|
|
Post by Mr Darke on Feb 13, 2015 15:48:20 GMT -5
Introduction
The debate over the thief class is a long, drawn out mess. I have watched it for some time and see both sides of the argument. For my part, I do like the class and will continue to use it. My games tend to use the whole of OD&D (Currently expressed by S&W Complete) as the game and I never was big on LBB only. However, I will acknowledge that the percentile system does not fit what was expressed in the 'core' game and have sought to make a few slight fixes not only to the thief but other classes that use the percentile system.
What follows is an idea gleaned from following the thief debate, proposed fixes and my own ideas. While not perfect, it has worked for my games and is something that I have found as a good compromise to the class.
The Thief Class
The bare basics of the class remains the same. XP progression, attacks, and most of the skills are retained to keep the class close to what is presented in Greyhawk. The only real change to skills is that the Move Silent and Hide have been combined into a single stealth ability. Thus the new skill list is as follows:
Climb Walls
Find/Remove Traps
Pick Pockets
Listen (Also can be used as a perception type ability)
Stealth
Open Locks
Again there is no real change to the skills and it is assumed that other classes can attempt the same things but the thief can do them better.
The System
The system is a basic X In 6 system. The idea comes from BFRPG, Delving Deeper and various proposed ideas. This keeps within the other D6 based systems in OD&D and does not create a major deviation from the rules in the LBB's. As well it keeps the basics of the Greyhawk thief preserved.
For all checks the base success of the thief is 3 in 6 (This is the same for Human and Demi-human thieves). This is modified by various conditions however, the bonus or penalty should be around the +/-1 mark with +/-2 being the most extreme. For example; a shoddy lock would move the base chance of success to 4 in 6 while a disarming a trap during combat would be a 2 in 6 chance.
Again this is a very basic system with the advantage of the thief also having decent chances of success at low levels but not being able to automatically succeed at higher levels.
Other Classes
For classes that have thief-like percentage abilities the system works the same. The base chance is 3 in 6 with possible adjusting.
Non-Thieves using Thief Skills
While non-thieves can attempt the same actions as the thief the chance of success is only 1 in 6 with the max adjustment being +/-1. Note that there can be times when a non-thief can never have a chance of success. As well, it should be noted that thieves can do things better than non-thieves. They can climb almost sheer surfaces, they can hear noises others can't, they can hide to be nearly invisible. The thief skills should be considered almost supernatural in origin.
Conclusion
While part compromise and part fix; the system has seen success in the campaign and removes keeping track of percentiles and modifiers. I feel it is simple, effective and makes the class more in line with the systems presented in the OD&D boxed set.
As always, comments and suggestions are welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Feb 15, 2015 15:32:24 GMT -5
I like this, Mr Darke. I think I may have said this in another post, but for my "thieves" (I call them "scouts" so that they can be lawful too) I just have them make a kind of a dual check, combining an ability with a "sense" check. I use the "listen at door" mechanic and make it about the use of any sense. So, e.g., DEX and equilibrium for hide in shadows, etc. I learned from Talysman's blog one other mechanic. He calls it "surprise," I call it "stealth." It is like rolling initiative but I keep my roll hidden. The PC may add DEX mods and every third lvl, starting from 4th, scouts get an additional bonus. So, when they want to disarm a trap, we roll this opposing check. The player knows his roll but not mine. I like this so far. |
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Feb 28, 2015 22:27:57 GMT -5
Mr Darke I'm digging that thief skill system. I'm going to give it a go because I am not a fan of the percentile system either. Have an Exalt for a great idea!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Semi-Retired Gamer on Feb 28, 2015 22:30:10 GMT -5
I like this, Mr Darke. I think I may have said this in another post, but for my "thieves" (I call them "scouts" so that they can be lawful too) I just have them make a kind of a dual check, combining an ability with a "sense" check. I use the "listen at door" mechanic and make it about the use of any sense. So, e.g., DEX and equilibrium for hide in shadows, etc. I learned from Talysman's blog one other mechanic. He calls it "surprise," I call it "stealth." It is like rolling initiative but I keep my roll hidden. The PC may add DEX mods and every third lvl, starting from 4th, scouts get an additional bonus. So, when they want to disarm a trap, we roll this opposing check. The player knows his roll but not mine. I like this so far. That surprise/stealth rolling system is interesting! I'm going to use it... |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Mar 1, 2015 2:22:11 GMT -5
My biggest issue with the Thief is that some of the Thief abilities are things which I intrinsically feel should belong to everyone. Everyone can have a go at sneaking about, listening, climbing etc., but the Thief should be more likely to succeed at them. I might consider something as simple as this - Thief level as modifier on Dex-based attack rolls to do this, that or the other. I might restrict trap manipulation, lockpicking and pickpocketing to the Thief simply to keep the class unique in some respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Darke on Mar 2, 2015 21:31:17 GMT -5
The way I use it is that everyone can do the same but thieves are more trained and thus more able to do so. Hence most other classes having a base 1 in 6 chance. However, it does adjust just as the thief's abilities do.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 27, 2015 21:07:04 GMT -5
The way I use it is that everyone can do the same but thieves are more trained and thus more able to do so. Hence most other classes having a base 1 in 6 chance. However, it does adjust just as the thief's abilities do. That's a very important point: Anyone can do thief things. Thieves are just better at them. Anyone can sneak. A Thief can attempt to move silently. Anyone can climb. A Thief can climb sheer surfaces like Spider-Man. Anyone can hide. A Thief can become invisible by hiding in shadows.One way to handle non-thief sneak checks is to roll surprise for the party to be avoided. Surprise means that they don't detect the sneak. This can be adjusted for metal armor and for dexterity if you want. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 28, 2015 16:21:38 GMT -5
I like this a lot. I universally use the word ability  , since my OD&D does not have skills  , only abilities.  |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Mar 29, 2015 2:47:11 GMT -5
The way I use it is that everyone can do the same but thieves are more trained and thus more able to do so. Hence most other classes having a base 1 in 6 chance. However, it does adjust just as the thief's abilities do. That's a very important point: Anyone can do thief things. Thieves are just better at them. Anyone can sneak. A Thief can attempt to move silently. Anyone can climb. A Thief can climb sheer surfaces like Spider-Man. Anyone can hide. A Thief can become invisible by hiding in shadows.One way to handle non-thief sneak checks is to roll surprise for the party to be avoided. Surprise means that they don't detect the sneak. This can be adjusted for metal armor and for dexterity if you want. That's a very literal reading of the Thief abilities which goes further toward justifying the class' existence in my eyes than any hitherto attempted. The thief is capable of extraordinarily accomplished feats in commonplace areas. I think I would prefer such feats to be associated with Assassins in my game (it's an issue of significance) but for general D&D I think this is a very solid assertion. Have an Exalt. |
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Mar 29, 2015 8:15:44 GMT -5
It is interesting to see the devolution of the thief from OD&D to today. His Hide in Shadows becomes just Hiding and then turns into generic skill points by 3e. His ability to silently kill guards and sentries turns into a Backstap in AD&D and, by 3e, is just a damage boost in tactical combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Mar 29, 2015 10:37:48 GMT -5
The way I use it is that everyone can do the same but thieves are more trained and thus more able to do so. Hence most other classes having a base 1 in 6 chance. However, it does adjust just as the thief's abilities do. That's a very important point: Anyone can do thief things. Thieves are just better at them. Anyone can sneak. A Thief can attempt to move silently. Anyone can climb. A Thief can climb sheer surfaces like Spider-Man. Anyone can hide. A Thief can become invisible by hiding in shadows.One way to handle non-thief sneak checks is to roll surprise for the party to be avoided. Surprise means that they don't detect the sneak. This can be adjusted for metal armor and for dexterity if you want. I've always seen the thief like this. No other adventurer can emulate these abilities. Doesn't stop them from doing more mundane things like hiding behind a door or climbing a tree or smashing open a lock. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Darke on Mar 29, 2015 12:38:17 GMT -5
This is all pretty much how I see it. The thief would be more specially trained in his abilities than any other class and would be able to do more. Taking an example from real life we'll look at my hunting skills. I'm decent and know how to blend into a brush pile, walk somewhat softly and get up a tree. But, someone like a special forces operative can blend in an open field(Hide/Stealth), walk pretty much silently (Stealth/Move Silent), observe the area for traps or enemy activity (Listen/Remove Traps), get to places I never would dream of (Climb) and knows how to attack and not be seen or heard (Backstab/Sneak Attack. This is the difference between a Thief and other classes.
Sure other classes can do some of this but they are not trained enough to make almost supernatural successes in doing them.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 29, 2015 13:21:16 GMT -5
I am astonished and delighted at the notion that my delineation of thief abilities is an argument in favor of the inclusion of the thief! It was my intention to argue tha a thief class is superfluous. But you're right- it does recommend their inclusion! My wife made the same argument to me yesterday and it gave me some pause.
I need to go back to the drawing board. There has to be a non-tautological argument against the inclusion of the thief class that doesn't invite ambiguous reactions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Von on Mar 29, 2015 14:35:56 GMT -5
I am astonished and delighted at the notion that my delineation of thief abilities is an argument in favor of the inclusion of the thief! It was my intention to argue tha a thief class is superfluous. But you're right- it does recommend their inclusion! My wife made the same argument to me yesterday and it gave me some pause. I need to go back to the drawing board. There has to be a non-tautological argument against the inclusion of the thief class that doesn't invite ambiguous reactions. To be fair, I'm still more likely to subdivide the class into Scoundrel and Assassin for my own game. There is something about Thieves that sticks in my craw and I'm not sure what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 29, 2015 15:40:40 GMT -5
There is something about Thieves that sticks in my craw and I'm not sure what it is. For me it is the idea of the thief striking silently from behind with a +4 to hit and a minimum of double damage IMO equals evil, which IMO precludes the inclusion of a thief in Lawful party. Bitd we always played Lawful groups with Neutral thieves, except I never could rationalize calling a thief a Neutral (I went with it for the game, but it always rubbed me the wrong way). That is why I am always looking for a good alternative to a thief that does almost everything a thief does except for pickpocket and strike silently from behind. I am just by nature opposed to those abilities for a PC. |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 29, 2015 18:17:22 GMT -5
The ability Backstab doesn't strike me as non-lawful. Backstabbing people for no reason strikes me as non-lawful.
If you're backstabbing monsters or people who deserve it, that's not really non-lawful.
I'm not arguing with you, PD, I jus don't like the btb admonition against Lawful thieves.
|
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Mar 29, 2015 19:44:16 GMT -5
For me it is the idea of the thief striking silently from behind with a +4 to hit and a minimum of double damage IMO equals evil, which IMO precludes the inclusion of a thief in Lawful party. A silent strike from behind doesn't have to be lethal. It would be a well placed choke hold (silently taking out the guard is a staple of action movies). This is another reason I don't like the term "Backstab" |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Mar 29, 2015 22:49:50 GMT -5
I don't see striking silently from behind as non-neutral per se, because nothing says neutral means you can't use your skills to your best advantage. To me a thief is just a character that knows better than to get into a stand-up fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 30, 2015 0:22:46 GMT -5
I was looking at Rastus' berserker class which is basically a fighting-man kit. It's based on the ODD monster listing by the same name.
But there's nothing that says it has to be a berserk berserker. It could be more like a really clever sword fighter or something.
I'm imagining in my head a guy who has the berserker kit, and does the thief stuff in a party without them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Von on Mar 30, 2015 2:17:53 GMT -5
There is something about Thieves that sticks in my craw and I'm not sure what it is. For me it is the idea of the thief striking silently from behind with a +4 to hit and a minimum of double damage IMO equals evil, which IMO precludes the inclusion of a thief in Lawful party. Bitd we always played Lawful groups with Neutral thieves, except I never could rationalize calling a thief a Neutral (I went with it for the game, but it always rubbed me the wrong way). That is why I am always looking for a good alternative to a thief that does almost everything a thief does except for pickpocket and strike silently from behind. I am just by nature opposed to those abilities for a PC. I have never had a problem with 'alignment clash' within a party, to be honest. For starters I think most roleplayers have a very loose definition of what constitutes 'lawful behaviour', or at least a knack for protective rationalisation, and for seconds I generally play the token chaotic / evil / morally undesirable team-mate if I'm on that side of the screen anyway. Then again I don't consider hit point damage to be lethal - 0 HP is 'incapacitated' but what that means depends on context. 'Backstab' is an awkward word in those circumstances and I do almost prefer the later editions' 'Sneak Attack' as a more open piece of terminology. I think my problem with the Thief is that 'Thief' has an implicitly narrow focus: one who thieves. Much of what the Thief is actually intended to do in a dungeon environment is not thieving but opening the way - checking for traps, opening locks, scouting and so on - and so the class feels out of place. You say 'Thief' and I immediately think of a developed environment. If property is theft, theft needs property, i.e. a certain level of civilisation. It's not a problem for my urban fantasy games but it's yet another reason why the dungeon context grates across my sensibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 30, 2015 7:40:25 GMT -5
Pathfinder, Scout, Trailblazer, Guide, Treasure Hunter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 30, 2015 8:24:15 GMT -5
The ability Backstab doesn't strike me as non-lawful. Backstabbing people for no reason strikes me as non-lawful. If you're backstabbing monsters or people who deserve it, that's not really non-lawful. I'm not arguing with you, PD, I jus don't like the btb admonition against Lawful thieves. Part of it for me is the name "Thief", I would like to rewrite it - started but have not finished it - as a Scout of some such name. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 30, 2015 8:25:24 GMT -5
For me it is the idea of the thief striking silently from behind with a +4 to hit and a minimum of double damage IMO equals evil, which IMO precludes the inclusion of a thief in Lawful party. A silent strike from behind doesn't have to be lethal. It would be a well placed choke hold (silently taking out the guard is a staple of action movies). This is another reason I don't like the term "Backstab" That is a good point and I don't like the more common term "Backstab". |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Mar 30, 2015 8:28:34 GMT -5
For me it is the idea of the thief striking silently from behind with a +4 to hit and a minimum of double damage IMO equals evil, which IMO precludes the inclusion of a thief in Lawful party. Bitd we always played Lawful groups with Neutral thieves, except I never could rationalize calling a thief a Neutral (I went with it for the game, but it always rubbed me the wrong way). That is why I am always looking for a good alternative to a thief that does almost everything a thief does except for pickpocket and strike silently from behind. I am just by nature opposed to those abilities for a PC. I have never had a problem with 'alignment clash' within a party, to be honest. For starters I think most roleplayers have a very loose definition of what constitutes 'lawful behaviour', or at least a knack for protective rationalisation, and for seconds I generally play the token chaotic / evil / morally undesirable team-mate if I'm on that side of the screen anyway. Then again I don't consider hit point damage to be lethal - 0 HP is 'incapacitated' but what that means depends on context. 'Backstab' is an awkward word in those circumstances and I do almost prefer the later editions' 'Sneak Attack' as a more open piece of terminology. I think my problem with the Thief is that 'Thief' has an implicitly narrow focus: one who thieves. Much of what the Thief is actually intended to do in a dungeon environment is not thieving but opening the way - checking for traps, opening locks, scouting and so on - and so the class feels out of place. You say 'Thief' and I immediately think of a developed environment. If property is theft, theft needs property, i.e. a certain level of civilisation. It's not a problem for my urban fantasy games but it's yet another reason why the dungeon context grates across my sensibilities. I substantially agree with you. Good list! |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Mar 30, 2015 12:12:02 GMT -5
I like "Treasure Hunter" or "Traiblazer" a great deal. Possibly "Dungeoneer" too (as in by profession first and foremost). Even the rather vague "Specialist" of LotFP is starting to suit me well.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Mar 30, 2015 14:13:50 GMT -5
Yeah. Dungeoneer is good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Darke on Mar 30, 2015 15:30:26 GMT -5
I'm partial to the D20 name of Rogue.
As far as alignment clashes go I tend to ignore alignment for the most part as my campaign defines things rather loosely. It is pretty common to see good assassins (think Boondock Saints) in my games as well as Paladins that will beat someone to a pulp if they need to (The G.D. BATMAN, LOL).
|
|
, since my OD&D does not have skills 
, only abilities. 
