There isn't really any need for a large number of tables. Third edition effectively reduced it down to 3 tables. Fighters use the same table they did in 1e AD&D using the variant rule suggested of increasing BAB by 1 every level rather than 2 every 2 levels. Wizards use the thief table. Everyone else uses the cleric table. This is reasonable.
I went the other way and made a different combat matrix for every class. Allowed me space for lots more fine-tuning.
I think part of the charm of the class is it's limited and flavorful weapons list. Generally, I prefer the 3e approach of keeping the limited and flavorful weapons list while granting bonus weapon choices/proficiencies from race. To the extent that I would expand the base list it would be to bo stick (representing here any short fighting stick or cane) and crossbow. Crossbow just feels more 'roguish' to me than slings.
I agree about crossbow; and what you call bo-stick I just call "club", which have always been allowed.
It's not a bad idea as it helps rebalance the classes to the standard of Cavalier which otherwise should be banned.
Cavalier is a great class if one files off some of the excesses. And we took one look at that percentile increment system and gave it to all classes almost on the spot.
It would not at all be wrong nor would it be hard to implement to simply adjust the thieves table so that the revised 1st level thief had the same skill chances as the unrevised 5th level thief. Just skip the first 4 rows of the table.
I'd go more with leaving 1st about where it is but having the progression go up much faster.
Throw in all the skills from Acrobat while you are at it for the very rare cases that parkour matters in the game and things start to get a little better for the poor thief player.
I haven't looked at Acrobat in any detail since about 1988.
If you actually follow the rules and don't allow 21 DEX PC's into your game, the two-handed fighting rules in 1e AD&D are quite balanced and one of the few things that rewards a high DEX combatant with no shield. You only at most get one additional attack a round - it DOES NOT double your attacks per round - and that second attack will generally be at a penalty, and further that second attack will generally be with a different weaker weapon. If you stick to the rules you get no Drizzt. You do however let a thief fight with a dagger in the offhand to make up for their otherwise weak fighting skills.
We already allow this. That you specifically called it out as a Ranger skill led me to think you were referencing some 2e Drizz't thing, asI've never seen Rangers as a two-weapon class (and even if they were, their Dex is likely to be awful as they need four other decent stats to make their class minima).
I don't agree with the reasoning.
Curious: what's your disagreement?
All I did was take the five save matrices from 1e and expand it to eight. Paralyzation-poison-death got split into three and I added a "generic" save matrix for those times when none of the other tables are suitable.
Sure, that would go a little way toward removing the need for them to gain HD at a faster rate than other classes but hit point inflation is always one of my least favorite ways to balance things and I feel less well balanced than the current XP table where you aren't really leveling up significantly faster than other classes you just get to level 2-3 quicker.
I actually slowed Thieves down a bit for the first few levels, to cancel out some other benefits they've picked up along the way. They're still the fastest-advancing, though.
Your game is so evolved from 1e AD&D that I have no basis of comparison. Longsword is already an option for thieves in 1e AD&D. Bottom of page 19, the fourth note to the table.
Well, would you look at that. I should add this to the "Rules you misinterpreted all along" thread in the D&D forum, as for 40+ years I've always thought that by RAW the biggest blade a Thief could use was shortsword. It always struck me as one of the main advantages of Assassins, that they could use the big blades. But Thieves can too. Who'd'a thunk it?
Will fix. I don't think there's any active single-class Thieves in my campaign at the moment, which means I might even be able to slide this change in on the fly.