D&D General Why the Great Thief Debate Will Always Be With Us

[Minigiant]

That be because D&D is a choose your own adventure system and doesn't have a singularly solid source reference. Its a stew of many source references. So, there is not A,B,C choice, but a whole alphabet of them.

And that's why the thief debate happens.

Because D&D pulls from sources where the thief is much better at thievery than the fighter, sources with the thief is just as good at thievery as the fighter, and sources that the thief is wildly better than the fighter and is obviously supernatural and ability.

The thief is added but never answered "which thief".

Well it did.

Just that few knew the references to agree which what was added.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Its power gaming to want to play a character archetype that is ineffective in the source reference and wanting it to be more effective.

Only if you have particular buy-in to the source in the first place. Otherwise it just says that setting doesn't support the kind of character you want to play.

The problem 99.999% is not agreeing on the reference.

I don't disagree about that part, but I still say that's not power gaming.

 

[Voadam]

I think this thief debate is generally about what happens when a class gets an ability and it is not clear whether others can or can not.

If things are covered by explicit rules in both situations that is just Gygaxian space being comprehensive.

In OD&D anybody can hear noise using a d6 mechanic, thieves get better at it at higher levels as a class ability. The thief ability does not take away anybody's ability to hear.

In OD&D Greyhawk thieves get a pick locks and pick pockets ability and it is not clear if others get it.

Before Greyhawk and thieves with the explicit ability a DM would have to resolve an attempt ad hoc, perhaps asking the player if the PC has a background as a pickpocket? Perhaps just saying "cool yes" or "of course no" or calling for a check of some kind depending on the DM and style of game and such.

After Greyhawk if a non-thief attempts to pick a lock I can see a DM leaning into saying people with the mechanics to open locks are those in the game with the ability to do so, it is a specialized skill that not everyone has so the mechanics say who has the skill and who does not. There are still the pre-Greyhawk options, but I think a straight yes is much less likely next to a character with a specific mechanic for a chance. Others might say a chance, but worse than the baseline lock picking thief.

For a lot of things mechanics will define things that only some can do. Casting spells defines PC magic in a lot of D&D and many DMs will then not allow spontaneous magic effects not specified by a rule (4e had a rule explicitly allowing use of the arcana skill to do some open ended vague magical effects outside of spells and rituals so that is Gygaxian again).

An interesting point comes up though with thieves when they get a skill that generally everyone should have some ability at but there are no general mechanics for characters doing those things. For thieves it was climbing and hiding and moving quietly.

A DM in OD&D/Basic/AD&D still has to resolve what happens when the party decides to quietly sneak past the open guard room door where the distracted guards are playing cards and not watching and most of the party does not have an explicit move silent mechanic.

 

[Minigiant]

Only if you have particular buy-in to the source in the first place. Otherwise it just says that setting doesn't support the kind of character you want to play.

Well that's the point

Gygax's original thief was designed around a setting that the greater D&D community didn't buy in.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well that's the point

Gygax's original thief was designed around a setting that the greater D&D community didn't buy in.

As Voadam notes above, the problem was it wasn't clear what that thief was designed around. The skills were just there, and there wasn't much guidance whether they were supposed to be exclusive, superior, or what; this could come up the moment, as noted, anyone else tried to sneak by guards or climb a wall. There wasn't even any obvious default to base it off of in the OD&D period, which gave you next to know guidance for such things.

 

[Emerikol]

So say you're a Star Wars fan, and you think the Jedi are incredibly cool. But you join a SW game, and the GM says "No Space Wizards!".

So now you can't play the character you really wanted to. Are you going to have the same excitement? Is it wrong if you don't?

I think you should never join a game without having a good discussion with the DM about the parameters of his or her campaign.

As Voadam notes above, the problem was it wasn't clear what that thief was designed around. The skills were just there, and there wasn't much guidance whether they were supposed to be exclusive, superior, or what; this could come up the moment, as noted, anyone else tried to sneak by guards or climb a wall. There wasn't even any obvious default to base it off of in the OD&D period, which gave you next to know guidance for such things.

I think a better solution was to make the Rogue/Thief a subclass of the Fighter. Then just give the bonuses when check for those things.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think a better solution was to make the Rogue/Thief a subclass of the Fighter. Then just give the bonuses when check for those things.

I suspect Gygax didn't want the Thief to be as good at fighting as the fighter; the really poor hit die was a giveaway there. They were probably intended to be a better intrusion specialist at the price of worse face-to-face combat capability.

The problem was, outside of a couple perception-adjacent things, until the Thief came along OD&D had next to nothing to say about success or failure of most non-combat related tasks, and it wasn't clear they should all be offloaded on description. But there we were, which is why you had a patchwork of individual resolutions that various GMs had.

 

[Minigiant]

As Voadam notes above, the problem was it wasn't clear what that thief was designed around. The skills were just there, and there wasn't much guidance whether they were supposed to be exclusive, superior, or what; this could come up the moment, as noted, anyone else tried to sneak by guards or climb a wall. There wasn't even any obvious default to base it off of in the OD&D period, which gave you next to know guidance for such things.

Well that comes in with reference.

For example crafting

There is no magic items crafting in the 2024 PHB. So if I made a blacksmith class, does that mean only blacksmiths can forge magic swords?

No.

Because the reference of the D&D game says spellcasters and some noncasters can forge magic items.

They don't have the rules yet. We don't know they aren't exclusive.

But we know as gamers that fighters can forge items via the source.of D&D.

However if the reference was Dragon Age: Dwarves and Mages only.

 

[Voadam]

Because the reference of the D&D game says spellcasters and some noncasters can forge magic items.

They don't have the rules yet. We don't know they aren't exclusive.

But we know as gamers that fighters can forge items via the source.of D&D.

Can you be more specific, where does D&D say fighters can forge magic items?

 

[Minigiant]

Can you be more specific, where does D&D say fighters can forge magic items?

Fighters (multiclassed for spells) could create magic items since 3e. In 4e they didn't need spells to do it. And when the 2025 DMG comes out, it will affirm that anyone with Arcane can forge magic items.

This isn't before getting in the weird pre2e timey stuff where dwarves crafted magic weapons and armor but had no mages.