busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Aug 7, 2013 11:47:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Aug 7, 2013 17:46:03 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. This is actually more in keeping with what I intended to discuss in the thread. If, before the thief, everyone was able to climb, pick locks, move silently, or hide in shadows, was this actually made clear in the rules? And if so, how? Conversely: after the advent of Greyhawk, is it made clear that the existence of the thief doesn't prevent other classes from trying to open a locked chest or door, or climb walls, or hide in shadows? There's some possible interpretation of the wording of some descriptions, but I think the only explicit references to a thief's abilities being more than just mundane ability is the Hear Noise ability and the ability of thieves to open magically locked chests and doors.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 7, 2013 18:56:23 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. May I add Lara Croft and the Grey Mouser (who seems to be Gary's main inspiration for the class) to this list? But I agree with Aldarron that the thief is merely a fighting man who chooses to approach problems with tact and subtlety. When your fighting man smashes down a stuck door, why not instead describe your roll as pulling the hood over your lantern, oiling the hinges, and trying to slide out the bolt that attaches them to the door. You still have the same 2/6 chance of getting the door open on your roll to open doors, only now it has a thiefy flavor about it. Every character should have the same low chance of planting a compromising letter in a baron's pocket, or sneaking undetected through the shadows behind the chanting cult. Thieves (or tomb raiders) just choose to exercise these options. If you want to play a thief, be one through roleplaying, not because you picked that class. Spend that gold on ropes and spikes, shovels, lock picks, caltrops, torches, and burlap sacks, instead of a suit of shining armor. Did not even the giant Fafhrd manage to hide quietly behind the curtain in the thieves den and scale the walls to Tyaa's temple above Lankhmar's rooftops.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 7, 2013 19:31:47 GMT -6
Good post RedBaron - I agree with you on every point. What I'd like to see is Mike Mornard chime in on WHY, in his opinion, a thiefly fighting man is not a viable option (as he stated earlier in the thread, with no explanation, just a "trust me.")
Yes, Talysman, I would like more clarification from the text(s), one way or the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 19:38:23 GMT -6
Every character should have the same low chance of planting a compromising letter in a baron's pocket, or sneaking undetected through the shadows behind the chanting cult. Thieves (or tomb raiders) just choose to exercise these options. If you want to play a thief, be one through roleplaying, not because you picked that class. Spend that gold on ropes and spikes, shovels, lock picks, caltrops, torches, and burlap sacks, instead of a suit of shining armor. The problem that I have with this line of reasoning is that it's almost always applied unevenly. To turn it around, shouldn't every character have the same chance to lift a sword and strike down a foe? Maybe your wizard studied books on anatomy and applied that knowledge to selectively strike vital points. Maybe the cleric using his wisdom or perhaps a little bit of help from above notices an uncovered area to strike. If you want to play a fighter, be one through roleplaying instead of picking the class. We could go even further and just eliminate classes and make everything an ability roll. Want to attack someone, make a DEX roll. Cast a spell, make an INT roll. Lift a gate, make a STR roll. Now we're closer to roleplaying all actions instead of relying on classes or skills.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 7, 2013 19:44:30 GMT -6
Welcome Red Baron I must respectfully disagree with you on this: Every character should have the same low chance of planting a compromising letter in a baron's pocket, or sneaking undetected through the shadows behind the chanting cult. This is the "single classification" argument again isn't it? Every character doesn't have the same chance of hitting an enemy in combat, or of turning undead, or of finding secret doors, or of saving versus spells, or whatever else. Why should acts of subterfuge be treated so differently? In fact, the 3LBBs instruct us that elves and halflings are ace at hiding and sneaking, so there is precedent for differentiation. The whole point of the classes is that they have different strengths.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 20:23:59 GMT -6
Maybe your wizard studied books on anatomy and applied that knowledge to selectively strike vital points. Unfortunately for the wizard, those who have trained in combat have learned how to protect those vital points.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 7, 2013 22:30:55 GMT -6
Welcome Red Baron I must respectfully disagree with you on this: Every character should have the same low chance of planting a compromising letter in a baron's pocket, or sneaking undetected through the shadows behind the chanting cult. This is the "single classification" argument again isn't it? Every character doesn't have the same chance of hitting an enemy in combat, or of turning undead, or of finding secret doors, or of saving versus spells, or whatever else. Why should acts of subterfuge be treated so differently? In fact, the 3LBBs instruct us that elves and halflings are ace at hiding and sneaking, so there is precedent for differentiation. The whole point of the classes is that they have different strengths. Subterfuge encourages creative play and a variety of alternate solutions to problems, whereas giving every player the ability to turn undead would ruin the puzzle of tackling the undead with crosses, cold iron weapons, protection spells, herbs, mirrors, and stakes. (This idea to make clerics creepier would encourage creative play) I feel that the multitude of classes like the barbarian or bard or cavalier are all just crutches for players too lazy to roleplay a witty troubadour or are too attached to their gold to part with it as a generous knight. A fighter who thinks, acts, and treats others like he is a ranger is a more fascinating character than a fighter with one or two special abilities, an adjusted experience point total, and a new class name slapped on. I like the idea of a fighting man having to make the tough call to take off his armor to sneak past the cultists, or the elf creating an illusory drunken brawl to distract the baron while he invisibly sneaks up and plants the evidence; The cleric questioning her morals when she sees the opportunity to creep up on the evil necromancer and push him out the window instead of taking him in a honest fight. I also want to tell you I love your threads Ways. Your creativity and talent with numbers is unparalleled on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 8, 2013 0:11:15 GMT -6
giving every player the ability to turn undead would ruin the puzzle of tackling the undead with crosses, cold iron weapons, protection spells, herbs, mirrors, and stakes. Yes, that's exactly why the different classes should have different strengths. I feel that the multitude of classes like the barbarian or bard or cavalier are all just crutches for players too lazy to roleplay a witty troubadour or are too attached to their gold to part with it as a generous knight. A fighter who thinks, acts, and treats others like he is a ranger is a more fascinating character than a fighter with one or two special abilities, an adjusted experience point total, and a new class name slapped on. Well, it's okay to have an opinion but that's not to say games without a thief class, or a ranger class, or whatever, somehow have a higher caliber of players than those without. The other side of the coin is that having these other classes could inspire a player to greater creativity. I like the idea of a fighting man having to make the tough call to take off his armor to sneak past the cultists That's a perfectly fine style of play, and in some campaigns that might be everyone's ideal. In other campaigns there might be players who are interested in other classes too -- and that in no way precludes any of the behaviours you've just described. A skills class doesn't displace the other classes; it complements them. My issue with the "universal fighter" argument is that a) it belittles the true fighters, and b) it refuses the realisation of other types of characters, awkwardly forcing those players who might want to play something else to use a round peg for a square hole. It doesn't always fit. I also want to tell you I love your threads Ways. Glad you enjoyed For anyone who might have wondered about what span of D&D history was actually "before the thief", there's this information available on the web: EGG's "The Thief" first published June 1974. OD&D woodgrain boxed set . 1st print (alpha): available Jan 1974, . 1st print (beta) : available "mid" 1974, . 1st print (gamma): available Dec 1974. 1,000 copies were supposedly printed, and sold out in 11 months. One might "guess" that perhaps 500 copies of the 1st print (alpha) boxed set were in circulation before the original thief appeared. Regardless of how many copies were sold, OD&D had been in print just 6 months before the thief appeared.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 8, 2013 8:30:35 GMT -6
Ways, it is a questionable move to bring up the fact - and I agree it is a fact - that most people who got into OD&D back in the 70's did so with the Greyhawk supplement. I think it was Rob Kuntz who said that perhaps 9 Greyhawks were sold for every 10 OD&D boxes. It's a questionable move because it seems you are equating audience with game quality. The logical conclusion of that is that we should all put away our OD&D games and pick up Pathfinder, because the world has moved on, and Pathfinder is where it is at. Secondly, I've been on the other side of arguments (ie regarding variable weapon damage) where you are explicitly arguing against the developments of the Greyhawk supplement.
I would love to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think much of the OD&D resurgence is based around embracing 3LBB D&D only - no Greyhawk, or very, very selective use of the supplement. For many, I think one of the most salient differences between OD&D and other editions is the lack of the thief class. I remember when the Old School Primer was all the rage (and I'm not really a fan of the document by the way, and this thread and others show that there is a real place for die rolls in determining character success, even in OD&D), a big point people were throwing around was that OD&D was about player skill instead of character skill, and the lack of the thief was one of the biggest examples held up in support of this claim.
As to RedBaron's remarks; I agree with him generally, though I agree with you too Ways, that we should be careful not to criticize people for enjoying the thief class, or the Warlord class, or the Tiefling race, or feats and skills. Each to his own.
As to differentiation, in many ways it seems to me that by the book, the other classes step pretty heavily into the "true fighting man's" sphere. Level 6 magic user attack bonus: +3. Level 6 Fighting man's attack bonus: +3 Level 6 cleric's attack bonus: +3. Level 4 fighting man's hitdice: 4. Level 4 cleric's hit dice: 4. Yes, to a degree I'm cherry picking some levels here, but the point is there is a lot of overlap. Basically what differentiates the fighting man from the others, by the book, is the use of magic swords. But doesn't the thief get that ability as well? Multiple attacks? Don't the others get that as well? The only example I'm aware of regarding multiple attacks involves a troll, and it's not clear to me that it isn't a chainmail example instead of an alternative combat example.
Long story short, I'm not really convinced by Ptingler's and Way's arguments about class differentiation. Of course there is some, but the game seems to suggest to me that the fighter is sort of the "general purpose class." Everyone gets to step all over his sphere (the only thing that seems to be his is the magical sword thing, but the thief gets a piece of that too, if I recall correctly). So I just run with the general purpose thing; let the fighter represent non magical types. Most monsters are not clerics or magic users or thieves; they are fighting men. That is the baseline.
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Aug 8, 2013 11:30:16 GMT -6
If you're going to bring Greyhawk in, then Fighters were the only ones to get exceptional strength starting then.
BITD, we only allowed thieves to wield the non-intelligent magical swords. Swords of power were still reserved for Fighters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 11:56:51 GMT -6
Long story short, I'm not really convinced by Ptingler's and Way's arguments about class differentiation. Of course there is some, but the game seems to suggest to me that the fighter is sort of the "general purpose class." Everyone gets to step all over his sphere (the only thing that seems to be his is the magical sword thing, but the thief gets a piece of that too, if I recall correctly). So I just run with the general purpose thing; let the fighter represent non magical types. Most monsters are not clerics or magic users or thieves; they are fighting men. That is the baseline. Fighter as baseline is because the baseline comes from historical wargaming. Chainmail starts with medieval soldiers and adds elements of fantasy. Then OD&D takes that framework and adds roleplaying. It doesn't have to be our starting point. We can start from any framework instead of historical warfare, it doesn't make gaming any less optimal.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 8, 2013 17:15:09 GMT -6
it seems you are equating audience with game quality. The logical conclusion of that is that we should all put away our OD&D games and pick up Pathfinder, because the world has moved on, and Pathfinder is where it is at. All I did was present some information; unless you were one of the first few hundred to try D&D, the thief has always been there. I didn't infer anything whatever about "game quality", that was your own extrapolation. I've been on the other side of arguments (ie regarding variable weapon damage) where you are explicitly arguing against the developments of the Greyhawk supplement. You've mentioned this a few times now, but I still fail to see how it is relevant. Firstly, the thief predates Greyhawk. Secondly, the variable weapon damage debate was not about whether there should be a single class of weapon or many classes of weapons, it was about whether variable or fixed damage better models reality. In that case I argued for what (IMHO) better models "reality", exactly as I do in this case. If we were to draw a parallel between that debate and this one it would, I think, be: one PC class parallels one weapon class. I don't believe in a single class of weapon any more than I believe in a single class of monster or a single class of PCs. I simply argued that damage caused is not a particularly good way to differentiate weapons. OD&D resurgence is based around embracing 3LBB D&D only That's up to the individual, but for me OD&D is not captured entirely within the 3LBBs. It's Chainmail, Outdoor Survival, the 3LBBs, The Strategic Review and other 'zines, and a few other hints. this thread and others show that there is a real place for die rolls in determining character success, even in OD&D ... As to RedBaron's remarks; I agree with him generally, though I agree with you too Ways, that we should be careful not to criticize people for enjoying the thief class, or the Warlord class, or the Tiefling race, or feats and skills. Each to his own. Yes indeed. As to differentiation, in many ways it seems to me that by the book, the other classes step pretty heavily into the "true fighting man's" sphere. ... the point is there is a lot of overlap. Yes. And the same goes for the "thief". The other classes CAN do all the skillsy stuff, just not AS WELL as the thief for whom these things are paramount. Basically what differentiates the fighting man from the others, by the book, is the use of magic swords. But doesn't the thief get that ability as well? Multiple attacks? Don't the others get that as well? The only example I'm aware of regarding multiple attacks involves a troll, and it's not clear to me that it isn't a chainmail example instead of an alternative combat example. Fighters have the use of all armour. Fighters have the use of all weapons, including missile weapons and spears. The vast majority of magic weapons are fighter only. The best magic weapons in the game (the mythic swords) are for fighters only. Fighters have multiple attacks per round -- the explanation of which is found in The Strategic Review which gives examples of heroes and superheroes with 4 and 8 attacks (some argue that all classes could have multiple attacks, but I disagree). As they advance in level fighters add to morale rolls of guys they lead in combat. They defeat invulnerability to normal missiles with mundane weapons. They become invulnerable to a bunch of magical effects versus "normals". They sense invisible opponents. They cause enemy to check morale when they attack. They build strongholds are are deemed to be Lords. If one believes that the above class description is a "good fit" for an urchin thief, a troubadour, a Smeagol, a Shoei Monk, a "trouble-shooter", or whatever other "skillsy" character his players dream up, then I say good luck to him.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 8, 2013 18:52:57 GMT -6
Most monsters are not clerics or magic users or thieves; they are fighting men. That is the baseline. I don't think this is genuinely accurate. Lions, apes, spiders, griffons, rocs, sea serpents, giant toads, dragons, medusae, treants, oozes, vampires, etc. etc. are not fighting men. Even the masses of "normal" men, orcs, kobolds, elves, and whatever else are not "true" fighting men. They may have proper fighting men among them (their leader types), but in general they are simply classless, 1 HD (or whatever) monsters. They have their own, dedicated attack matrix that differentiates them from "true" fighting men, after all.
|
|
|
Post by inkmeister on Aug 8, 2013 19:21:11 GMT -6
I enjoy debating you Ways. You always make strong points. In this case, I see why you argue the way you do, but I simply disagree. But I'm glad for the discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 19:24:28 GMT -6
A fighter may use any kind of armor, but may forgo wearing armor for a variety of reasons, such as stealth, mobility or to deter overbearing.
A fighter may use any kind of weapon, but will have on his person only a limited number of them, the choices depending on his goals. Even with all weapons doing the same damage, one can add any number of factors into play that distinguish weapons, such as concealment, reach or fitness against certain types of opponents.
Certain combinations of armor and weapons, as well as some background considerations, may well make the fighter a thief type. I see no reason to penalize the chances for such a character to cause damage, or to get other fighter benefits at high level. Don't worry about such a character excelling at hand-to-hand combat. Wearing only leather armor, he'll get hit too frequently to last long in that capacity. A fighter's hit point buffer will simulate the ability to dodge attacks for a while but one focused on stealth will have to get away from close combat as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 8, 2013 19:28:38 GMT -6
I don't like the restrictions for other classes on armor. Armor isn't always an advantage, and most classes should be embarrassed to wear it anyhow.
A magician wearing armor would be mocked by his peers, as armor would be seen as a sign of weakness and incompetence, and perhaps become more of a target. "Folcwyn must indeed be unlearned in the eldritch to be reduced to relying that hauberk for protection". What's the use of lugging around a costly piece of lamellar when a magic user who senses even the smallest threat of danger to himself can fire off a sleep spell or snap his fingers and be instantly teleported home to a comfy chair and a pot of hot coffee.
Why should a cleric need to purchase a breastplate when her patron already watches over and shields her. Would not her gold be better spent purchasing goats to burn in offering to her deity.
If the circumstances arose where they would need to put on armor, perhaps in a Fistful of Dollars type way, I don't see why they shouldn't be able too. How cool would it be for the cleric to be shot by orcs and feign death, only to rise up again with much spooky chanting and arm waving to scare the bejezus out of those orcs whose arrows were actually caught in the jack hidden under his vestments (or ancient conquistador's armor under his poncho if your running with the Clint Eastwood cowboy cleric).
So says the radical "lumper".
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 8, 2013 19:59:03 GMT -6
I enjoy debating you Ways. You always make strong points. In this case, I see why you argue the way you do, but I simply disagree. But I'm glad for the discussion. Ditto A fighter may use any kind of armor, but may forgo wearing armor for a variety of reasons, such as stealth, mobility or to deter overbearing. A fighter may use any kind of weapon, but will have on his person only a limited number of them, the choices depending on his goals. Even with all weapons doing the same damage, one can add any number of factors into play that distinguish weapons, such as concealment, reach or fitness against certain types of opponents. Now we're talking about behaviours. Behaviours are not the same thing as classes. I completely agree that a fighter can choose to behave like a thief, but that doesn't make him a "proper" thief. Likewise, a magic-user can put on plate armour, pick up a sword, and charge into battle, but that doesn't make him a proper "proper" fighter does it? Certain combinations of armor and weapons, as well as some background considerations, may well make the fighter a thief type. I see no reason to penalize the chances for such a character to cause damage, or to get other fighter benefits at high level. Don't worry about such a character excelling at hand-to-hand combat. Wearing only leather armor, he'll get hit too frequently to last long in that capacity. A fighter's hit point buffer will simulate the ability to dodge attacks for a while but one focused on stealth will have to get away from close combat as quickly as possible. It's fine to say "near enough is good enough", if that's what you want to do. One can justify virtually anything in this way, and lots of people clearly do which is fine. But it's still a round peg in a square hole to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 20:29:22 GMT -6
It's fine to say "near enough is good enough", if that's what you want to do. One can justify virtually anything in this way, and lots of people clearly do which is fine. But it's still a round peg in a square hole to me. We see this problem whenever we define any class too specifically. For instance, I find the spell book detail for magic-users superfluous, because it puts conjurors and wizards who don't employ spell books outside the scope of the magic-user class. I therefore omit that detail. Similarly, I made some modifications to the cleric class so that it can apply to mystics, war shamans, fighting monks, and so on, because, aside from a few details, the class represents these types well. The thief class, too, has too much specificity. Does the ability to read languages or magic fit with an urchin thief character? On top of that, the thief gets overshadowed by the other classes at high level, and even easily out-stealthed by the magic-user at middle levels.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 9, 2013 0:35:14 GMT -6
We see this problem whenever we define any class too specifically. For instance, I find the spell book detail for magic-users superfluous, because it puts conjurors and wizards who don't employ spell books outside the scope of the magic-user class. I therefore omit that detail. Similarly, I made some modifications to the cleric class so that it can apply to mystics, war shamans, fighting monks, and so on, because, aside from a few details, the class represents these types well. The thief class, too, has too much specificity. Great! You should have no trouble adapting the thief in a similar manner if it's too specific for your needs Does the ability to read languages or magic fit with an urchin thief character? The read "languages" ability was originally "read treasure maps", which is a bit more thiefy, perhaps, and it didn't kick in until 3rd or 4th level in any case. Read magic scrolls doesn't appear until 9th level, so basically were talking about the equivalent of "hero" and "superhero" thieves. These guys have left their humble, street urchin beginnings behind long ago. On top of that, the thief gets overshadowed by the other classes at high level, and even easily out-stealthed by the magic-user at middle levels. I'm afraid it'll take more than a one liner to show that either of those statements are true, but that's a whole different discussion. Even if they are valid concerns it doesn't seem to be justification for dismissing the class entirely. Halflings are more limited than are Men, but they're still popular enough. I don't think perfect class balance is really required.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2013 12:49:36 GMT -6
Unfortunately, I did have trouble modifying the thief class with the same considerations as to what makes a character class and ending up with a compelling class. The possibilities afforded by the thief class remain nevertheless. This matters more than codifying those possibilities into a character class.
As for the thief getting overshadowed by other classes, I obviously can't provide the evidence here, but I've seen it happen the few times that I played high-level games, and it didn't surprise me when I saw it. A high-level fighter can go toe to toe with a greater demon. A high-level magic-user can bamf around the cosmos. A high-level cleric can raise the dead. A high-level thief can open locks and move silently with complete certitude. Would you like to discuss what a high-level candlestick-maker could do?
I have also repeatedly seen mid-level magic-users beating thieves of any level at their own game. While no individual magic-user has complete control over his spell knowledge, those who do have the right combination of spells (for example, detect magic, invisibility, knock, fly, infravision) most definitely render the thief absolutely useless in comparison. The divide will widen even further at higher levels with polymorph self, wizard eye, dimension door, teleport, telekinesis, or passwall. The thief class got thrust into a world with elven cloaks and boots that their carefully practiced abilities attempt to duplicate in mundane fashion, and usually fail. This should indicate that if you want to play a sneaky character with utterly mystifying stealth capabilities and who balks at combat, choose the magic-user and collect the right spells.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Aug 9, 2013 15:52:01 GMT -6
Personnaly, I see the Thief mainly as an NPC specialist (after all, stumbling all the corridor long to trigger -erm, sorry- disarm all traps is a henchmen's job, isn't it?) and a useful addition to a low level group , but some people keep wanting to play one (like some want to play hobbits instead of Elven warrior-sorcerers).
Their call.
|
|