* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : What's up with the thief!? Started at 05-22-04 12:24 AM by Coldpenguin625 Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=244089 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Coldpenguin625 Date : 05-22-04 12:24 AM Thread Title : What's up with the thief!? Does anyone else believe the theif's experience requirements are too low? Has anyone changed the experience table because of this? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : WizO_Catoblepas Date : 05-22-04 12:39 AM Actually I never had a problem with the thief's experience level requirements. Really, as power goes, it isn't the most powerful class at upper levels. Also, their skills/job function puts the class at more risk than any other class. The experience points level was the 1st/2nd edition way of balancing out the classes - one that I actually agree with. However, this is just IMHO. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : q'afuu Date : 05-22-04 01:36 AM Except for the differeing XP tables per class resulting in some funky effects for multi/dualclassed characters, I agree with Cato above. The differences in XP per level make up somewhat for the differences in class power. The multiple prime requisites for some (though not all) of the more powerful classes help too. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Lina_Inverse Date : 05-22-04 02:18 AM only had a problem with thieves when it came to bards.bards being strictly better than wizards in 2E and all..... oh and the fact most thieves ended up lvl2-3 after the first adventure.but thats more to do with the wonky exp rules,then again 3E has wonky power scaleing and forced magic! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Thailfi Date : 05-22-04 11:46 AM Thieves are so obviously the weakest class in 1e/2e that if anything they should need less experience to level up. I wouldn't even blink if someone wanted to put a 12th level thief in my 7th to 9th level dungeon. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Tas Date : 05-22-04 07:48 PM oh and the fact most thieves ended up lvl2-3 after the first adventure.but thats more to do with the wonky exp rules,then again 3E has wonky power scaleing and forced magic! In the 1st ed. rules, this kind of thing was balanced out by 'training costs' rules. (That also explained the Monty Haul levels of treasure involved in certain scenarios too!) Cheers Tas -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Lina_Inverse Date : 05-22-04 09:20 PM Originally posted by Tas oh and the fact most thieves ended up lvl2-3 after the first adventure.but thats more to do with the wonky exp rules,then again 3E has wonky power scaleing and forced magic! In the 1st ed. rules, this kind of thing was balanced out by 'training costs' rules. (That also explained the Monty Haul levels of treasure involved in certain scenarios too!) Cheers Tas good enough.just alot of people who want to use training dont want to include the levels of gold nessasary. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : FireAndIce Date : 05-24-04 01:20 AM I'm new to second ed, but I'm just loving the xp tables by class, it has such a wonderfull balance to it, thieves really deserve the bonus they get in my opinion. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Lina_Inverse Date : 05-24-04 02:37 AM Originally posted by FireAndIce I'm new to second ed, but I'm just loving the xp tables by class, it has such a wonderfull balance to it, thieves really deserve the bonus they get in my opinion. in 2E they sure did.but bards didnt!ACK! ahhhh 2E gotta love when fighters where the most powerfull class in the game after bards.who now suck majorly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-24-04 03:03 AM As compared to 1e where the ranger, the cavalier, and the barbarian were the kings of the hill. But yes, 2e fighters were awesome. If you were playing in FR, give a 20th level fighter a dead magic stone and they would beat anything that could be ffected by normal weapons. In 2e, it would not be unheard of for a 20th level fighter to take on hundreds of orcs and win, single handidly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Lina_Inverse Date : 05-24-04 03:08 AM Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter As compared to 1e where the ranger, the cavalier, and the barbarian were the kings of the hill. But yes, 2e fighters were awesome. If you were playing in FR, give a 20th level fighter a dead magic stone and they would beat anything that could be ffected by normal weapons. In 2e, it would not be unheard of for a 20th level fighter to take on hundreds of orcs and win, single handidly. never played 1E.im getting nostalgic,talking about the uberness of fighters and bards. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-24-04 03:33 AM 1e rangers were frighteningly powerful. They were reprinted in the 2e Complete Ranger's Handbook. Would you like me to type one up here for basis of comparison? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Lina_Inverse Date : 05-24-04 03:37 AM Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter 1e rangers were frighteningly powerful. They were reprinted in the 2e Complete Ranger's Handbook. Would you like me to type one up here for basis of comparison? hey sure,though i doubt they compare to 2E bards.i do know they had wizard spells though..... mmmm bards gotta love getting fireball when the mage is at 3rd level. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-24-04 04:15 AM Here is the 1e ranger. Certain information like XP tables and the giant class specification table have been withheld in interest of maintaining WOTC's copyright. I am posting as a method for comparison. The ranger progresses at a slightly slower rate than the fighter. They eventually gain both druidic and magic user (Wizard) spells. He attacks as follows: Levels: Attacks Per Round: 1-7 1/1 8-14 3/2 15+ 2/1 Hit Dice: A ranger gets 2d8 for hit dice at first level. He then earsn an addtional 2d8 each level to 10th, and +2 to his HP for every level thereafter (This sort of hit die cut off was standard for 1e and 2e.). A ranger can use any armor and gets 3 weapon proficiency slots at first level. In addition, a ranger can wield and wear any weapons and armors allowed to fighters without penalty. A ranger could track A ranger working outdoors had base 10%+10% chance per level of tracking a monster. +2% chance for success for every creature beyond 1 tracked, and -10% for every day past. Underground, the ranger had a flat 65% chance to track a monster from room to room, 55% for doors and stairs used, 45% for trap doors, 35% for conceanled door, and 25% for a secret door. A ranger had the following spell abilites: Ranger Spell Level Level Druid / Magic User (Wizard) 1 / 2 / 3 1 / 2 8 1| - | - - | - 9 1| - | - 1 | - 10 2| - | - 1 | - 11 2| - | - 2 | - 12 2| 1 | - 2 | - 13 2| 1 | - 2 | 1 14 2| 2 | - 2 | 1 15 2| 2 | - 2 | 1 16 2| 2 | 1 2 | 2 17 2| 2 | 2 2 | 2 Rangers got a +1 to damage scored against all giant class opponents for each ranger level they had(Giants in 1e included such creatures as goblins and orcs, and were on a list featuring over 20 creatures.). A ranger surprised opponents on a 1-3 on a d6, and was himself only surprised on a 1 (In 1e, surprise allowed a chracter to get multiple attacks on a target before intiative was even rolled. Rangers could expect 2 to 3 free attacks on an opponent before iniative was even rolled .). At 10th level, rangers gained the ability to use all magic items pertaining to clairaudience, clairvoyance, ESP, and telepathy. At 10th level, rangers got 2d12 followers, which could ranger from other classed characters to dragons. Rangers must always be good. A ranger who becomes evil is foreverafter a fighter with d8 hit dice. A ranger may not own more goods than he can carry easily. He must tithe the rest to non-PC organizations or indivduals. No more than 3 rangers can operate in the same party. Unearthed Arcana Options: Ranger must know the following weapons by 4th level: A bow or crossbow (Any sort) A dagger A spear or an axe A sword Alternately, the ranger could specialize as a fighter as long as the first four weapons he eventually learned to use were of the four types listed above. Rangers specializing as fighters attacked as specialized fighters with their chosen weapon. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Lina_Inverse Date : 05-24-04 08:25 PM Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter Here is the 1e ranger. Certain information like XP tables and the giant class specification table have been withheld in interest of maintaining WOTC's copyright. I am posting as a method for comparison. The ranger progresses at a slightly slower rate than the fighter. They eventually gain both druidic and magic user (Wizard) spells. He attacks as follows: Levels: Attacks Per Round: 1-7 1/1 8-14 3/2 15+ 2/1 Hit Dice: A ranger gets 2d8 for hit dice at first level. He then earsn an addtional 2d8 each level to 10th, and +2 to his HP for every level thereafter (This sort of hit die cut off was standard for 1e and 2e.). A ranger can use any armor and gets 3 weapon proficiency slots at first level. In addition, a ranger can wield and wear any weapons and armors allowed to fighters without penalty. A ranger could track A ranger working outdoors had base 10%+10% chance per level of tracking a monster. +2% chance for success for every creature beyond 1 tracked, and -10% for every day past. Underground, the ranger had a flat 65% chance to track a monster from room to room, 55% for doors and stairs used, 45% for trap doors, 35% for conceanled door, and 25% for a secret door. A ranger had the following spell abilites: Ranger Spell Level Level Druid / Magic User (Wizard) 1 / 2 / 3 1 / 2 8 1| - | - - | - 9 1| - | - 1 | - 10 2| - | - 1 | - 11 2| - | - 2 | - 12 2| 1 | - 2 | - 13 2| 1 | - 2 | 1 14 2| 2 | - 2 | 1 15 2| 2 | - 2 | 1 16 2| 2 | 1 2 | 2 17 2| 2 | 2 2 | 2 Rangers got a +1 to damage scored against all giant class opponents for each ranger level they had(Giants in 1e included such creatures as goblins and orcs, and were on a list featuring over 20 creatures.). A ranger surprised opponents on a 1-3 on a d6, and was himself only surprised on a 1 (In 1e, surprise allowed a chracter to get multiple attacks on a target before intiative was even rolled. Rangers could expect 2 to 3 free attacks on an opponent before iniative was even rolled .). At 10th level, rangers gained the ability to use all magic items pertaining to clairaudience, clairvoyance, ESP, and telepathy. At 10th level, rangers got 2d12 followers, which could ranger from other classed characters to dragons. Rangers must always be good. A ranger who becomes evil is foreverafter a fighter with d8 hit dice. A ranger may not own more goods than he can carry easily. He must tithe the rest to non-PC organizations or indivduals. No more than 3 rangers can operate in the same party. Unearthed Arcana Options: Ranger must know the following weapons by 4th level: A bow or crossbow (Any sort) A dagger A spear or an axe A sword Alternately, the ranger could specialize as a fighter as long as the first four weapons he eventually learned to use were of the four types listed above. Rangers specializing as fighters attacked as specialized fighters with their chosen weapon. MY EYES!THEY BURN! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Falstaff the Fighter Date : 05-24-04 08:33 PM Why is that? The spells / table? Getting them to look perfect in code would have taken awhile and I didn't think it was that omportant since they are readable (And this post is only for a comparison.). Do you need them adjusted to be more readable? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Lina_Inverse Date : 05-24-04 08:36 PM Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter Why is that? The spells / table? Getting them to look perfect in code would have taken awhile and I didn't think it was that omportant since they are readable (And this post is only for a comparison.). Do you need them adjusted to be more readable? no no.its more the..... WEAPON SPECILZATION WITH +20 DAMEGE TO A HOST OF MONSTERS AND 2HITDICE PER LEVEL! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-24-04 08:42 PM C'mon! Its not THAT bad. Only at 1st level do they get an extra hit die, and it is balanced out by only rolling a d8. By 5th level a straight fighter has more hp [5x5.5 = 27.5 v 6x4.5 = 27]. Further, where are you getting +20 damage? It is +1 per level, so an 8th level Ranger gets +8 when fighting a Hill Giant. Big deal... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Lina_Inverse Date : 05-24-04 08:47 PM Originally posted by Yorlum C'mon! Its not THAT bad. Only at 1st level do they get an extra hit die, and it is balanced out by only rolling a d8. By 5th level a straight fighter has more hp [5x5.5 = 27.5 v 6x4.5 = 27]. Further, where are you getting +20 damage? It is +1 per level, so an 8th level Ranger gets +8 when fighting a Hill Giant. Big deal... sorry been playing 3E too much,thinking 20th level is easy.anywho. its still nasty from what i understand 1E has the same engine as 2E so fighters where king,specing with nifty damege bonuses.and hp when it most matters.is a pretty big deal. looks compareable to ye olde bard....what the heck is with the 3 per party restriction anyways! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-24-04 09:18 PM Originally posted by Lina_Inverse looks compareable to ye olde bard....what the heck is with the 3 per party restriction anyways! Rangers are supposed to be fairly solitary Aragornesque types. Loners by nature, and while they can be LG, the typical Rangers I saw and ran tended to be CG types. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Asta Kask Date : 05-25-04 05:01 AM Meh. The thief is nothing. Give me Player's Option and I'll create a cleric that has all the abilities of the fighter (incl. weapon spec.), and casts spells and has cleric saves and advances as a cleric. If you're going to break the game bad, go for Player's Option. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-25-04 06:16 AM Originally posted by Asta Kask Meh. The thief is nothing. Give me Player's Option and I'll create a cleric that has all the abilities of the fighter (incl. weapon spec.), and casts spells and has cleric saves and advances as a cleric. If you're going to break the game bad, go for Player's Option. Huh? Who broke the game? And er what's 'Player's Option'? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Incenjucar Date : 05-25-04 06:38 AM Player's option was part of 2.5. 2.5 was essentially trying to drag some point buy elements in to D&D. There were a few interesting ideas, but it was often rather easy to abuse. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Yorlum Date : 05-25-04 07:42 AM Originally posted by Incenjucar Player's option was part of 2.5. 2.5 was essentially trying to drag some point buy elements in to D&D. There were a few interesting ideas, but it was often rather easy to abuse. Thanks, Incenjucar. Glad I missed it from the sound of it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : WizO_Catoblepas Date : 05-29-04 04:10 PM Also keep in mind that the 1st edition ranger had some minimum ability requirements that were somewhat steep to just qualify and were definitely steep when you were trying to qualify for the xp bonus. (whereas it was much easier to qualify for the xp bonus ability requirements for the fighter and the thief...) Thus, the fighter and the thief were cruising up level progression much faster than the ranger with all his cool abilities. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : idiotic_dm_20 Date : 06-02-04 09:17 PM Thread Title : Barbarian xp Yeah if u really want a class that needs way too much xp, check out the tables for 1e barbarian: level--------------xp needed---------hd(d12) 1----------------------0--------------------1 2----------------------6--------------------2 3----------------------12k-----------------3 4----------------------24k-----------------4 5----------------------48k-----------------5 6----------------------80k-----------------6 7----------------------150k---------------7 8----------------------275k---------------8 9----------------------500k---------------8+4 10--------------------1mil-----------------8+8 500k xp per level above 11 Please note that they get double constitution modifier to hit points and double Dexterity modifier to hit points, in addition to other insanely powerful abilities! p.s. sorry about the dashes but i cant get the hang of code -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:20 AM.