D&D 5E Thievery in 5e - still relevant?

[Warpiglet-7]

I never understand comments like this.

5e works for me. If the changes coming in 2024 don't work for me, then the current 5e still does.

And I have more than enough material for 5e plus stuff from prior editions, 3rd parties and my own stuff to last several life times of gaming.

We played 1e until 1999.

I am going to play 5e as long as it entertains…there is no need for people to be held in the cult of the new. At all.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Honest question and not rhetorical: 1 e monster did give xp. It paled in comparison the gold xp most of the time. But are u saying Gygax did not use monster xp?

No, I'm not saying earlier editions did that exclusively. I know both AD&D 1e and OD&D gave XP for monsters, even if it was annoying to calculate and significantly less than that for treasure.

However, I am saying that you would want to rebalance 5e more like that. The behavior the game encourages is the behavior that the game rewards. If you want the PCs to care about finding treasure or acquiring wealth, make doing that a major component of progression.

Since I have PDFs of OD&D and 1e handy, and others have expressed some curiosity:

The example in OD&D Men & Magic is killing a troll (HD 6 + 3 is 7th level) and taking 7,000 gp from it, earning a total of 7,700 XP (700 for the troll and 7,000 for the gp). However, there's no actual formula anywhere in M&M that I see (although OD&D is infamously pretty poorly organized so I may just be missing it). It looks like it was 1 XP per gp, or 100 XP per HD (or portion thereof). However, it then pro-rates it by monster level and character level. If you're 8th level, then you get 7/8ths XP even against a troll with 7,000gp. Here, you'd only get ~6,700 XP. But, of course, it never goes above 1, so if it were a 9th level foe you'd only get 7,900. The DM is also told to not award more than 1 level per adventure, where an "adventure" is really a sortie or sojourn into the dungeon at this point. I assume if it's not directly guarded treasure that you'd use the level of the dungeon instead, but the book doesn't really say.

1e DMG p85 gives a more complex formula, with a base XP value based on HD, plus a value per hp of the enemy (double dipping, essentially), plus an additional value on the basis of how good the special abilities of the creature are. Here we can see real development between 1977's Monster Manual (which has no XP in the monster entries) and a formula in 1979's DMG. They clearly didn't need those XP values in the past, but by 1979 they should have have done the math for you.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

This is anecdotal and is probably a fluke, but my players haven't been interested in playing rogue-like characters in any system for like 5-6 years - it's like the sneaky, backstabby chars have gone out of style. Even if I try to create situations in my campaigns where a streetwise stealthy dude obviously would have been useful - trying to rub in that it is a choice at character creation - they don't bite.

 

[Parmandur]

The published modules (which are just about all full-campaign adventure paths) don't go in for downtime as an element of play at all; the table - be it the players, DM, or both - has to force it in somehow.

And spending money is very much a downtime activity.

There is plenty of room for downtime activity in the campaign books, and the DMG has full details on how to do it without "forcing" anything?

Also worth noting that one of the paths for downtime activity is doing crime.

 

[Bacon Bits]

The published modules (which are just about all full-campaign adventure paths) don't go in for downtime as an element of play at all; the table - be it the players, DM, or both - has to force it in somehow.

And spending money is very much a downtime activity.

Sure, that's definitely true. But if popularity is a function of how well something satisfies the market -- and to be clear it's definitely arguable that WotC hasn't been doing a great job with their APs -- then it's at least a little what people are looking for. There aren't that many people reading Fafhrd and Conan and seeking to replicate that in D&D. The contemporary gritty fantasy characters that aren't trying to save the world themselves like Geralt of Rivia or Logen Ninefingers also aren't that motivated by wealth like the old S&S tropes... and in most cases they end up saving the world anyways because it's where they want to retire!

Sword & sorcery itself is kind of dead in favor of high fantasy. Between LotR, MCU, and Harry Potter, it's just the story.

Other than xp-for-gp (the advancement rate in the WotC editions is already way too fast!) that's a lot of "add in"s; and while I could do them I'd prefer they be done in the official rules such that everyone can see - and thus have cause to at least give these things some thought, even if by individual choice they don't get featured in every campaign.

Of course it's a lot to add in. It's a play style that's not really supported by the current rules, and the rules are already sending pretty mixed signals on rewards for the players ("Here's a ton of magic items for rewards, and then here's a bunch of adventure modules that don't really use any"). If the DM wants to run a game this way, then in my opinion, the PCs are going to need a reason to go for it. It's probably easier to play DCC, OSE, or Basic Fantasy if you want that style of play and aren't interested in 30+ year old systems. Maybe you don't need every single rule here, or not all of them all at once, but the players and characters need a tangible carrot, not what they imagine the carrot would be.

After all, these are all people tempered by the disappointment of non-spellcasting abilities in 5th edition D&D above level 10. They need to see something to hope for!

Agreed. 3e went way overboard on this.

Pendulum swung too far the other way, I think.

Yeah, but that's very common. Overcorrecting a problem is usually preferably to under-correcting one. It's certainly a more informative error when it comes to planning for what to do.

That came from DMs and players reading rules that said a class could do something as implying other classes could not, rather than the (I think intended) idea that anyone can still try this but this class is much better at it.

Sure, but I don't think that's an unreasonable reading. Especially given how the game treats things like using weapons, armor, casting spells, speaking languages, etc. Like if anyone can disarm a trap or pick a lock or move silently, why do Thieves start with a 10-20% of doing it at all? Surely, everyone else must be worse than that, right, since the Thief actually trained for it?

To a point I agree, but even a fighter can get its AC from bracers and dex rather than clanky armour, and thus be at least somewhat quiet.

Yeah, it can be done. But it essentially won't be. Just because it's not explicitly banned doesn't mean it's common.

A true heist-based campaign (like, say, trying to roleplay something akin to the Gentlemen Bastards series) would require some serious pruning of the spell lists, however.

Yes, otherwise it'll be, "I cast Pass Without Trace," "I cast Disguise Self," "I upcast Invisibility," "I cast Knock."

It comes down to the game assuming the only roleplayed activity happens in the field, and that downtime is irrelevant. Fine for hard-line APs, not so great for anything bigger.

To some extent. I think it's a bigger issue that there's nothing explicitly to do with gold after level 4-5 unless you're a Wizard or raising the dead.

5e D&D like all the WotC era D&Ds does a great job supporting the murder-hobo play style. If the players had something they needed to do with gold, they'd go looking for it. If they needed to look for it, they'd care about acquiring it and making time to spend it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, that's definitely true. But if popularity is a function of how well something satisfies the market -- and to be clear it's definitely arguable that WotC hasn't been doing a great job with their APs -- then it's at least a little what people are looking for. There aren't that many people reading Fafhrd and Conan and seeking to replicate that in D&D. The contemporary gritty fantasy characters that aren't trying to save the world themselves like Geralt of Rivia or Logen Ninefingers also aren't that motivated by wealth like the old S&S tropes... and in most cases they end up saving the world anyways because it's where they want to retire!

Sword & sorcery itself is kind of dead in favor of high fantasy. Between LotR, MCU, and Harry Potter, it's just the story.



Of course it's a lot to add in. It's a play style that's not really supported by the current rules, and the rules are already sending pretty mixed signals on rewards for the players ("Here's a ton of magic items for rewards, and then here's a bunch of adventure modules that don't really use any"). If the DM wants to run a game this way, then in my opinion, the PCs are going to need a reason to go for it. It's probably easier to play DCC, OSE, or Basic Fantasy if you want that style of play and aren't interested in 30+ year old systems. Maybe you don't need every single rule here, or not all of them all at once, but the players and characters need a tangible carrot, not what they imagine the carrot would be.

After all, these are all people tempered by the disappointment of non-spellcasting abilities in 5th edition D&D above level 10. They need to see something to hope for!



Yeah, but that's very common. Overcorrecting a problem is usually preferably to under-correcting one. It's certainly a more informative error when it comes to planning for what to do.



Sure, but I don't think that's an unreasonable reading. Especially given how the game treats things like using weapons, armor, casting spells, speaking languages, etc. Like if anyone can disarm a trap or pick a lock or move silently, why do Thieves start with a 10-20% of doing it at all? Surely, everyone else must be worse than that, right, since the Thief actually trained for it?



Yeah, it can be done. But it essentially won't be. Just because it's not explicitly banned doesn't mean it's common.



Yes, otherwise it'll be, "I cast Pass Without Trace," "I cast Disguise Self," "I upcast Invisibility," "I cast Knock."



To some extent. I think it's a bigger issue that there's nothing explicitly to do with gold after level 4-5 unless you're a Wizard or raising the dead.

5e D&D like all the WotC era D&Ds does a great job supporting the murder-hobo play style. If the players had something they needed to do with gold, they'd go looking for it. If they needed to look for it, they'd care about acquiring it and making time to spend it.

We don't really know what the fans want. WotC hasn't provided any other options, and the ones they have provided have all been hyped up like crazy so that they're all anyone talks about. Present something different, give it the same marketing attention, and then we'll see what's what.

 

[bloodtide]

2E had a bunch of rules for gaining non combat experience, including by class type. And BECMI D&D, and even more the Gazetters had such rules too.

So a D&D or 2E D&D thief could gain lots of XP without EVER being in a fight and even more so GET xp for doing thievery.

 

[Lanefan]

How’s that fun? As a DM I do my best not to have the PCs have to search for the fun.

Never said it was fun. My point was that sometimes them's the breaks.

 

[Lanefan]

This is anecdotal and is probably a fluke, but my players haven't been interested in playing rogue-like characters in any system for like 5-6 years - it's like the sneaky, backstabby chars have gone out of style. Even if I try to create situations in my campaigns where a streetwise stealthy dude obviously would have been useful - trying to rub in that it is a choice at character creation - they don't bite.

These things do tend to come and go in long-term trends, but I see this more in choice of species than of class.

In another six years you'll probably be up to your ears in sneaky backstabby types.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Yeah, but as a DM I know enough about my player’s characters to know what they want to be doing. If there are no larceny oriented characters why am I going to out the time and effort into building encounters they aren’t geared up for?

You wouldn't.

You wouldn't put a lot of effort in the intricacies of the Blue Temple if there wasn't a cleric of it in the party eather.

Now, if no one wanted to play a Thief in your game, having to retrieve a signet ring from the Duchess' bedroom could be an interesting out of context problem.