"Thieving" Abilities - Revisited

[The Perilous Dreamer]

As some of you may know, I have never cared for the "Thief" Class, partly because I see them as non-heroic bad guys and partly because old school OD&D is about the players being able (apart from a differentiation by class) to be able to do or try anything. Rather than having a specialist "Thief" Class, I prefer to have any player be able to do or at least attempt those things. So in this thread I am going to give you my take on how to accomplish this. The thieves IMC are NPCs.

1. Instead of a d6 I am going to run this on a d12 and this is based on using the Greyhawk Supplement and the various adjustments from it. 

2. What are the "thieving" abilities.

A. open locks by picking or foiling magical closures

B. remove small trap devices (such as poisoned needles)

C. listen for noise behind closed doors

D. move with great stealth

E. sleight of hand (formerly known as filch items and pick pockets)

F. hide in shadows

G. climb nearly sheer surfaces, upwards or downwards

H. highest levels are able to read those spells written on scrolls.

I. 3rd level and above are able to read most (80%) languages.

J. 10th level and above are able to understand magical writings. (some caveats I will get into later)

K. (Added) Basic Tracking
3. I will exclude striking silently from behind as (IMC) an evil act.

4. I will exclude filch items and pick pockets (which is often directed towards the innocent) and replace it with sleight of hand, which is of great use to an adventurer, particularly if captured.

5. D, F and G can only be accomplished if wearing no armor at all.

6. These abilities get better as you increase in level, similar to other abilities.

7. Each of your six characteristics provide adjustments, both positive and negative to these abilities.

8. These abilities are open to the Adventuring class which consists of Fighting-Men, Magic-Users, Clerics, Paladins, Rangers and Others. (Note: Rangers go beyond Basic Tracking)

In the following days I will  expand upon these in further posts in this thread.


Oh, yeah, this is post 5000! 

[mao]

Very interesting, One of My One thread Worlds is going to be fighter,cleric and mage only, will adopt this for that. Good Job

[ripx187]

To play devil's advocate, not allowing a Player to commit questionable or evil acts goes against the theme of "Trying Anything". As DM's we aren't really allowed to tell the player how to play their character. There are consequences in the game world itself, and as DM we often do sit on the soapbox, this just comes with playing all of the other characters. 


It just seems weird to me that you single out the Thief when you can always play the other classes just as wicked, if not more so. The thief is a class, just as playing a wizard, it is how the character plays it that defines it.

[ripx187]

Second Edition AD&D had a rule that could be found, I believe, in "The Complete Fighter's Handbook" which allowed a fighter to deal non-lethal damage. It was used for duals, and other fights where you didn't want to kill each other, just settle a dispute. We carried this over to the Thief's Backstab ability, I think that AD&D did so as well with "The Complete Thief's Handbook". Instead of murdering the victim, you could try and knock them unconscious. That damage bonus is pretty important to a character who spends so much time just outside of the party. 

[The Perilous Dreamer]

Nov 2, 2019 11:53:29 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

To play devil's advocate, not allowing a Player to commit questionable or evil acts goes against the theme of "Trying Anything". As DM's we aren't really allowed to tell the player how to play their character. There are consequences in the game world itself, and as DM we often do sit on the soapbox, this just comes with playing all of the other characters. 

It just seems weird to me that you single out the Thief when you can always play the other classes just as wicked, if not more so. The thief is a class, just as playing a wizard, it is how the character plays it that defines it.

While any player can play their character as evil, that is not the way I roll. If someone wants to play evil they need to find a different campaign. My players play characters that are Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, but outright evil, no I do not do that. So a player in my campaign can "Try Anything". But if that turns into murder of an innocent or rape or something else that is heinous, then they are gone. One reason is that I often have kids in my game and I do not want adults giving them that kind of example. I have never liked the back stab, my personal foible. I will not punish a player for attacking a monster from behind, but I do not reward them for it either, unless it is a powerful evil that will never give or expect quarter. Vampires, liches, trolls, beholders (of course ambushing a beholder is virtually impossible) and the like.

Besides having the Thief class to some extent nerfs the other classes and I never liked that. It does not have to, but people usually will play it that way.

[hengest]

Nov 2, 2019 13:17:16 GMT -5 The Perilous Dreamer said:

Nov 2, 2019 11:53:29 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

To play devil's advocate, not allowing a Player to commit questionable or evil acts goes against the theme of "Trying Anything". As DM's we aren't really allowed to tell the player how to play their character. There are consequences in the game world itself, and as DM we often do sit on the soapbox, this just comes with playing all of the other characters. 

It just seems weird to me that you single out the Thief when you can always play the other classes just as wicked, if not more so. The thief is a class, just as playing a wizard, it is how the character plays it that defines it.

While any player can play their character as evil, that is not the way I roll. If someone wants to play evil they need to find a different campaign. My players play characters that are Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic, but outright evil, no I do not do that. So a player in my campaign can "Try Anything". But if that turns into murder of an innocent or rape or something else that is heinous, then they are gone. One reason is that I often have kids in my game and I do not want adults giving them that kind of example. I have never liked the back stab, my personal foible. I will not punish a player for attacking a monster from behind, but I do not reward them for it either, unless it is a powerful evil that will never give or expect quarter. Vampires, liches, trolls, beholders (of course ambushing a beholder is virtually impossible) and the like.

Besides having the Thief class to some extent nerfs the other classes and I never liked that. It does not have to, but people usually will play it that way.

I'm glad I've never even played in a campaign where anyone got into heinous stuff.  

I kind of see what you mean about the thief. I've been thinking a lot about the AiF system, although the core classes are so DnD, I might feel bad losing them.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

I like the thief class but only for darker games that emulate The Vlad Tallis and Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser vibe. One thing that I did like about 3.x and 5e D&D was how the Thief became the Rogue and could be less Thiefy. You could be simply a Tomb Raider or adventurer that had thiefy skills.

I can see thieves becoming spies, professional monster hunters or a template for a ranger and replace pick pockets with a tracking ability or a ninja in a Oriental Adventures themed campaign.

[mao]

I never ha dto force somebody to not be evil, I had a rule that you get a 10% XP bonus if you were good and a 25% penalty if you were evil. Never had a problem w this.

[ripx187]

Since I started playing in the age of AD&D, the Thief has always been there. It influences how I play. I disagreed with Gygax's opinion that players of the class HAD to be evil, as we could use the skills for good. Anybody can break a lock, but the thief could do it quietly. The thief changes the group tactics which improves the game, instead of drawing attention to oneself, the thief allows the party to sneak in and stay undetected if their luck is good. I design dungeons that become very very deadly if organized parties become aware of you, intelligent creatures should have defensive plans that work. 

In regards to acts of evil, I feel that this is more of a matter of opinion. In my games, the worst monsters out there are men. My NPCs never see themselves as evil, those that do are weak characters. In fiction, a good guy committing a crime can be a defining moment, just as a selfless act from someone who you had thought of as "evil" makes a story more complex. This is the kind of fiction that I prefer to read, and it is what influences how I design. 

Game of Thrones is popular, but there is a theme there. Heroic tales of the past are embellished, the deeds that caused them to be were not even close to the tales, and those tales are what drives the story forward. Good men did terrible things, not out of meanness (well, sometimes), but because they were human. They succumbed to weakness. Some characters regret it, some seek to hide the truth, some become jaded, all suffer pain and it is what you do with this pain that defines you. Of course, none of the players are going to get this invested in a world and it's inhabitants as I am, but that goes back to design. As far a the thief goes, they have their place in the military, in government, in the economy, and in bringing about civilization. Anybody can be a spy or a scout, this class allows a select few to specialize at it.