an entire novel picking trolls' pockets, sneaking, hiding, climbing trees, riddling, spying, pinchin' stuff, and generally being tricksy and avoiding combat. The only fighting he does is with the spiders of Mirkwood, and this is purely by trickery and ambush (with the aid of invisibility). edit: If Conan the Barbarian is your "model thief", then it's easy to see why you'd say the fighting-man class will do nicely. Because Conan is first and foremost a warrior. Any thieving he may do is incidental compared to all the fighting he does. If, on the other hand, your "model thief" is Smeagol (a genuine sneak if ever there was one!), Baggins (the reason hero thieves are named Burglars), The Artful Dodger (a professional pick pocket), or other characters who rarely, if ever, even touch weapons then the fighting-man class is simply not a good match. When EGG penned the original thief description, he started with: " Thieves are generally not meant to fight", and that is exactly the difference between a proper thief and a fighting-man right there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2013 20:09:23 GMT -6
Hello, board! First post here.
"Thief" functions without "thieves":
Open locks - Anyone with both intelligence and dexterity above 11 should have no trouble learning this skill. If a party of adventurers keeps encountering locked doors and chests and would find it useful to learn how to pick locks so they can avoid breaking the closures, someone among them will bribe a locksmith or burglar and learn everything they need to know about it within a week. Locks can have varying levels of difficulty.
Remove traps - I wonder about the value of this skill, other than to have a trap to install somewhere else. Adventurers should concern themselves primarily with avoiding or otherwise foiling traps, something which will vary with the trap. For instance, if the party finds a poison needle trap on a chest should they bother to remove it or simply plug the aperture or position themselves to avoid it as they open the chest? At any rate removal of a trap will depend on the details of the trap.
Listen for noise - Anyone can try this. Background noise will naturally make it more difficult. If you care to you can come up with a way of determining hearing acuity for each character.
Move with great stealth - Anyone can try this. You can modify the chance of success by any number of factors: steps taken to muffle the joints in armor, steps taken to stop coins and potion bottles from jingling and jangling, the character's ability to balance his weight and quiet his breathing (use dexterity for this), the character's load, background noise, distractions, etc. Those who balk at the idea of armored fighters moving stealthily should take heed of the great role of stealth in warfare.
Pick pockets - Give this ability to magic-users with a dexterity score of 13 or greater. Such a character would excel at conjuration and legerdemain.
Hide in shadows - Anyone can try this. Can the character fit in the shadow? Does he wear dark clothing? Does he have his magic sword sheathed? Etc.
Strike silently from behind - Anyone can try this with a fitting bonus to the attack roll if he indeed moved stealthily to the target. I don't know about a damage multiplier. Perhaps full damage if especially well executed.
Climb nearly sheer surfaces - Extend this ability to any character with both strength and dexterity of 13 or greater. Mind the character's load and adjust the requirements or chances of success accordingly.
Not every type of character in the game world merits a character class.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 5, 2013 8:41:58 GMT -6
I don't really understand the hate for skills, but then again I prefer skills to classes. Personally, my dislike for skills comes from a couple of thoughts: (1) Skills complicate the game. I like my rules simple. If you want to try something, roll a stat check. Adding layers of skills make the characters more "realistic" but it's realism I don't need. (2) A skill list isn't a "can do" list, it's a "can't do" list. My experience has been that most players look at their skill list to decide what they can do, and don't bother to attempt things that aren't on the list. We need to pick a lock but have no thief; maybe we'll just go another route instead." You can educate them about this but it just doesn't seem to stick well. My players always seem to focus on what they can't do, which seems to be a much longer list than what they can do. (3) To be fair, monsters should have them, too. This is, in my opinion, where 3E totally derailed. Players get skills and feats so that they can do these cool things, so NPCs and monsters ought to have them as well. This sort of circles back to my first point, where we add in layers of depth that I don't like or want in my game. As a DM I have many characters to juggle, and I like them to be simple rather than complex. Don't get me wrong -- back in the 80's my other DM in our group ran skill-based games all of the time and loved it. It just wasn't my "thing" and while I don't mind playing those characters I don't like to run those worlds. Just my two coppers. |
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 5, 2013 10:46:21 GMT -6
One reason I like OD&D is that it has very broad classes - except for the cleric, which is a real oddity in my opinion. To me, the most broad, generic fantasy has two basic classes: "men of action" and "men of magic."
For those who argue that not all physical types should fit the fighting class, and that fighting is very specific, I would say you get into a problem. OD&D seems to have began in a very generic, broad sort of way. As you start adding classes, you move away from the very broad and generic towards the very specific. Now fighting man is not adequate; you need monks, cavaliers, rangers, barbarians,ninjas, samurai, archers, etc (I mean, isn't archery a very distinct skill from sword fighting? Why do we include both at equal levels in one class)?
You'd also probably want to divide up the very bland "magic user" into more specific categories; sorcerers, warlocks, witches, conjurers, illusionists, or whatever.
Pretty soon you are going to have to start toting around some college textbook sized D&D manuals to help you keep track of all your various classes and kits and special abilities. I got into OD&D because I was tired of those textbook sized manuals.
What is weird is D&D challenges its own broad classes by adding a very distinct and specific one; the cleric. And in the process sets off a really problematic chain of developments. The cleric fails (IMO) at balancing fictional sense and game balance sense, both on their own terms and together. From the balance standpoint, to my mind, the cleric clearly impinges on the fighting-man's space. His hit progression is nearly as good as the fighter (often the same). His HP is basically identical to the fighter till level 5 or so. He has full use of armor. In addition, he gets turn undead, healing/buffing magic, and has a superior XP progression to boot. All weapons do the same damage, and actually magic maces will add their bonus to damage while magic swords do not. That's the balance side. Weirdly, the cleric can't use edged weapons, which makes no sense to me on the fictional side, as a mace is surely every bit as violent, if not more so, a way to kill someone as a sword, and why should every religious order share that same very specific restriction? (here game balance and fictional sense clash). And you get the division of magic into arcane/divine spheres, which really makes little sense. Why can't gods grant lightning bolts and the ability to fly to their devoted cleric? Especially gods of war or the sky or whatever (all gods apparently give clerics the same sorts of gifts/powers).
It's all really problematic compared to the elegant division of men of action and men of magic. This is a thread about thieves and thief skills, but I think this discussion is relevant to illustrate that D&D is, again in my view, best when it is simplified and elegant (otherwise why not go ahead with AD&D or Pathfinder or Runequest?) The addition of the thief brings similar questions to the addition of the cleric (not as extreme though, because the thief does at least make much more fictional sense, though some respected folks have made the case that the cleric makes better gameplay sense).
At the end of the day, yes OD&D provides examples of skill rolls and the like, and I like how it keeps them generic and open to all classes. I think one can easily treat the stated cases as examples to help in making judgments for specific situations, leading to a less formulaic, but much more sensible and smooth style of play that allows great use of the imagination in handling a variety of situations.
Also, welcome to Psimonk - I agree with your post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Aug 5, 2013 12:09:10 GMT -6
Well stated, inkmeister. It is possible to continue abstracting to the point that we say "All of the characters are men" and leave it at that, but for the sake of the D&D game the distinction of Men of Action and Men of Magic is excellent. When the game is presented primarily as one of exploration with interspersed fast-paced combat, it is nice that the two classes are assumed to have the means (skills) to explore and do combat. Or, in the magic-users case, mitigate combat (charm and sleep).
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 5, 2013 12:53:13 GMT -6
Thank you Fearghus.
Yes, the game can indeed be taken down to the level of just "men." (And "women" of course!). A few of us argue that this is the core of what D&D is (the rules for fighting men, hit dice, hit roles, saving throws, etc). It may even be desirable to do so. The game Searchers Of The Unknown did just that, and eliminated ability scores in the process. If a simple statblock is good enough for monsters, why not for PC's? But the real interesting thing is that this puts magic really into the realm of only NPC's, and thus does not need to follow standardized rules. Magic then becomes... magic. I think Geoffrey already does this by having his magic using NPC's not follow normal magic user rules. Other folks argue that such an approach (having only men of action, no magic users) makes the game more sword and sorcery-ish. You might argue it's not D&D, but I still think it would be cool.
By the way, regarding thief tasks, Searchers of the Unknown brings armor choice into the equation of how successful PC's can be at sneaking and doing other tasks that often fall under thief skills.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 6, 2013 8:12:54 GMT -6
First, props to Inkmeister for a) mentioning Searchers of the Unknown and b) noting that women do indeed play the game.
Second, let me postulate that a sufficiently sword-and-sorcery campaign might have room for only one class: If the default Searchers fighter/thief is allowed to cast spells by reading scrolls, conducting rituals, etc., we're not a million miles away from Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser; a player who wants to tilt it further in that direction might end up at CAS's Evagh, an armed warlock.
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Aug 6, 2013 17:29:32 GMT -6
Clerics are Men of Faith, btw, they aren't Men of Magic nor Men of Action. I'd characterize how they implemented as the problem, not the concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 6, 2013 21:09:03 GMT -6
The problem with the category of "men of faith" is that it really doesn't seem like it is necessarily distinct from the other two classes. Take The Warrior Priest of Phum from the Elric books; he didn't use any magic, but he used a bow and arrow. He was a man of action. Friar Tuck is another one. Other priests might use magic and do rituals and stuff, but how is that really meaningfully different than a magic user? In other words, one can be a fighter or magic user that represents a faith. A mechanically separate class for people of faith seems questionable to me. Likewise with a separate class for the thief.
Anyway, the point was that it gets tricky adding finer distinctions between the classes, because you can get into either balance problems (technical issues) or you can end up not making sense (as the cleric, which seems useful in a gameplay sense, though overpowered in OD&D imo, but doesn't make sense in general)
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 7, 2013 0:47:10 GMT -6
One need not bother with qualifiers at all. Why not just have "Men" (implying all of human-kind, demi-humans, and humanoids that players are likely to play)? And then... is it really necessary to distinguish between Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Gnolls, Giants, and whatnot? These are all simply "Monsters" aren't they? We could just as easily use a single, generic classification for all monsters too. That would work, sure, but categorising the monsters by type adds detail, flavour, texture, and joy to the game. Exactly the same could be said for the system of classifying PCs. There is no number of PC classes that is "Holy". The 3LBBs allow for six player classifications: fighter, magic-user, cleric, anti-cleric, fighter/magic-user, and fighter/cleric. The last three are relatively obscure, sure, but they're there. Other classifications were added immediately thereafter. Which classes you choose to use is a matter of what level of granularity is satisfactory for your particular group. Some groups will comprise all fighters, and that's fine. Other groups may want to differentiate between men-at-arms, cavaliers, archers, rangers, barbarians, paladins, and what ever, and that's fine too. This comes to a player requesting a "type" of character, and the referee either allowing or disallowing it. Some players will request oddball types, others won't. Most referees will (in my experience) try to accommodate their players' wants -- it's meant to be "fun" after all. Out of all that it's interesting to see how someone can be for "Players can play as anything" but at the same time against "skills types". This seems to imply: "Players can play anything! (except skills types).", which seems to me rather curious. the cleric, which seems ... overpowered in OD&D imo Overpowered compared to... fighters and magic-users? How so inkmeister? |
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 7, 2013 7:17:59 GMT -6
I think you have a slippery slope argument going there, Ways; yes, you could fold everything into a game about just non-magical humanity, or perhaps humanity and generic "monsters", but there is no reason to think the logical conclusion of my argument is that there would only be humanity or generic monsters.
My point is simply that the division of the game into two classes is elegant, and allows for representation of countless types of characters, whether Elric types, Conan types, Gandalf types, Evil priest types, whatever. It's very flexible. Getting rid of all monsters and magic users isn't so flexible (I'm not saying it's a bad idea though, for a certain flavor of campaign).
Most monsters seem to neatly fit the category of fighter, though many also have some special abilities; poison, extra strength, breath weapons, etc.
Anyhow, the cleric seems dissonant to me. Whereas fighters and magic users can represent countless types, the cleric seems ultra specific. The types of spells and abilities granted don't seem to fit with many religions or types of gods, so the idea that the cleric is just a person of faith seems questionable. The weapon restriction is really odd, and I think we would agree that many folks find it unbelievable and awkward; it is a point where game balance intrudes clumsily into fiction. Already one could certainly challenge the idea that wizards can't wear armor or use swords, but somehow it seems even more of a glaring oddity in the game in the cleric's case, probably because at least there are stereotypical wizards that don't wear armor, but in the case of the cleric.... What is a cleric again?
As to game balance, I think the fact that even you were looking at swapping the XP progression between clerics and fighters indicates that you see some imbalance there.
In case it is not obvious to anyone reading my post: I'm only voicing my honest opinion. I've got no interest and no right in telling anyone else what to enjoy or how to play their game. I don't mind if people want to play 4th ed with all it's many classes and interesting division of powers (for them, that endless specification of unique feats and powers brings "joy" to the game, as you say). I don't mind if others want to do Runequest with all its percentile skills and so on. If your gaming is fun, you are doing it right. I've had fun with clerics in, by the way. I just don't think they fit quite right, for reasons stated.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 7, 2013 7:24:32 GMT -6
(1) Skills complicate the game. (2) A skill list isn't a "can do" list, it's a "can't do" list. (3) To be fair, monsters should have them, too. All true if we're talking about "skills done poorly". But if we're talking about "skills done sensibly then: (1) Skills don't need to complicate the game if we use mechanisms already in the game. E.g., everyone does "stuff" on a roll of 5-6 on a d6. Those who are "good at" something instead do it on a roll of 3-6 on a d6. (2) Everyone "can do" everything, but a few characters might be especially "good at" a few things. E.g., Elves are already "good at" finding secret doors, but that doesn't stop other PCs looking for secret doors. Halflings and Elves are already "good at" moving quietly, but that doesn't stop other PCs from sneaking about. (3) Fine. Monsters "can do" stuff of a roll of 5-6 too, just like everyone else. It's not a major problem. Just my two coppers |
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 7, 2013 7:32:26 GMT -6
It was probably a mistake to bring the cleric into this discussion. I did so because to my mind (and maybe no one in the world sees it the same way - which is fine) it illustrates how going increasingly fine-grained can create some dissonance. I've been on the other side of this same sort of argument with Ways, with regard to variable weapon damage. Before that discussion, I didn't have nearly the same appreciation for how sensible a NON-variable damage approach really could be.
Bringing this back on topic: as Psimonk pointed out; what truly great warrior type wouldn't benefit from awesome ability at stealth? Don't many modern soldiers spend considerable time learning to be stealthy? Learning to do thief like things? It seems like as a warrior, virtually all the skills of a thief would be of prime importance. I think rather than looking at Conan like some fighter/thief class, it makes sense just to think of him as a very capable warrior in general (and yeah, he liked to steal things). No warrior is going to always choose to fight just because... If you can sneak around a fight and get what you want, why not do so? I think good soldiers/warriors would know how to do that. Climbing, sneaking, etc... all very important to that end.
The addition of the thief made the other characters more one dimensional while generally complicating the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 7, 2013 7:45:48 GMT -6
As I've stated elsewhere, classes are thematic distinctions between characters, as well as packages of special abilities. Sure, you can say everyone is a "man" with special modifiers (magic, turning, thieving), but that loses the thematic element.
There is a tendency in D&D over-thinkers to over-simplifiy in the name of elegance. I saw someone doing this over on rpg.net. I asked him half-jokingly if he does not scribble his rules-changes in pencil in his rule books; his answer was a single word: "no." No further explanation was needed: his stated purpose was to approach a "pure" set of rules (that was his word); he wasn't talking about making something up and getting on with the game. So if you're asking yourself, "do we really need a thief class?" try asking yourself instead, "do we really need to worry about elegance of rules?"
To put it another way: rules, schmules. Is the campaign good?
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Aug 7, 2013 8:17:20 GMT -6
True enough; I was just leafing through the 2E Complete Book of Elves, thinking how much fun it would be to start a campaign based on the funky old kits in there (Remember how awesome the Bladesinger was? Oh, you weren't 10 years old when the book came out? Never mind.) On the other hand, an intricate taxonomy of PC types seems to me like the kind of thing that could be tethered closely to the aesthetics of one's campaign instead of to the mechanics of a rule set. Therefore:
I think this has to do precisely with the relationship between the rules and a campaign! Whether "we really need a thief class" depends on who "we" are and what kind of campaign we want to enjoy. Ideally, the value of an elegant set of rules lies in its accommodation of that kind of campaign, whatever it is. One hopes that the campaign will be good - but your good campaign and my good campaign may differ substantially, and a set of sufficiently elegant rules will help us both.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 7, 2013 8:55:12 GMT -6
there is no reason to think the logical conclusion of my argument is that there would only be humanity or generic monsters. I didn't mean to imply this was the logical conclusion of your argument; I merely meant to illustrate that having one generic classification (e.g., "Man of Action", or "Monster") isn't neccessarily better than having multiple classifications. Getting rid of all monsters and magic users isn't so flexible Yes, exactly  My point is simply that the division of the game into two classes is elegant, and allows for representation of countless types of characters, whether Elric types, Conan types, Gandalf types, Evil priest types, whatever. But "elegant" is used quite subjectively here; one could equally state "the division of the game into six classes is elegant". The two class model (fighter & magic-user) works for many character types, I agree. But it doesn't represent those characters who neither fight nor use magic. E.g., our proper thieves. It seems like as a warrior, virtually all the skills of a thief would be of prime importance. In my mind, a warrior's prime concern is the use of weapons. He practices with them day in, day out. That's why he gets to use all the weapons, has more hit points, gets a better attack matrix, and gets multiple attacks versus mooks. Yes, it is useful for a fighter to operate steathily, but it's not his primary concern. He's not a cat burglar, charlatan, or thief-acrobat. When does he practise walking a tight rope? Or cracking locks and magically held doors? Or picking pockets? Or disguising himself? Or forging letters or artwork? Or breaking long falls? Or deciphering treasure maps or encoded messages? Or speaking the thieves' secret language? Or reading magic-user spells? Or defeating traps? Or mixing poisons and anti-dotes? Etc. Etc. A fighter doesn't have time for all that -- he's got more than enough on his plate honing his fighting skills. The addition of the thief made the other characters more one dimensional while generally complicating the game. Hmmmmm, we hear this argument a lot, but is it really so? The addition of the thief in GH didn't actually redefine the other classes, they stayed as they were (ignoring all the other GH changes which were unrelated to the thief). If you're willing to use six-sided dice (as per the 3LBBs) instead of percentile dice for skills, is the game really any more complicated with the thief? It seems to me the thief (at least that kind of thief) is less complicated than either the magic-user or the cleric. |
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 7, 2013 8:59:06 GMT -6
Zeraser nailed it on the head. It's all about the individual campaign. The cleric makes a lot more sense when you are thinking in terms of a very specific setting and, more so, a very specific type of religious order. To my mind, the cleric is much more like a 3e prestige class than the more archetypal fighter and magic user.
As for over-thinking D&D rules, Stormcrow, isn't that what half the threads on this forum are about? I thought I was in the right place!
|
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 7, 2013 9:15:03 GMT -6
On the other hand, Ways, we hear often that the thief doesn't step on anyone else's toes, and that everyone can do everything (but the thief does his thing a bit better than everyone else). Is that really true? Part of the problem is the lack of clarity in the books. The books don't really make it clear; does the thief in fact get 2 rolls for his abilities that everyone else shares? It's important because the percentile roll is sometimes less than the general ability of everyone else. But I don't recall reading any guidance in the rulebooks on this sort of thing.
I think a problem early D&D has is the dissonance it creates as it combines the "just make it up and go!" approach with very specific rules in some cases. For instance, we always hear that "it's your campaign, do whatever you want!" But then we hear "well, don't mess with the magic item tables too much; they are weighted to maintain class balance." I don't think it's clear at all when you are supposed to feel free to ignore the rules or when you are to embrace them. The thief brings a lot more of that sort of complexity to the table. No, of course I don't think rolling percentiles is complicated. It's the bigger picture that is more complicated as a result of having a thief. I know Mike for one has said that the thief was poorly explained. (Edit: Unfortunately, unlike Mike, most of us don't have the benefit of gaming regularly with one of the game's creators to really know how it was supposed to work.) The endless conversations about thieves, whether on DRagonsfoot, here, or RPG.net or wherever, proves the point.
Also, ways, a number of the skills you mentioned don't seem to fall under the thief class in OD&D - forgeries? Disguises? Tight Rope Walking?
|
|
