Thieves without Skills

[calithena]

So let's say you want a thief class but don't want thief abilities. What could you do to differentiate them a little bit?

Armor limits and defensive bonuses are a start, but that's a swashbuckler too.

A generic bonus on thief-type activities to substitute for defined abilities is good also. But it's hard to scale something like that.

I don't know. I think if you roleplay traps and allow any characters to find and disarm them, and likewise with stealth etc., you start to lose much hope of a thief class. But then what about players who want to define themselves in such a role?

Sure, you can take a 'warrior' or 'fighting man' or 'hero' and say he's a thief. That's fine. But what if you want a 10th level thief?

I guess you could try something like this:

The Thief is a variant of the Fighting Man. They may only wear leather armor and only fight with one-handed swords, daggers, blackjacks, and missile weapons. However, they receive (some bonus, +1 or +2) to defense/AC, initiative, and saving throws vs. magic and breath weapons in compensation for these fighting limits. In addition, thieves can read magic scrolls and other magic writings, though not reliably.

Anyone else try a simple redefinition along these lines?

[Zulgyan]

Don't miss this thread:

odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=workshop&action=display&thread=885

[busman]

I'm not sure what the aversion to having thief abilities is about. All classes can fight but that doesn't make them all fighting-men. Likewise having everyone able to do thiefy things doesn't preclude the thief from doing them better. I get not wanting a skill based class and the path that leads to. But, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. This was the basis of the thief I put together in the thread Zul linked. It's not complete yet, but I'm only trying to decide if there is a better way than what Frank put together for the tradtional skills.

[badger2305]

May 17, 2008 11:57:37 GMT -6 busman said:

I'm not sure what the aversion to having thief abilities is about. All classes can fight but that doesn't make them all fighting-men. Likewise having everyone able to do thiefy things doesn't preclude the thief from doing them better. I get not wanting a skill based class and the path that leads to. But, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. This was the basis of the thief I put together in the thread Zul linked. It's not complete yet, but I'm only trying to decide if there is a better way than what Frank put together for the tradtional skills.

I agree quite strongly. Have an exalt for that.

[sham]

May 17, 2008 11:57:37 GMT -6 busman said:

I get not wanting a skill based class and the path that leads to. But, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

That sums it up for me. I don't use Supplement I, Greyhawk IMC, so I'm not actually removing anything. I'm still skeptical, and I love the Thief Archetype (a sneaky, cunning sort who uses guile and wits to overcome obstacles), just not the mindset it can bring.

Eventually I'll settle on some Explorer or Delver class, and possibly include a Thief type class, but I don't know if the Gygaxian Thief skill set does it for me. I never liked the class in AD&D, so it's refreshing, for me anyway, to use a system that doesn't include them.

Those are my aversions. I'm not saying anyone is defending the Gygaxian version, I'm just spouting off a bit here with why I'm currently not using any version of the class. There have been some good examples on this forum for using the Archetype without all the Gygaxian skill sets.

[dwayanu]

Any D&D Thief class is bound to include at least a "sneakiness" advantage. Just make Thieves better at such specialties, perhaps able to do things beyond the capabilities of others.

It's been observed often that literal "hiding in shadows," "moving silently" and "climbing sheer surfaces" are qualitatively different from what one would reasonably expect of non-specialists.

In comparison with real-world human abilities, those are aptly described as "magical."

[philotomy]

May 17, 2008 17:40:20 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

Just make Thieves better at such specialties, perhaps able to do things beyond the capabilities of others...It's been observed often that literal "hiding in shadows," "moving silently" and "climbing sheer surfaces" are qualitatively different from what one would reasonably expect of non-specialists.

That's the key. I also think it would be good for the Thief abilities to use existing mechanics, where possible, or at least mention how the existing mechanics and the Thief's ability interact.

For example, Move Silently and Hide in Shadows could be combined into a Stealth ability that gives an improved chance to surprise (i.e. use the existing mechanic). Or Move Silently could be an ability that is used in addition to the normal mechanic for surprise; that is, successful move silently = improved or auto chance to surprise, failed move silent = normal chance to surprise. (This second interpretation is how it works in AD&D -- the 1E PH says "This chance to be absolutely silent is given as a percentage, +/- modifiers, and the character must roll percentile dice to score less than or equal to the percentage chance he or she has to move without sound. Success indicates silent movement and an improved chance to surprise an opponent or slip past it.")

[Stonegiant]

The problem with using other existing mechanics is that there is little room for expansion (aka character improvement). I have of late come to the opinion that the choice for the % system used in Greyhawk was chosen for the simple reason that the number spread allows the most space for character improvement at the time of level advance and for the DM to modify based on the circumstances of the abilities use. Using the existing mechanics other than the d20 roll for a target number really limits the number of times one can improve their character. giving bonuses to surprise limits you to say 4 times that ability can improve without granting a 6 out of 6 chance. Another option is to limit which abilities go up at which levels is rather unfair to the thief who already is a 3rd rate fighter with poor armor options and no magic. Some people might than say that the no mechanics option for the thief is the best but there I have to disagree because we punish the class again in comparison to the other classes, with no mechanics the thief is not allowed to gauge his chances of success like other classes. The Fighter knows what his chances are to hit certain AC's (while he may not know his opponents AC he can gauge what his chances of success are based on the description of the opponent), the M-U knows what the effect of his spells will be and most likely knows which ones his opponent can make a save against and which ones work without a saving throw, the cleric knows his combat, spell effects, and Turn Undead effects, the no mechanics thief has got to sit their and think " I sure hope I can describe my actions well enough to maybe have a chance at this", we don't make M-U describe their spell casting techniques to see if they succeed in their action, or the fighters exact techniques, etc. The mechanics of the determining success allow the character the ability to judge the situation and decide do I want to risk it or am I going to run away. IMO Description should influence the mechanic but shouldn't be the mechanic either, but YMMV.



The Fighter gets better at combat, the M-U gets more spells, the Cleric gets all of the above plus Turning Undead, if one is going to include a thief they need some sort of motivation to want to go up in level. To improve the Thief, he needs a mechanics system that allows for level advancement and also the ability for the player playing the class to be able to gauge what they want their character to attempt or not attempt based on their classes abilities and skill at using that ability at their current level.

[Zulgyan]

You can change the surprice roll to something like... 4 in 12?? roll a d12 instead of a d6.

4 in 12 is the same as 2 in 6, you keep the mechanic, but it allows more of the "progression" you are talking about.

Could be a good idea!

---

Another thread where these things where discussed: odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=menmagic&action=display&thread=413

[philotomy]

May 18, 2008 8:31:20 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

You can change the surprice roll to something like... 4 in 12?? roll a d12 instead of a d6...you keep the mechanic, but it allows more of the "progression" you are talking about.

My gut reaction is that this would be a good approach; I like that a lot better than a separate ability roll.

[Stonegiant]

May 18, 2008 8:31:20 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

You can change the surprice roll to something like... 4 in 12?? roll a d12 instead of a d6.

4 in 12 is the same as 2 in 6, you keep the mechanic, but it allows more of the "progression" you are talking about.

Could be a good idea!

---

Another thread where these things where discussed: odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=menmagic&action=display&thread=413

Math is my weakest subject but if that is pretty much equal to each other than, yes that would alleviate the progression problem.

Maybe the solution to the thief issue would be to combine all thief activities (Lock Picking, Picking Pockets, Stealth, etc.) into one ability that starts out at say a 4 in 12 chance and progresses from there. Maybe "the" thief ability could be entitled Nefarious Activity, with one umbrella ability the thief could than conduct many other thief abilities that weren't listed and the DM would have a chance of that activity succeeding and could be modified from there do to circumstances. This way you aren't excluding the other classes from trying to accomplish some of the thief like activities (hiding, sneaking, climbing, etc.) and you are also not restricting the thief to only those specific thief like activities they might then start trying to do things like forgery, counterfeiting, shell games/sleight of hands, setting traps, waylaying, etc.).

[makofan]

I just had a completely wacky idea - treat thief skills like the Turn Undead mechanic but expand the die roll range and the chart. You roll 2d6 and need number or better to perform feat

EG
Level 1: Climb Walls 7 Surprise Monster 7 Pick Locks 9 Sneak Past 9 Remove Traps 11
Level 2: Climb Walls 6 Surprise Monster 6 Pick Locks 8 Sneak Past 8 Remove Traps 10
Level 3: Climb Walls 5 Surprise Monster 5 Pick Locks 7 Sneak Past 7 Remove Traps 9

Climb Walls applies to efforts to scale not normally climbable surfaces. Surprise Monster supersedes the normal surprise chance but only applies when the thief is alone (effectively giving backstab in many situations). Sneak Past is automatic in favorable circumstances, and again is applied only when the thief is alone.

If the DM wishes something to be different (like a difficult lock) he just says "treat the thief as 2 levels lower for this lock". You now have a broad class-based skill set

[calithena]

I like that, Mako.

So no-one has any other ideas with respect to the original question?

[Arminath]

I use a thief-replacement class called the Explorer - basically it uses the d12 for task resolution instead of a d6 (more of a range and I was suprised to see others consider using the red-headed d12) and is less of a pick-pocket than an Indiana Jones adventurer type. thread is odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=workshop&action=display&thread=885&page=2

[ffilz]

I think it may be worthwhile considering why the skillful thief is objectionable. For me, the basic problem with the thief is that it seems to be a self-justified class, at least in application. Thieves exist to deal with locks and traps, which exist because the thief needs something to do... Another basic problem with the thief is that it doesn't mesh well with the abilities of 3 LBB characters. 3 LBB characters fundamentally explore and fight. Exploration is not level dependent (except as a result of a few spells). Fighting is level dependent, and all characters have fighting ability. Spell casters don't fight as well in general, but have spells that allow bursts of better fighting. Some spells (and the cleric's turning ability) don't mesh with combat by doing damage, but by somehow avoiding encounters (sleep, charm, turn, etc.).

Most of the thief's abilities seem to be related to exploration, however, they are level dependent. And I think that is the cause of much of the problem, especially since there is nothing that makes some traps and locks more difficult (other than GM simply stating such). So the thief starts of with a pretty measly ability, and eventually can do many task automatically.

The thief also has sneaking abilities that sort of tie into to combat, but they are problematical. What does it mean for one PC to be able to sneak about? When does the thief get his backstab ability?

Worse, while the fighter, magic user, and cleric all have encounters where they are "best" at, the thief is almost never good at fighting. He hits worse than a fighter, has some weapon restrictions, though he occasionally can backstab (if the GM lets him...).

To fix the thief, I think we need to address these problems.

One fix to the exploration problems is to just make the thief better at the already existing exploration tasks (listening and finding secret doors). Further, perhaps we could add a bypass/disarm traps ability that doesn't change with level (perhaps even giving it to all characters and making thieves better). This could be a simple 1-2 on 1d6 (or better if you want it to be a bit more sure).

Perhaps the fighting ability can be fixed by just letting the thief fight as a fighter. Limit his armor and weapon choices and be done with it. The one problem with limiting armor is that the thief won't be as able to participate in combat, and doesn't have a significant ability to fight from the rear lines like the magic user. A fix to that would just be to give thieves a bonus to AC, or figure that bracers will be good enough.

This leaves the sneakiness as the main problem. The biggest problem with sneaking has always been how to make use of the 1 or 2 PCs who can sneak amongst the plate armored fighters and clerics. One thought I have is that the thief could, on the party achieving surprise, sneak into the room with the encounter and roll on a chart similar to the clerical turning chart to kill one enemy. This would be a somewhat limited ability. Perhaps the thief even gets a bonus to surprise if he scouts ahead.

Another thought is to just allow the thief some scouting ability. Make him pretty good so there is only a small chance of detection. Then just make it worthwhile by making some encounters avoidable, others where some intelligence helps a lot.

But then we still have the question of why play a thief? Or why not allow the sneaky parts of the thief to be used by fighters (Conan types)?

In the end, it may be more worthwhile creating a workable lightly armored, sneaky, fighter type, or just benefits for lightly armored fighters (since Conan sometimes does wear armor - though usually chain, which is not too exciting when all magical armor is plate).

Then, if the exploration abilities of the thief are important, just let everyone do them, perhaps with some races better. The 3 LBB already allow anyone to find secret doors, why not just let anyone bypass traps? Or why not just add to the dwarf abilities with traps.

But if the thief is removed, what do you do about players who really want to play a thief? Most of the literary thieves don't look like D&D thieves, but what about Fineous Fingers?

Frank

[coffee]

May 20, 2008 15:12:55 GMT -6 ffilz said:

which is not too exciting when all magical armor is plate).

Okay, that's the second time I've seen a reference to all magic armor being plate.

My copy of volume II is strangely silent on the matter, so I'm wondering where this comes from.

Anybody?

[ffilz]

In 3 LBB it's a bit unclear. Look at p. 15 in Greyhawk though (which incidentally converts magic shields to stacking with magic armor). It seems to me that there is some other text that implies all magic armor is plate.

Frank

[coffee]

Okay, so it isn't explicitly stated, but rather inferred from what's given in the books. Okay, I see it now.

This means that the Greyhawk Thief will always be either armor class 9 or 7, depending on whether he's wearing his leather armor or not. He doesn't get the Dexterity bonus to AC (that's only Fighting-Men) and his armor will never be enchanted.

Good thing he sneaks a lot and fights from behind, huh?

Okay, I'm gonna ignore that in my own game, but it's nice to finally see where you're getting it. Thanks, Frank!

[badger2305]

Ffilz, thank you for pointing out that table in Greyhawk. Completely forgot about that. I think it was one of the things we ignored almost immediately, since the idea of having mithril-mail was discussed a lot. But there does seem to be that assumption there in the table that magical armor is plate. Hmmm!

[busman]

May 20, 2008 15:42:52 GMT -6 ffilz said:

In 3 LBB it's a bit unclear. Look at p. 15 in Greyhawk though (which incidentally converts magic shields to stacking with magic armor). It seems to me that there is some other text that implies all magic armor is plate.

Frank

One could read it also that all magical armor, no matter it's base type, provides the same AC. +1 Chainmail = +1 Plate, since there really is no reason to wear Chainmail other than you can't afford Plate. So, it's a 1st level armor only. Magical armors might as well all be equal, since it's basically a flavor thing at that point.

[snorri]

Inspired by the Grognardia discussion on Thief, I poposed this one, grounded on Chainmail and traditionnal Sword & Sorcery:

- He's a fighting-man type (like a dwarf, a halfling, and like any traditional sword & sorcery thief).

- He can't use his skills with an armour, but could get a bonus to fight when he got no armour and have the equivalent of a leather armor (like the berserker)

- He's considered to be invisible in shadows, until he fights [as are halflings in bushes and elves in woods]

- He can notice secret doors as a elf, architectural details as a dwarf and hear noise as them.

- Instead becoming a landlord 'baron', he become a 'thieves quarter' baron at lvl 9.

[coffee]

Dec 14, 2008 10:13:59 GMT -6 snorri said:

- Instead becoming a landlord 'baron', he become a 'thieves quarter' baron at lvl 9.

I like what you've done here, but I think this last one should be "guildmaster", just treat it like a baron.

[Falconer]

Dec 14, 2008 10:13:59 GMT -6 snorri said:

Inspired by the Grognardia discussion on Thief, I poposed this one, grounded on Chainmail and traditionnal Sword & Sorcery:

- He's a fighting-man type (like a dwarf, a halfling, and like any traditional sword & sorcery thief).

- He can't use his skills with an armour, but could get a bonus to fight when he got no armour and have the equivalent of a leather armor (like the berserker)

- He's considered to be invisible in shadows, until he fights [as are halflings in bushes and elves in woods]

- He can notice secret doors as a elf, architectural details as a dwarf and hear noise as them.

- Instead becoming a landlord 'baron', he become a 'thieves quarter' baron at lvl 9.

This is spot on. It just reinforces the idea that, in pre-Greyhawk OD&D, the non-human races (but especially the Elf and the Hobbit) fulfill the Thief archetype. This works perfectly if your game is based in Middle-earth (where you find no Mannish Inner-City Thieves as PC-types, but non-humans are prevalent). But if your game is more Swords-'n'-Sorcery based, where the case is the reverse, you need to replace them with a Thief class per se.

[korgoth]

I like the idea of a Fighting Man who gets a bonus to the Surprise roll if by himself (or in a group consisting only of like characters) and not wearing metal armor (+2 to Surprise if No Armor; +1 to Surprise if Leather). He may wear Chain (and forego the Surprise bonus) but may not wear plate. He may use magical scrolls but they have a chance of success equal to his Int plus Wis plus level expressed as a percentage (thus a level 3 Thief with 12 Int and 8 Wis have a 23% success rate)... and failure means the spell backfires in a detrimental way.

We could call him a Rogue, or an Adventurer or somesuch.

[coffee]

Or a Scout.

[snorri]

Dec 14, 2008 15:45:30 GMT -6 coffee said:

Dec 14, 2008 10:13:59 GMT -6 snorri said:

- Instead becoming a landlord 'baron', he become a 'thieves quarter' baron at lvl 9.

I like what you've done here, but I think this last one should be "guildmaster", just treat it like a baron.

*

I had in mind the "drugs baron", but any title is ok. Nearly-invisibility fits with the high-surprise roll idea. About the idea of scrolls & spell failure, a roll of 2d6+level, over 7+spell level, or something like this, would fits to the Chainmail spell failure