D&D General Nostalgia : Thief Percentages

[Voadam]

Low % thief skills in 1E only fail to make sense when you no longer play the game the way it was played when 1E was written. AS WRITTEN and as INTENDED to be used, there is absolutely nothing wrong with thieves having low % chances of success. You CANNOT evaluate 1E rules by 3E or 5E standards and styles of gameplay.

I disagree. Evaluating them on OD&D/B/X/AD&D terms with a narrative player description of their actions basis I consider them a poor mechanical execution of a D&D class concept. It means thieves as a class are not really out-thiefing other classes until higher levels while fighters are out meleeing others and M-U's and clerics have their magical niches from the get go.

To emulate the Gray Mouser, who is the class archetype, you are better off making a fighter with high dex who does not use heavy armor to emulate his fighting prowess and focus your game play style on being thiefish.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

This is what I ran into when I ran a 1e campaign a few years back where some of the players had never played it before. My take on it is that a thief's abilities are somewhat supernatural. i.e., any player can try to climb a mountain, but a thief can climb like Spider-Man. Anyone can hide, but a thief literally disappears into the shadows. It's not an complete fix, though, because what if a thief wants to hide like a regular person, not a thief?

One of the big problems was with skills that you'd expect other classes to be able to at least try. "Climb Walls", "Detect Noise", "Move Silently": how do you resolve those if a non-Thief (or non-Ranger) wants to do a bit of scouting? Mostly it ended up with ability checks, and then it turns out that your Fighter with a decent STR (or DEX, whichever ability you chose) is better at climbing walls than your supposedly skilled Thief.

Yeah, I'm with you on this. Playing a low level thief was just punishing in 1e, arguably moreso than the low level magic-user. A wizard could at least cast a few spells before running out, but a thief could only succeed at what their class was supposed to do with a lot of luck. Kits in 2e enabled you to customize a character to not be entirely terrible at a few things at the least.

I do not miss the percentages. Low level thieves in 1e sucked, quite frankly. There were a LOT of problems with the class in 1e overall, many of which weren't fixed in 2e, though at least a player could push their percentage points around and have a couple of skills that didn't totally suck when they started adventuring.

 

[jasper]

.....

I suppose this is why OSR is a thing. But I do think “everyone must have an equivalent combat value” is a pernicious failing in modern D&D that breeds many unfortunate outcomes.

Harumph. Harumph.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah, I'm with you on this. Playing a low level thief was just punishing in 1e, arguably moreso than the low level magic-user. A wizard could at least cast a few spells before running out, but a thief could only succeed at what their class was supposed to do with a lot of luck. Kits in 2e enabled you to customize a character to not be entirely terrible at a few things at the least.

Two things-

1. Backstab.

2. Multiclass. The one thing that the Thief had going for it early on was that it was the one class that demihumans could reliable MC into and have no level limit. So it was fairly common to see a party's thief be the demihuman who had that as their MC.

 

[wingsandsword]

You CANNOT evaluate 1E rules by 3E or 5E standards and styles of gameplay.

Yes we can, and yes we do.

2e was little more than a slightly cleaned up, streamlined version of 1e, it was the same basic game with just some relatively minor changes. It was substantially mechanically compatible and built on the same general ideas. You could use most 1e supplements and adventures almost unaltered for 2e (I saw it done a lot). The differences between 1e and 2e are a lot less than you're making them out to be.

Contrary to what you describe, in my experience as a player, thieves skills were used just as "roll it to see if it works". Encounter a wall you want to climb? Roll percent. Find a lock? Roll percent. Want to sneak through this room? Roll percent.

There was a reason 3e was adopted with such gusto when it came out, that it was seen widely as being far superior to 2e. . .and part of that was replacing the total mess that was thieves skills with a consistent skill system.

Comparing AD&D to 3e was the whole reason this site was created back in 1999, and was what an awful lot of D&D players were doing around August 2000. Coming around 20 years later and saying it shouldn't be done ignores the fact that such comparisons were routine when 3e was new.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There was a reason 3e was adopted with such gusto when it came out,

Because TSR was killed dead through dumb management, everyone was playing stupid card games, and the card game company took over D&D and released 3e?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Backstab was a pretty juicy ability, though it was often limited by DM interpretation. Looking at the rules, though, it's pretty clear - the thief just has to attack from behind with a sword, dagger, or club. Honestly, I know past Ralif has been more strict about it than that.

Multiclassing might make for a better character, but it doesn't really make for a better thief. Unless maybe you go magic-user/thief.

Two things-

1. Backstab.

2. Multiclass. The one thing that the Thief had going for it early on was that it was the one class that demihumans could reliable MC into and have no level limit. So it was fairly common to see a party's thief be the demihuman who had that as their MC.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Multiclassing might make for a better character, but it doesn't really make for a better thief. Unless maybe you go magic-user/thief.

I was only observing that many parties avoided the seeming weakness of the thief character by having the thief in the party be a multiclassed demihuman.

This benefited the party (they had a thief, sometimes two), and the demihuman went for it because of the "U" on the level cap. It didn't make the Thief good, but it allowed the party to have thieves, and still have a viable character.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I suppose this is why OSR is a thing. But I do think “everyone must have an equivalent combat value” is a pernicious failing in modern D&D that breeds many unfortunate outcomes.

Same could be said for the Thief's original design, re: breeding many unfortunate outcomes. The problem is that you don't see those outcomes as unfortunate, because they're subjectively so (in both cases), and you're in the extreme minority (to judge from sales of RPGs that at least TRY to balance this stuff against those that intentionally do not). I get that that may be annoying, but it doesn't make that any less subjective. Just sayin'...

I think a good case could have been made for a Thief-type class that was less-good in a straight fight, but better than Thieves actually were at stealthing and particularly killing from stealth. Backstab never, in edition, reliably did enough damage to take out guards and the like (who were as often 5HD+ as 1HD). Thieves were never good enough at stealth (again, in any edition, including 5E) that they made it reliably possible to sneak past guards in heavily guarded places, either. Certainly not at a level before the Wizard could solve the same situation with a few good spells (and often much lower risk to the party).

If instead of the Thief-as-total-wimp-who-isn't-even-that-skilled design of pre-4E, you'd had a design where Thieves were deadly commando types who also stole stuff whilst slitting throats (who are actually extremely common in pulp fantasy, note, all the way back), where they had some kind of insta-kill ability on unsuspecting targets (or at least silent-kill, even if it took a round or three of garroting or whatever), then I don't think the whole paradigm re: combat ability would have become an issue.

But the fact that they were both not actually good at their job AND frequently beaten at their own job by casters (and this was true in 1E/2E, it's not just a 3E thing) meant some kind of change was inevitable.

I did see a very good Thief in 2E once, but he was a case of massive magical item assistance. Without the items he'd have been by far the least capable (in any situation) member of the party.

I have to ask, too, were/are you a habitual Thief/Rogue player in pre-4E editions? Because my personal experience is that the people who liked Thief as it was in, say, 2E, didn't actually play single-class Thieves, or did once in a blue moon. Whereas I've personally seen people who played Thieves/Rogues since early 2E being incredibly excited and happy with the 4E redesign of Rogues to actually be combat effective (and they like the 5E design, though it's not quite as exciting for them), and I know from accounts here and on other boards, I'm not the only one who saw this with long-time Thief/Rogue players.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

A thief with a ring of invisibility or the cloak/boots of elvenkind combo was a different story indeed.

Honestly, I saw fewer thieves in the older editions, absolutely. I know I had one I played for a little bit, getting no higher than 6th. One player did have a thief/acrobat. In 2e, there was a thief/psionicist, then a fighter/thief that was just terrible at both.

It's not until 5e that I started seeing rogues become common. Heck, I love playing my mastermind.

I did see a very good Thief in 2E once, but he was a case of massive magical item assistance. Without the items he'd have been by far the least capable (in any situation) member of the party.

I have to ask, too, were/are you a habitual Thief/Rogue player in pre-4E editions? Because my personal experience is that the people who liked Thief as it was in, say, 2E, didn't actually play single-class Thieves, or did once in a blue moon. Whereas I've personally seen people who played Thieves/Rogues since early 2E being incredibly excited and happy with the 4E redesign of Rogues to actually be combat effective (and they like the 5E design, though it's not quite as exciting for them), and I know from accounts here and on other boards, I'm not the only one who saw this with long-time Thief/Rogue players.