* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) Started at 09-14-07 04:32 PM by High Octane Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=923760 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : High Octane Date : 09-14-07 04:32 PM Thread Title : Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) Near as I can tell a 1st edition thief is one of the most worthless classes to play. Am I missing something? The hide in shadows skill does not have any rules for moving, so it seems impossible to move while hidden. Near as I can tell you can't do it in combat either. So unless you are made invisible by the magic user you have to sit in a corner and wait for your enemy to come into range and then use your backstab. Speaking of backstab, can you get it more than once per combat, or are you reduced to being a fighter with d6 hit points and lower bonuses to hit points from con and an utter inability to get 18(xx) strength or weapon specialization? And finally the thief skills, how utterly useless are they really? Not because the skills are bad if successfull, but because you have such an absurdly low chance of success? Right now I have a level 6 thief with 18 dexterity and a bonus to find/remove traps +5 due to a houseruled item, and he still has a 45% chance to miss a trap even if he searches for it, and even if he finds it he then has a 45% chance of failing to disarm it and having it BLOW UP IN HIS FACE. Last session I found a box and luckily FOUND the trap, knew exactly what it was (poison dart) and still had a 45% chance of setting it off and taking the poison hit (which was a save verse poison or DIE) even though I specifically stated that I wanted to simply block the hole with a piece of wood so the dart would hit theblock instead of me. Somehow THAT had a 45% chance to fail. I'm glad I made it AND I'm glad I had a cleric friend standing next to me with a neutralize poison in case I failed (even though straight out of book I would have died instantly anyway, but the DM rules that it would have taken effect since he was readied) To make matters worse than the thief's skills being haphazard and doomed to fail during early levels more times then not and still an unacceptably high rate at medium to high levels, his skills are even highly replacable by second level spells from the cleric and magic user. Knock (MU) replaces open lock, silence replaces move silently (C), find traps replaces find/remove traps (at least as far as avoidance)(C/D), and Invisibility (MU) replaces hide in shadows. These spells perform the same task UNERRINGLY and in some cases to a greater effect than the thief's ability. Aside from a pretty good saving throw list, the thief seems to be pretty shabby. Can anyone prove me wrong PLEASE (my favorite character is a thief/cleric and I am having a hard time finding him useful since he has low wisdom making him a poor cleric). Tell me that backstab can be used multiple times in combat, or that find/remove traps can be tried multiple times or that failing to remove the trap does NOT result in it going off necessarily. I don't want to hear the words "reroll" or "1st edition suxxorz" or some equivelent. I don't play 1st edition normally but one of my DMs runs a 1st edition game. He is also a VERY Vgood DM so I don't want to antagonize him or quit his game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Gryllmyre Date : 09-14-07 06:23 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) As I recall (it's been so long), when I DMed the 1e-2e rogue, I allowed for clever attempts to backstab. If the rogue convincingly put himself in a position to perform a backstab without revealing himself beforehand (even in the same combat), I allowed it. The typical required equipment for a rogue is a ring of invisibility and elven boots. Once a rogue has that, 1e-2e backstabs are cake to pull off. Gauntlets of ogre power and a blade with a nice plus on it will end battles real fast. In the end, I don't remember really depending on the rogue's innate abilities entirely. I always wanted to beef them up with magic items to assist. Other than that, yeah they are pretty much trapfinders and lock pickers. Sometimes pocket pickers, too. I honestly don't remember how my 1e-2e party dealt with most of those. Oh now I remember - 2e allowed distribution of thief ability points. So I could tailor my rogue for the abilities my party needed most. He was also the one that could clamber up walls for whatever reason was necessary. 3e put many solid rules in place of "if it looks convincing, allow it". Ah, allowing a round or 2 to neutralize poison before you die. Memories. As for traps going off from a failed disarm, that could be a DM taste thing. Maybe if you fail badly (by 25% or more?) It was a miracle we ever found anything in 1e-2e. Find a secret door on a 1-2 on d6? Blech. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Mojo_Rat Date : 09-14-07 07:09 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) You can backstab people more than once. In the moder game all flanking is is backstab with no facing. So If you get behind your victim (say the fighte rhas him occupied) then You can backstab them mid fight. As long as the targets back remains to you then you can keep doing the backstab. With Regards to Hide If ou want to Hide and Move silently then you Do your skill check for Move silently also. That is how we always did it in Our game. Lastly the skill %'s were based on a pretty different dynamic than the modern game. Being able to get through That door at the treasure is a big deal and whats more it isnt Garonteed. I think this makes the success of the thief skills more dynamic. This is different from the modern game where the Thief skills as long as your are Acting against your own Challenge rating almost always succeed. But Also the low %'s come down to Game design, If you have a high Dex Dwarf for example hes going to be damn good at picking locks :) But the Game really favours high stats. So if you think your %'s for the 18 dex rogue are low. One of my favorite characters derkan the deadly was like 12's and 13's for every stat and had 12 hps at level 5 (to date the worst i have ever seen for any character) He was Fun because I made him fun but his Thief skill %'s rather blew goats. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Agathokles Date : 09-16-07 03:56 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) Am I missing something? The hide in shadows skill does not have any rules for moving, so it seems impossible to move while hidden. In 2e, you can only move very slowly when hiding. It should be the same in 1e. In combat, you have to move when the opponents are looking elsewhere. So unless you are made invisible by the magic user you have to sit in a corner and wait for your enemy to come into range and then use your backstab. Use ranged weapons. Thieves are not especially strong in melee anyway, so unless you have opportunities for backstab, you should not enter melee. Speaking of backstab, can you get it more than once per combat, or are you reduced to being a fighter with d6 hit points and lower bonuses to hit points from con and an utter inability to get 18(xx) strength or weapon specialization? The Thief is not a combat class to begin with. It can function as a support fighter, but he is less effective than a Cleric in that role. Once more, the Thief should focus on Dexterity (to lower his generally high armor class, since he can't wear heavy armor) and ranged weapons. As to backstab, you theoretically could backstab more than once per combat, but the opponents must be unaware of your presence, which is unlikely after the first backstab. And finally the thief skills, how utterly useless are they really? Not because the skills are bad if successfull, but because you have such an absurdly low chance of success? This is indeed a problem with 1e and OD&D. 2e handles it by allowing point distribution, so you can get one or two skills at a reasonable level (50-60%) from 1st level. There is also another point: the chance of success is measured against an "average" challenge. The DM can (and should) give bonuses or penalties based on, e.g., the quality of locks (2e suggests a range of +30% to -60% in this case), or the presence of furniture allowing cover when hiding, etc. Equipment (even non-magical) can also help. Somehow THAT had a 45% chance to fail. That's unfair. Since it is not an application of the RT skill, there shouldn't even be a roll. Knock (MU) replaces open lock, silence replaces move silently (C), find traps replaces find/remove traps (at least as far as avoidance)(C/D), and Invisibility (MU) replaces hide in shadows. These spells perform the same task UNERRINGLY and in some cases to a greater effect than the thief's ability. That's a general problem with D&D. However, at low levels it is less bad, because no one will ever memorize Knock instead of Web or the like (but that's also because if your pick lock fails, you can just ram the door down :) ) Aside from a pretty good saving throw list, the thief seems to be pretty shabby. Can anyone prove me wrong PLEASE (my favorite character is a thief/cleric and I am having a hard time finding him useful since he has low wisdom making him a poor cleric). that find/remove traps can be tried multiple times or that failing to remove the trap does NOT result in it going off necessarily. The two together are impossible. If you could do so, you could remove any trap, given sufficient time. In 2e, you only trigger the trap on a 96+ roll. You should check whether there's a similar rule in 1e. G. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : ozbirthrightfan Date : 09-16-07 04:59 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) Thieves work best as a multi-class add-on if you are judging things based off of raw "power" in combat. If you have a DM that is fairly sympathetic to letting thief PCs be sneaky, they can be a very fun class too play. If your DM is inflexible with allowing thieves to sneak around and be "thiefly" and runs a combat-focused game, don't take a single-class thief, because you won't run into enough situations where you are 'in your element'. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 09-17-07 09:51 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) I played an assassin or thief most of the time in 1st ed. Yes, they were a challenge to play, BUT when you succeeded it made all the difference to the party. I liked that not everything was hnded to you on a silver platter back then... failure happened. There was no "take ten/ twenty"... you either failed or not, no "gimmes". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : SamualT Barronsword Date : 09-17-07 10:32 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) Near as I can tell a 1st edition thief is one of the most worthless classes to play. And often an essential character class to have in the party, which makes a strange paradox. Am I missing something? The hide in shadows skill does not have any rules for moving, so it seems impossible to move while hidden. Near as I can tell you can't do it in combat either. So unless you are made invisible by the magic user you have to sit in a corner and wait for your enemy to come into range and then use your backstab. By the 1E rules, you can not move while hiding in shadows. However there is “facing” in 1st edition. You should be allowed to Hide in Shadows until your adversary is not looking (facing away from you), and then use Move Silently to move up to them unobserved. If they start to turn towards you before you reach them, and you’ve kept to the shadows on your approach, you should be able to stop and attempt to Hide until your adversary is again looking away, at which time you can resume your movement towards them. Speaking of backstab, can you get it more than once per combat In my 1E and 2E gaming experience, you were pretty much limited to one backstab attempt against any one opponent. If for some reason the opponent couldn’t turn, say they were on a narrow ledge or something, then you might be allowed multiple backstabs on the same opponent. In my games, if the thief were able to dispatch one opponent in combat, and then spent a round or two maneuvering themselves into a position to come up upon a second opponent already engaged in combat with someone else, and thus distracted, I’d roll Surprise for the second opponent (1 or 2 on a d6). If surprised, I’d allow the thief a backstab attack against the new opponent. Granted this didn’t occur to often, for one thing there had to be room enough for the thief to get around the second opponent without being observed, the fight had to last long enough for the thief to dispatch one opponent and circle around to come up behind another, the thief had to avoid being brought into combat with a third opponent while maneuvering to backstab the second target, and lastly the thief had to Surprise the opponent as stated above, but even so, it was technically feasible. For a thief capable of becoming invisible, such as with a ring or a potion, then obtaining multiple backstabs during a single melee were much easier to pull off. …, or are you reduced to being a fighter with d6 hit points and lower bonuses to hit points from con and an utter inability to get 18(xx) strength or weapon specialization? If its any consolation, thieves do go up levels faster than everyone else (a thief with 160,000 xp is tenth level [10d6], a fighter with the same xp is 7th level [7d10]), and thus get their d6 hit points and improved saving throws and improved class specific skills at a faster clip than do the other classes. Obtaining level faster also means thieves become immune to the worst effects of certain spells and special abilities which affect creatures by “Hit Die” faster than the other slower advancing classes. As to stats, I can’t help but wonder if you rolled an 18 for strength, and better than a 16 for Con, why did you choose to be a thief instead of a fighter? Or at the very least why didn’t you choose to be a fighter/thief as opposed to a cleric/thief? If you didn’t roll up such high stats for your characters Strength and Con, why complain about not getting bonuses to hit/damage and to total hit points when your character doesn’t have the stats to acquire these anyways? As to weapon specialization, you know that is a bone thrown to the fighters (under the UA rules) for being fighters, because all they can do is fight. Thieves have other things to specialize in. And finally the thief skills, how utterly useless are they really? Not because the skills are bad if successfull, but because you have such an absurdly low chance of success? Right now I have a level 6 thief with 18 dexterity and a bonus to find/remove traps +5 due to a houseruled item, and he still has a 45% chance to miss a trap even if he searches for it… A 55% chance is better than a 0% chance, which is what most other characters normally have. …and even if he finds it he then has a 45% chance of failing to disarm it and having it BLOW UP IN HIS FACE. That’s a pretty harsh interpretation of rules by your DM. As I read them, the rules only stipulate that success deactivates the trap, nothing about failure activating the trap. Of course, to make things interesting on occasion, with really sophisticated traps, I’d make the remove traps roll for the thief behind my DM’s screen, and whether they succeeded or failed to deactivate the trap I’d tell them “You think you deactivated it.” Could be I‘m a harsh DM too, in a different way. Last session I found a box and luckily FOUND the trap, knew exactly what it was (poison dart) and still had a 45% chance of setting it off and taking the poison hit (which was a save verse poison or DIE) even though I specifically stated that I wanted to simply block the hole with a piece of wood so the dart would hit the block instead of me. Somehow THAT had a 45% chance to fail. I'm glad I made it AND I'm glad I had a cleric friend standing next to me with a neutralize poison in case I failed (even though straight out of book I would have died instantly anyway, but the DM rules that it would have taken effect since he was readied) You should have got a saving throw if the dart hit you. Even so, while putting a poison type D (save vs. poison or die in one segment) poison dart trap in a dungeon is a DM’s prerogative, nothing says the DM has to use it. There are other less deadly traps, and less deadly poisons, even in 1E. Hope there was something in that box worth such a deadly trap. Me, I would have allowed you to neutralize the trap with your block of wood trick. As I see it, activating an already found and relatively simple, “one shot” type trap so that it goes off harmlessly, or marking a trap so that it can be avoided, is not the same thing as physically attempting to “remove” the trap. Personally I see no reason to roll for such things if a workable solution around the trap is articulated by the player(s), but different DM‘s, different interpretation of the rules. To make matters worse than the thief's skills being haphazard and doomed to fail during early levels more times then not and still an unacceptably high rate at medium to high levels, his skills are even highly replacable by second level spells from the cleric and magic user. Knock (MU) replaces open lock, silence replaces move silently (C), find traps replaces find/remove traps (at least as far as avoidance)(C/D), and Invisibility (MU) replaces hide in shadows. These spells perform the same task UNERRINGLY and in some cases to a greater effect than the thief's ability. None of these spells removes traps. Thieves are not limited in the number of times per day they can attempt to use their skills the way spells are limited in the number that can be cast per day. Also most spell casters would just as soon memorize more effective combat spells than thief substitute spells, having a thief in the party allows them to do this. Silence cast on the party can hamper it as much as help it. Find Traps is more limited than a thieves find trap skill in that, while it can reveal what is trapped and what isn’t, it doesn’t reveal how the item is trapped. For instance a Find Traps spell would have revealed that the box you found was trapped, but it wouldn’t reveal what the trap was, or whether it would activate when the box was touched, or picked up, or opened, only a thief could tell that. Aside from a pretty good saving throw list, the thief seems to be pretty shabby. Can anyone prove me wrong PLEASE (my favorite character is a thief/cleric and I am having a hard time finding him useful since he has low wisdom making him a poor cleric). Tell me that backstab can be used multiple times in combat, or that find/remove traps can be tried multiple times or that failing to remove the trap does NOT result in it going off necessarily. Does your character have infravision? If so you might find a more useful role for your thief if your willing to risk going ahead of the party by yourself in dungeon or back alley city adventures, relying on your infravision, hear noise and move silently skills, to give you an edge on locating the opposition without being located yourself, then retreating back to wherever the rest of the party is to tell what you saw. A dangerous role to play for sure, but your status in the party should improve if they begin to look at you as their “eyes and ears” as well as just a back up fighter and the guy who occasionally opens locks and deals with traps. __________________ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : kintire Date : 09-18-07 07:15 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) Near as I can tell a 1st edition thief is one of the most worthless classes to play. It is a total pain. It was bad enough in 2e. Still, I think your GM is being a little harsh... Am I missing something? The hide in shadows skill does not have any rules for moving, so it seems impossible to move while hidden. Near as I can tell you can't do it in combat either. So unless you are made invisible by the magic user you have to sit in a corner and wait for your enemy to come into range and then use your backstab. If 1e backstab is to have any value at all, your gm MUST use facing or it just doesn't work. frankly, I'd just forget about it. With a doubtful armour class and d6 hps you don't want to be standing next to the enemy anyway, and a backstab is pretty so so even if it works. Shoot them. And finally the thief skills, how utterly useless are they really? Not because the skills are bad if successfull, but because you have such an absurdly low chance of success? Resign yourself to being largely a feeble fighter for the first seven levels. Actually, as a ranged fighter this isn't that bad. The fighter's difference in hit probability doesn't really begin to bite for those levels, especially since you'll be levelling quicker. He'll have an edge, but not a huge one. To make matters worse than the thief's skills being haphazard and doomed to fail during early levels more times then not and still an unacceptably high rate at medium to high levels, his skills are even highly replacable by second level spells from the cleric and magic user. Not a huge problem at low levels. They'll have better things to do with their spells. At higher levels, detecting the trap isn't really the issue. It doesn't really do any good if you can't disarm it. Once your skills start boosting to useful levels, it gets much better. One caveat: your DM really shouldn't be using Save vs Die poisons against a 6th level thief (one of the worst aspects of early DnD rules was that example of play. Save vs die poison on the first chest. Multiple ghouls... for a first level party. no no no no no!). If he does, take the chest with you out of the dungeon and get the magic user to memorise knock. Frankly, a single class thief will always be the weakest and least active member of the group. But when he is active, he's vital. Unless of course, you houserule him into uselessness... Somehow THAT had a 45% chance to fail. That's unfair. Since it is not an application of the RT skill, there shouldn't even be a roll. Like this. well meaning, but I would strenuously advise that you do not allow detailed description of what you are doing to replace a skill roll. Only a thief can make a skill roll, but anyone can describe what they are going to do about a trap. Once doing that replaces DT, you really will have to reroll. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : havard Date : 09-18-07 10:04 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) I agree. The Thief in OOP D&D is broken. With some DMs it can work really well, but the rules just leave way too much up to the individual DM. Now the other classes put the power in the hands of the players. Their descriptions tell the players what their character can and cannot do. As a Thief you are totally dependant on having the DM create situations for you where your thief abilities will be useful. Okay, I'm exaggerating. There are things the player can do to make the class more interesting. Plan an ambush etc. Go out and actively try to find situations where the Thief skills are useful. Still, I would rather roll up a new fighter. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : phaaf_glien Date : 09-18-07 06:07 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) I used to agree with all of you about the thief sub-class. It seemed a terribly weak character. However, I DMd a campaign some years back with eventually 13 players (don't ask me how we all managed to play like that, but we did!), and their characters consisted of a whole gamut of races and classes. Indeed, the party was composed primarily of warriors. It was a new player who chose "thief" as his character class that proved to me just how powerful and fun the class can really be. Balathar Darlantan (it was the character's name) was a half-elf fighter/thief, who early on stayed in the back, slowly gaining his initial early levels. He very quickly began using assassination as a major tactic however, sneaking in at night to kill sleeping enemies, and murdering other enemies by luring them into a false sense of security followed by a judicious use of an unanticipated back-stab. Balathar was played with an unwavering use of hide in shadows and move silently, the player attempting to maximize his slowly rising ability with such skills. Indeed, even though his chances of success with these abilities were low at first, his constant attempts to use them eventually paid off. Indeed, the player began to show me how powerful the abilities really were, because he required no spell or anything else to use them... he could do them again and again, without limit, whereas a spellcaster with spells to mimic such abilities would very quickly expend his ability to mimic the thief. Interestingly, Balathar rarely relied on his fighter abilities, although they of course added a healthy dynamic. Eventually, since we had so many players, our all to realistic campaign began to fragment politically, the players/PCs forming two basic camps. Balathar saw one camp as being politically undesirable and even dangerous, which was headed up by a PC fighter named Cyrus, who had just reached the awesome power of 9th level, and in the game had been bestowed with de facto baronial powers, giving him supposed control over a sizable region (although in reality he only controlled a single decrepit town of 3,000 or so). After a successful military campaign, in which much treasure was won, the new baron Cyrus (Balathar had just assassinated the 0th level old baron in his sleep) decided he wished to divvy up the treasure amongst the NPC troops on a more even scale. Balathar was against this, wanting to keep the greatest amount for the 12 or so PCs at the time, paying the soldiers only a pittance. Cyrus won out the debate when he allowed a free-for-all for the treasure pile, common soldiers included. This caused a serious rift amongst the PCs which was very fun to play out, as a cold war of sorts erupted. A small group of the PCs, who considered themselves neutral in the whole affair, left town (the town was Mirsaki). Balathar viewed this as a threat and a betrayal, and sent a party of his brand-new thief followers to sneak up on and murder some of these PCs. It was a failure for the assassination party, but fun to play out. Since only Balathar's thieves were killed, the political backlash of the attacked PCs did not spell the end for the fighter/thief, but he did seem to step back from the decision table regarding the party's overall newfound power as the bosses of the town. He played like he was sorry, and made peace overtures to Cyrus, the baron-elect. Politically, it was difficult for Balathar to be punished further, as he was now a friend to all once again. Secretly however, and unbeknownst to the other players, the player of Balathar was pulling me aside out of game to discuss the assassination of a fellow PC, the fighter Cyrus. Balathar apparently held a serious grudge against Cyrus, blaming him for the rift in the party politics and for the loss of power and policy making this meant for Balathar. Balathar thus planned for weeks, enlisting the help of a junior PC dwarven cleric and his followers in the conspiracy. It had to be carefully planned because Cyrus was rather powerful. We rolled straight 3d6 stats down the line, so almost none of the PCs were very powerful in that sense, but Cyrus bore magical armor and a magical sword, as well as the party's prized item, a girdle of cloud giant strength (str 23) they had taken from a goblin king. Balathar nonetheless proceeded, and leading unsuspecting and friendly Cyrus down into the small maze of his then not-yet-finished rogue stronghold, stabbed his fellow PC in the back for a successful backstab. This did not please the surprised player of Cyrus (the words "you s.o.b." were uttered to everyone's amusement). The workers in the underground stronghold, who were the dwarven priest accomplice's followers, joined in the mob to kill Cyrus. Balathar backed up, knowing he could not kill Cyrus in melee, even with the low-level help. Cyrus started fighting his way out, even as Balathar's own remaining followers joined in the fight. Almost free, Cyrus was finally taken down by a 1st level gnome illusionist/thief's illusionary magic missile spell. Cyrus was then killed in the mob. Although the players of course knew what had happened, none of the PCs did, except of course for the dwarven accomplice. Cyrus had simply "disappeared" without a trace, it being thought he went through a known magical portal nearby, never to return, and so no reprisals could be made against Balathar, even though there were very serious suspicions from several quarters. Anyhow, Balathar became politically ascendant. His political party amongst the PCs now became the most powerful, and began to, behind-the-scenes, direct the affairs of the party lands. We played a great deal after that, and always Balathar continued using his rogue skills to great effect. His "detect noise" ability proved extremely useful, and he stole a great deal as well. Although many PCs died, the party eventually extended their control over much of the barony in which they adventured (although the control was rarely very real and direct, save in Mirsaki). Balathar cemented his position as one of the senior party leaders, and his surviving followers gained in strength and levels, and became a powerful instrument of policy throughout the region. Indeed, the thief guild wars that ensued were very fun to play out. I think it's ashame too many D&D games are just mindless hack and slash, or effectively such, because the intrigues and tactics used by rogues can really be very fun and exciting, and indeed, if run wisely, such tactics can easily outfox the supposedly more powerful warriors and spellcasters. Eventually, Balathar became the real power behind the new throne of the barony of Dantareth, ruled by the PC undead-slayer paladin Dine of Dwarden, Judicator of Dantareth. Soon after Dine was elevated to baronial rank by the King, Balathar stole the title from Dine in a game of cards, in which the angered paladin bet too much. Currently, after years and years of playing, and after almost all the other PCs have been killed (or a handful moving to other things in real life), Balathar has achieved 17/17th level as a fighter/thief, has seized the coronets of two baronies, and is commander of his own baronial army of over 1000 troops and mercenaries. He has "won" over the other PCs, included the surviving Field Marshal PC Matthew Migtay, a 20th level (now 19th, level-drained) wild battle mage, who is generally subordinate to Balathar. Balathar accomplished this primarily through the use of his thieving abilities and political cunning. It has been very fun to play and, the player of Balathar has more than convinced me of the power a thief can wield. Any further questions or comments are welcomed. Happy gaming. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : phasedoor Date : 09-18-07 06:37 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) The question is: exactly which magic scrolls can the 1E AD&D rpg thief class use at tenth level? And, for Dragonlance-Krynn in AD&D 1E, a level-10 thief can use cleric scrolls because there are no druids? The druid class is converted to the cleric class in 1E AD&D Dragonlance-Krynn. It seems that 1E AD&D Dragonlance-Krynn has and uses only the four basic PC classes? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : havard Date : 09-19-07 04:44 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) The question is: exactly which magic scrolls can the 1E AD&D rpg thief class use at tenth level? And, for Dragonlance-Krynn in AD&D 1E, a level-10 thief can use cleric scrolls because there are no druids? The druid class is converted to the cleric class in 1E AD&D Dragonlance-Krynn. It seems that 1E AD&D Dragonlance-Krynn has and uses only the four basic PC classes? I can't remember how it is supposed to be by the book in 1E Krynn, but when we played 2e using the 1E DL sourcebook as a basis (this was before Tales of the Lance), we ruled that the Druid class was allowed, only that the Druids were part of the Clerical hierarchy following the Gods of nature. I dont think allowing theives to use cleric scrolls would upset any game balance though that issue never came up in my group. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : kintire Date : 09-19-07 09:11 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) phaaf_glien Its an interesting account, but I'm not sure it helps. Partly its a different sort of campaign (I dislike player on player stuff, and I am certainly out of sympathy with any RPG where it is meaningful to say that one player "won" over the others). More importantly, however, its not clear that the political machinations he engaged in were ones that he could not have done as any other class, and he was a fighter/thief. That's a combination that can work very well, as the fighter covers the thief's weakness in the early levels, and once the skills start hitting reliable levels they provide a counterbalance to the lack of magic. That doesn't necessarily help a pure thief. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 09-19-07 11:39 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) I played a thief in 2E, and I have to say it is the hardest class to play. The problem is that there is little payoff for the long slog through low levels. Unlike a magic-user, who starts out weak but is the most powerful character at high levels, the thief does poorly in most combats for her entire career, and at low levels she isn't particularly good at the things she is needed for: opening locks and finding and disarming traps. This was especially bad in 1E, where there were static percentages for thief skills (2E alleviated this a little with the chance to customize your thief, as well as the kits from Complete Thieve's Handbook). The only combat a 1E thief excels in is one where she has the drop on the enemy, rolls decently on hide and move silently, and has a weapon suitable for backstabbing. If so, she can sometimes kill a monster like an orc or goblin without anyone realizing it. But the odds are against the 1E/2E thief, at least until she is name level. And if the party wants to bash the door down and kill the monsters in a straight fight, she can't use her class abilities. I speak from experience, having played a thief with the Burglar kit, who was great at Find/Remove Traps, but kept getting dropped to negative hps every combat. She had the worst armor, low HP, and she was not allowed to sneak around, because the group was on a time constraint (we played in high school while cutting gym). Even so, playing a thief in 2E was much more interesting than playing a plain vanilla fighter. Fighter were not invited on burglaries, never got to inflitrate swanky dinner parties disguised as a noble, and were just ... boring. So yeah there is an upside to playing a 1E/2E thief, but it really depends on how much leeway the group and the DM give you for interesting things. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Handsome Stranger Date : 09-19-07 08:05 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) I'll admit right up front that I think 2e improved the thief. Having said that, in first edition AD&D it really did matter what kind of campaign you were in. Those urban campaigns where the fighter couldn't swagger around town in plate mail really took away one of the thief's disadvantages. Same thing with those seagoing campaigns. Campaigns where you get jumped in the middle of the night have the same effect. Never mind that the urban campaigns really gave him the opportunity to showcase some of the things he did better than anybody else in the party, if they even did it at all. Fun to be had gambling with sleight of hand skills, or the odd bit of second-story work. If you go to sea, and the thief is scampering all over the rigging while the muser is throwing up like a little sissy, the dwarf cleric is aware that he'll sink like a rock, and the human fighter is afraid to get dressed, guess who the crew looks at most favorably? Take what you've got and work with it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Sinless_Grins Date : 09-20-07 12:48 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) in my experience, the thief was always the most fun and the most memorable. also the best at getting everyone into and out of trouble.. unless your DM is completely boring hack n slash, the thief is usually the MOST important(uhh bilbo baggins?) if you want to be uber leet in combat, maybe the thief wouldn't be for you, but i personally would rather avoid the fight, rob everyone blind, and escape before anyone noticed. i still remember some of the crazy things our characters used to pull using thief skills and a little creativity. who remembers crit rolls? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Mojo_Rat Date : 09-24-07 01:02 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) One thing I should like to say also is. When the Backstab did hit it hurt pretty badly. IT has been a number of years since I played a Thief. But in our recent game of about 4 months ago my Third level monk in our adventure nearly died from a first level thief npc in a surprise round. It seemed to proportionally do alot more damage witht he single hit than the modern sneak attack did when compared to pc's having less hps. In this case my monk had 9 and the 10 strength thief with a short sword did 12. Dont know if this comparison is so great but from the encouner he came off pretty strong (the thief not my monk who was bleeding to death most of the fight) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Senko Date : 10-15-07 02:39 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) You think save vs poison or die at 6th level is bad our DM threw it at us at 2nd level (6 imps guarding 6 orbs scattered over such a large area we could only try to retrieve 2 at a time or split up our party 4 people so each one would be facing 1-2 imps alone) with only 2 magic weapons (so only 2 could fight them anyway). Still if you have unearthed arcana multi-classing the thief at 5th level to theif-acrobat gives you some pretty impressive combat options (if you don't want to go straight sneaky). An evasion chance (completely negates damage, starts at 10% + racial/ability mods), a fall chance (% to completely negate damage and reduces a failed attempt), increased jumping options. And of course as others have said a thief can do things the magic user spells can't. Still I always felt with earlier editions they were trying to force you to play a male human fightinig type (cavalier or crusaders were the only ones to increase abilities) at lower levels and at higher levels non-humans started hitting level limits before reaching the fun stuff. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : ozbirthrightfan Date : 10-15-07 07:39 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) From a similar thread over on RPG.net Yeah, thats an important difference. Move silently really is move perfectly silently... Even if he fails he can suprise his target... Yep. THat's the way I interpret things, anyway. If you fail at moving silently it would follow that you are still moving quietly, and certainly not moving loudly. Using similar logic, you could also allow multiple attempts to pick locks on a failed attempt, but require 10 times as much time to be invested in the attempt for each prior failure. I'm sure even a low-level thief could open almost any lock with the right tools, but it might take him several days (or even weeks) of trying. e.g. first attempt takes 1 turn (10 minutes), second attempt takes 10 turns (i.e. about 1.5 hours), third attempt takes 100 turns (i.e. about 15 hours), fourth attempt takes 1000 turns (i.e. about 150 hours), etc. It's just a question of how much time can the thief afford to spend on any given lock... Similar arguments might be made for the other skills too: for climb walls, a failed roll might not necessarily indicate an automatic fall, merely the chance of falling, etc. A failed read languages roll might mean only one or two words (at random) were decipherable, etc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Gleepwurp Date : 10-17-07 01:41 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) One of the requirements of a successful 1e game is that the players and the DM have to trust one another. Unlike 3e, where there are rules within rules to cover every situation you can think of (If I stand here I get sneak attack damage; if I move here I suffer an attack of opportunity but if I only move 5 feet I don't, etc), in 1e the players and DM are required to rely on one another's judgement and negotiate and then roll the dice and see what happens. I think its a lot more fun this way. Obviously 90% of the world disagrees with me so a lot of people will say that 1st edition is 'broken' or 'wrong' or whatever. In 1st edition, common sesnse is rule 0. If your thief ducks down behind a tombstone and is 100% hidden from view, The player might argue, "I said I was hiding behind the tombstone" and the DM might decide he doesn't need to make a hide roll or maybe the guards chances of seeing the PC are reduced. One of the things that made the game fun was that 'anything could happen.' A player with half a brain and a decent imagination with a PC with mediocre stats usually had as much or better chance of survival than a half brained munchkin with uber stats and rules lawyer status IF your DM was good... simply because a clever player would think on his feet. Maybe the thief has only a 25% chance of disarming a trap on paper --- but when I DM I take HOW a player describes what he does into consideration. If the player figures out some reasonable precaution to mitigate a trap, he can give himself a bonus to his save, reduce the damage, etc. The more ingenious the better. It might include using a pole or a spear to open the chest, tossing the corpse of a dead orc onto the suspected pit trap to see if it will open, etc. Part of the fun of the game was slowly learning all of the tricks in interacting with the world. Of course if your DM sucked, yeah, then everyone played fighters or clerics and just had a boring time. But in some 3e games I've been in other players have been cat people or furries or exalted souls or I don't know what the **** and we still have a boring time because if you are the only guy at the table who didn't spend all night twinking your chracter and you actually wanted to show up and ask questions, figure out puzzles, interact with your other players, etc., then you are gonna be sitting around waiting for everyone else to finish counting up their synergy bonuses on every dice roll before you can do anything.... and when you finally get to do something, you'll just be told to roll your dice and that will decide success or failure --- your own ability to describe HOW you might do something (which is what made it a thinking person's game) has nothing to do with it anymore. There were no "bluff" rolls in first edition. If you wanted your character to lie, you had to say, "I turn to the guard and say something like, Hello, yes, I realize you don't know me but I have to talk to your captain so please go and get him; I promise to wait right here..." and the DM might decide if your excuse is lame or good and base a dice roll on it. In 3e we say, "I bluff the guard; I get a plus three; I roll 18! Wooowee! I win!" 1e is a lot more like "What's my line." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Senko Date : 10-17-07 05:05 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) I have to say I've had a lot of complaints about 1st ed (if your non-human you'll be limited to 5th level ish unless DM allows otherwise, if your non human-male the top 50% of to/damage is out of reach without magic items etc etc) however I'll agree with a good DM common sense can work well. In a game I'm playing currently I opened a door without checking from traps (I'd just run into a group of monsters I had no chance of taking alone and the group had just been split up by the big bad evil guy). The result was a bunch of spears fired at me (if they hit 8d8 damage to my character with 19 hit points) and the dm ruled (a) I was wearing a ring of protection +2 that decreased the chances of being struck and (2) because I was a female elf weighing less than a hundred pounds only the middle most spears would even be able to hurt me. I still got hit but at least I didn't die whereas in 3rd ed it would have probably been (roll vs flatfooted AC, roll 8d8 damage, roll up a new character). On the other hand and speaking overall some things had rules that made little sense why do non-human races have level limits the starting ability scores don't make up for the powes a high 12+ character gets so you'll either play non-human in a low level campaign for the extra perks or human in a high level one for the levels. Now if it was a multiply/add to the xp required that would work for me. An elf lives 1500 years so they learn things lower than a human add x to the experience required per level to slow down the rate of learning somewhat without things just looking weird. Elves are known for their magic items e.g. boots/cloak of elven kind but no PC elf can gain the levels necessary in mage to cast the spells necessary to make magic items much less the ones necessary to make permanent magic items and other things are a pain for players to find when they shouldn't be or are just lacking altogether. Still that's the same for any game system it really comes down to individual preference and what you enjoy. I know one person who wont play/run 3rd ed only 1st and 2nd and other people who wont touch 1st and 2nd ed with a 10 foot poll. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Gleepwurp Date : 10-17-07 11:58 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) I read an online article in which the author argued that one of the strengths of earlier RPGs were the fact that the rules were so crude and imprecise. I know that's got to sound crazy to most people, but I agree with the statement. In the AD&D game or 1st edition (and the edition before that --- 0 edition I guess), we had a hodge podge of rules that didn't always agree with one another. The games were designed by wargamers banging on typewriters rather than a team of 'professional game authors' with degrees in statistics or backgrounds in software design using an SRD and Microsoft word. Although the old game was filled with contradictions and wierd rules, in order to play you had to negotiate with one another -- something this author called "the social contract." Sometimes, it's true, that was just arguements. But after you had played together for a while you could usually work it out and players and DMs had to sort of 'work together' to make the game go forward. In the mid 1980s (I think), I stopped playing D&D for years. I had moved, didn't find a new game group I liked, etc. It wasn't until years later when I 'rediscovered' D&D via 3rd edition that I started thinking about this stuff and started wondering what made the original game so compelling to me, still. I'm sure a large part of it is nostalgia. In 1979 we could play all night and not get bored and now we all have responsibilities, jobs and worries. But 3e D&D has also become more like a video game or a computer program than a game of make believe simply because a lot more has been codified and organized... which for most people is a good thing, but I think you also lose something. The 3e players I know all focus on level limits, class limitations (why can't I have a dwarf paladin?), etc. They seem to feel that by playing 1e, the DM is trying to "take stuff away" from them. But I would argue that since 3e is so very specific in its rules, especially those which control combat, players are so strongly incentivized to min-max and twink that min-maxing and twinking become so central to the game. In the first 3e game I played, I didn't really know the 3e rules but decided to play a barbarian. The group I was playing with needed some frontline muscle. Based on my having read the 3e rule book and having played 1000s of hours of AD&D, I was up to speed quickly with my new 3e group. But what was so frustrating to me was that my Barbarian could jump, swim and swing his axe but he couldn't "search" worth a crap because I didn't have any skill ranks in that. As a player in the 3e game, I could say, "I look under the bed" and the DM would say, "Make a search roll --- nope, you don't find anything" and then the guy playing the rogue would say, "I search -- I got a 25!" and the DM would say, "The rogue finds a bag of money, or a map, or a secret door, etc." Similarly, since my barbarian had low charisma, he couldn't intimidate worth a damn --- nevermind that the Barbarian was a huge guy with an axe who was killing people with one big chop; the player of the gnome sorceror was better at intimidating because the dice said he was. It was frustrating for me because as a player I wanted to project myself into the role of the barbarian and try to see the world through his eyes as it unfolded in front of me, but the limited skills of my player character didn't allow me to. I don't think that 3e and 3.5 are bad games; they are very good games. But they don't lend themselves as well to a style of play that I enjoy. And that's why I think most comparisons between AD&D and 3.5e fail --- because they don't take into account the very differnt play stayles that these games encourage. 3.5e is a lot easier to play with people you don't know very well -- all of the rules are much easier to apply without needing to rely on judgement... so as long as your DM is 'following the rules' you don't need to worry about him "screwing you over." When I first started playing the original D&D in 1978, we fought about the rules and what we though "ought to happen" a lot. Players argued with each other and the DM... but we were just punk kids and we loved the rough-and-tumble atmousphere of the early games. But we rolled up a lot of characters... which was OK, because given the early ruleset, creating a character took a few minutes. As we grew up, we began to get more into the idea of the evolving campaign, with villains that would return, etc. Since we had discovered if you argued too much with your fellow players that no one wanted to play anymore and the game became unfun, we were strongly incentivized, as players, to get along with one another (though we had fun campaigns in which our player characters did not always get along). At it's best, D&D was actually a tool that helped teach us how to socialize with each other. I actually like limited player character choice since I find that it places more emphasis on what happens in session than what the player "is gonna go for next" in terms of powerups. If there is one thing that drives me bonkers about 3e players is that they spend too much time considering what new feats or classes they are going to take. Though the AD&D concept of saying, "You are a dwarf; you can be x, y or z" seems pretty limiting by todays standards, it also creates a game in which players aren't distracted by the need to plan their PC out for the next 10 levels. I know this feature is needed to attract the console gamers --- but those of us who grew up before the age of the xbox just don't get into that mindset as much. In many ways, I think the 2 games are distant cousins rather than different versions of the same game. They share some outward characteristics (including name), but in actual play they are very different. That's why comparisons of the 2 games are often kind of meaningless. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : branmakmuffin Date : 10-17-07 02:24 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) In a combat-mechanics-heavy hack-and-slay game, the Thief is pretty worthless, IMO, but who wants to play that kind of game? From a "fluff-crunch" viewpoint, Thieves and Assassins are good PCs, IMO, because they have skills that allow them to do things, from a mechanical standpoint, besides cast spells and fight. From a completely RPish viewpoint, well, all PCs are created equal, IMO. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Senko Date : 10-18-07 12:18 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) This ones in response to Gleepwurps comments about planning your character and class/level limits. Speaking personally I don't mind the racial/class limits so much, although again some of the choices don't make sense to me. In fact I rather like the atmosphere you get from the whole dwarves don't have wizards because they're intrinsically anti-magical as it adds to the whole image of a living world. Which is why I'd like a little variety instead of everyone's unlimited thief. Have the elf be unlimited in mage or the dwarf in fighter I mean dwarve's don't even have thiefs in the books just hunters/trackers. This brings me to where I had my main problems that is in the level limits area as it made no sense to me that my elf (who according to the printed material has an inherently magical nature) is going to go up in levels of wizard at the same rate as a human and then suddenly hit a wall no amount of effort can overcome while the human keeps on improving and a half elf who supposedly gets traits from both parents (elfs inherent magic, humans drive) is worse at magic (lower level limit) than either of them. Especially in an ongoing campaign you'll eventually reach a point where you just aren't able to contribute as much as a human especially if you dual class I mean your half-elve wizard can never go higher than 5/6? while the rest of the parties 12-13. Of course its a matter of personal opinion afterall I feel that an xp modifier would make more sense than a level limit as in elf's learn slower than humans because they don't have the same drive. However the PC's have become adventurers so they are interested enough to pursue this field. Thus while a human might need 2,000 xp to get to 2nd level fighter an elf would need 2,200 or a dwarf 2,100 and so on. Not to mention the whole dual class/multi-class issue which I feel is the wrong way around. Demi-humans with their centuries of life should be the ones mastering 2 classes (X level fighter then X level mage) while the adaptable humans get a little of each (fighter/mage/thief) and maybe introduce level limits for that (if you must again I feel the increase learning time is well represented by needed to divide experience by 3). As for ability scores I'd probably have less problem with them if they didn't come across as so human biased I mean NO race in the basic books can have a higher stat maximum than a human even when they get adjustments e.g. dex + 1, con +1 it states those can't raise a starting stat higher than 18 (human maximum) and even half-orcs who are the crossbreeds of humans and an incredibly tough monster-race get a bonus to str but can't raise their strength as high as humans. Would it really be that unbalancing if your elf with a +1 dex had a starting score of 19 if you got lucky enough to roll an 18? As for planning your character development I tend to do that from their perspective i.e what motivates this character are they in it for the gold to retire on or is there something more they want to become and if so what do they need to achieve it. Even in first ed this existed if you wanted to become a thief acrobat you need high str and dex and to do it at 5th level. If you want to be a bard you need to say okay I'm going to take this class then dual class at that level and then tripple class at this one. Although admitedly its not as prelevant as 3rd ed where you need to decide how to assign skills/feats to get a particular prestige class. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Gleepwurp Date : 10-18-07 06:44 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) In terms of what seems logical or 'makes sense,' probably most of the rules don't make sense. Why does the magic user forget his spells? Why can't elven clerics be PCs? What's to stop a bard from wearing platemail? Who was the insane wizard who though crossbreeding an owl and a bear was a good idea? How do basilisks or cockatrices mate without turning one another to stone? And, finally, why would anyone build a dungeon and then put little piles of treasure, here and there, to be guarded by monsters? Why not put all of your treasure in a hidden vault at the very bottom of the dungeon protected by 100s of instant death traps and make adventurers fight every single monster in the dungeon and disarm every trap before they get even a single copper piece? I think the most obvious answer is, "change a rule if you don't like it." I know it doesn't seem very satisfying... especially when you are a gamer seeking "the perfect game." But Ad&d isn't the perfect game. It's your grandad's game... and like all that stuff from 30 years ago, there have been changes made; most people would say 'for the better.' But my thought is that since D&D is a game, a hobby, a pastime rather than a passion I may as well play the version I like. But the level limits thing never bothered me that much. In one of my games, if a player of a dwarf or elf hit his level limit and wanted to keep going, I'd probably just let it go, especially if they were into the character and wanted to keep playing him. Bear in mind, however, that the modest power ups of levels in 1e compared to later editions make the difference between a 1e dwarf fighter and a human fighter less glaring. The dwarf has much better saves versus magic and poison at every level... and he has infravision and bonuses against 'giant class' creatures. So back when we played "Against The Giants," the dwarf fighter kicked some serious giant butt simply because they could never hit the little bugger. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Senko Date : 10-18-07 11:32 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) When the difference isn't too great sure the racial abilities can make up for it especially in fighters but when the gap between the demi-human and human is 10+ the humans going to have better attacks, saves and hit points by a wide margin. As for your other questions. > Why does the magic user forget his spells? I agree its strange. > Why can't elven clerics be PCs? No comment > What's to stop a bard from wearing platemail? I agree with that. > Who was the insane wizard who though crossbreeding an owl and a bear > was a good idea? That would be me. > How do basilisks or cockatrices mate without turning one another to stone? They don't if I remember right you need to create one magically and it involves powerful spells, male pregnancy and a dung heap. > finally, why would anyone build a dungeon and then put little piles of > treasure, here and there, to be guarded by monsters? Why not put all of > your treasure in a hidden vault at the very bottom of the dungeon > protected by 100s of instant death traps and make adventurers fight every > single monster in the dungeon and disarm every trap before they get even a > single copper piece? Well in my opinion a lot of these bits of treasure are either (a) from the remains of previous adventurers and/or (b) an incentive to keep them going on your test dungeons so you can improve the defenses on your main horde. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Mojo_Rat Date : 10-22-07 09:44 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) On the topic of thieves again. I met some people at a party a few weeks ago who were involved in an AD&D game that had been going on for about two years. I got to talking to one about st edition thieves. What he said was that the backstab Is a huge opening round alpha strike. If you look at how much damage it could potentially do compared to what the oponents hps were IThieves really did work reasonably well. You just had to think with them much more than their modern counterpart. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Extempus Date : 10-23-07 02:49 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) We don't have many thieves (a 22nd level thief, but he's an NPC, and one or two others that are much lower level), but do have several assassins, who are actually quite useful in many ways... the fact that a 1e assassin can instantly kill an opponent has proven highly effective in many adventures, although that ability is obviously sharply limited too: one cannot assassinate undead (but might cause enough damage to deanimate), magical constructs like golems (they're not alive to begin with), non-human creatures (where is the heart of a dragon located, and can the assassin's weapon actually reach it? And how does one assassinate ooze or slime???)... the fact that an assassination attempt is considered an automatic hit is really cool... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Senko Date : 10-25-07 06:46 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) Really I'd have thought you'd need to make an attack roll as usual then determine if it kills. I rather like that limit so you can't assasinate those who don't have vital organ's or are too different. Perhaps you could make a special lore or something that they can learn to assasinate strange targets (replace a weapon proficiency or something). Again withiin limits e.g. you can't insta-kill an ooze as its just a huge pile of slime but with the right training you can learn to recognize weak points in a dragon's scales you can shoot an arrow through (the hobbit and smaug) for example. Would work with any-non human really you learn where an illithid's heart is located so you can strike at it or that a certain species of undead can be permanently inanimated by removing its head. Of course you'd could need to purchase certain materials or weapons specifcally for the attempt for example a bow with sufficient range to strike from outside a dragon's sensing range and maybe a spy roll to represent the assasin studying his target to determine where its weak point is. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Extempus Date : 10-25-07 05:43 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) I've always assumed that anything more-or-less humanoid has similar vital organs in similar places, so they may be assassinated normally, thus, an illithid, orc, gnoll, goblin, ogre etc are all vulnerable to assassination attempts in addition to the usual humans, elves, dwarves and so on. Some creatures are not alive (magical constructs), undead (their vital organs no longer function as they did in life, so a hit won't kill them), others have no definable vital organs to attack (slimes, oozes, jellies etc), and others have internal organs so radically different from the norm or are simply too big for the most part (dragons, elephants, dinosaurs etc), that normal assassination attempts simply won't work, since they are designed for attacking humans and humanoids. Going by the 1e PHB, we read (p. 29): Assassins attack on the same combat tables as thieves do, including back stabbing. However, if they surprise (q.v.) a victim, they may attack on the ASSASSINATION TABLE. This gives a roughly 50% chance of immediately killing the victim; and if this fails, normal damage according to weapon type and strength ability modifiers still accrues to the victim. Thus, if a poisoned weapon is used, the victim must also make the saving throw versus poison or die. The assassin decides which attack mode he or she will use: assassination, back stabbing, or normal melee combat. This tells us that an assassination attempt is an automatic hit. This is confirmed in the 1e DMG (p. 20): Therefore, if an 8th level assassin snuck up on and surprised a 10th level magic-user in the dungeon and successfully assassinated him... and page 75: The percentage shown is that for success (instant death) under near optimum conditions... Weapon damage always occurs and may kill the victim even though "assassination" failed. Therefore, I've always ruled that any assassination attempt is an automatic hit, and if the percentile die roll (by the DM, never the player) shows it failed, the DM then rolls for damage (which may still kill the target); this is subject to the conditions stated above, so that assassins can't do ridiculous things like assassinate a great gold wyrm with a backstab. Assassins may attempt assassination through surprise, and also if they have the initiative (even if they do not surprise their opponents), but only in the first round of combat (my rationale is that once an assassin has attacked, whether successfully assassinating a target or not, melee has begun, it's chaos with people moving around so conditions are definitely not favorable for assassination anymore, and the assassin's opponents are also aware of his capabilities and so are on guard). Of course, he may attack or backstab normally... Of course, other factors apply too: if an assassin were to use a crossbow and assassinate someone from a rooftop, he only gets one chance, because if the attempt fails and weapon damage is not enough to kill his target, that target is not going to just stand there and allow the assassin another attempt. The target will dive for cover, draw a weapon, return fire if possible etc, and the assassin then gets to attack normally (if possible) and may yet kill his target through normal combat. All in all, I prefer the assassin to the thief as a character class; while the thief is not worthless, the assassin's instant assassination ability makes him a far more formidable opponent in many situations (my half-orc character is the Grandfather of Assassins, and he has been a trusted and valuable friend and ally in many, many adventures over the years)... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : Senko Date : 10-25-07 11:24 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) Unfortunately my GM won't allow "Evil" character's and assasins are always evil. As for the information I'm still not sure but I suppose the % chance could be the equivilent of a too hit roll and its not really mportant so I'll go along with you for now. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : Extempus Date : 10-26-07 01:29 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) That's too bad... we have a few evil characters, but most are lawful evil, so it's cool (and the only reason they're really evil is because they like killing, otherwise, they're pretty cool people). Most of our characters are chaotic neutral, so they don't really have a problem killing bad guys if it furthers their agenda... As far as the chance to instantly kill, it's not a hit roll, since an assassination attempt is an automatic hit, rather, it's the percentage chance of instantly killing the target, ie, did the assassin hit a vital organ and cause enough damage for instant death or not. Failure means no instant death, but weapon damage still occurs (it's an automatic hit after all), and that may still be enough to kill a low-level character anyway... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Senko Date : 10-26-07 01:44 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) Which is why it seems odd to me, you sneak up on the target and automatically hit them in a vital area regardless of anything else that's happening what if they turn at the last moment or are wearing armour for instance. Its probably just me but if I was running the game I'd have 2-3 rolls first a to hit as normal to see if the assasin hits the target, an assasination roll to see if they strike a mortal blow and if not then a normal damage roll otherwise it just seems to powerful. I mean what if the GM sends an assasin after a party member? Oh to bad your 12th level fighter in +5 field plate with 72 hit points and an amulet of protection +2 is now dead. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Extempus Date : 10-26-07 09:27 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) I don't see any difference between an assassin automatically killing someone and a wizard fireballing the same person and killing them just as automatically. The difference is, with a d% roll to determine instant death, there is a chance that it will fail, ie, the target happens to turn at the last moment and moves enough so the fatal blow fails to reach the vital organ. Considering an assassination attempt can really only be made once in a given melee if the assassin has surprise on his side, and considering he can really only assassinate a single target, in the end, he's good at what he does, but not super-powerful by any means. Should he sneak up and surprise someone and fail to assassinate him, he's in a lot of trouble, since assassins do not advance as far on the combat table as a thief does; for instance, a 15th level grandfather of assassins THAC0 is 14, while a 21st+ level thief's is 10, and neither the thief or assassin is particularly capable in regular combat, being only slightly better than a wizard... A wizard, OTOH, can fireball a horde of orcs and wipe them all out easily... does that mean we need to restrict them as well? That was the problem I had with the 2e assassin as reintroduced in The Scarlet Brotherhood... first, the assassin has to have studied the victim for at least 3 consecutive minutes in the previous 24 hours, then surprise the victim, then make a successful attack roll, then the victim must save vs death or die (p. 72). I did some calculations a few years back and found that the 2e assassin's assassination ability is quite weak and basically useless; it's really only useful if the assassin's targets are of a much lower level. The 1e version, IMHO, reflects the assassins' skill far more realistically. As far as your 12th level fighter in +5 field plate with 72 hit points and an amulet of protection +2 goes, my half-orc grandfather of assassins would have only a 70% chance of assassinating him. However, there is only one 15th level Grandfather of Assassins, so if you are a 14th level Guildmaster Assassin, your chance drops to 60%. Most assassins are of lower level, so a 13th level Prime Assassin has only a 50% chance of assassination... not very good odds, to be honest. Then again, a 15th level wizard with the appropriate spells can easily decimate that same 12th level fighter, so I honestly don't see any difference at all. But, that's just me... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Senko Date : 10-26-07 11:59 PM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) I'll take your word for it since as I said unlike you I've never had a chance to see how they work in the field as it were. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Mojo_Rat Date : 10-27-07 12:06 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) To be honest? I had always been under the impression that the % listed for an asassination attempt represented an entire Asassinatin. Ie it covered all of the sneaking in to the target and So on. As a way of speeding up the event or handling NPC asassins doing their Job. I was under the impression that In normal combat Asassins just got backstab like rogues Did. But saying all that accept that a) i never got an asassin above 5th level and b)while ive played recently as a player i likel yhavent sat down to read the rules thoroughly in years. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Extempus Date : 10-27-07 03:48 AM Thread Title : Re: Is the thief worthless? (1st ed) Actually, it appears to represent both: the entire assassination attempt, as well as an attack during a surprise situation. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:22 AM.