D&D 2E 2E Thief Rewrite

[Voadam]

*Consider adding Evasion to the class. It existed in Oriental Adventures, so it's not really out of place in AD&D.

It was in 1e and OE monks as well. And pre-2e AD&D monks were basically variant thieves including having thief skills. 2e+ monks were more variant clerics.

 

[James Gasik]

It was in 1e and OE monks as well. And pre-2e AD&D monks were basically variant thieves including having thief skills. 2e+ monks were more variant clerics.

You're correct, of course. Though somebody forgot to tell R.A. Salvatore about the change to monks in 2e, since he had a 1e Monk running around in the Cadderly books, lol.

 

[PHATsakk43]

One thing that annoyed me about 2e Thieves in particular is that in order to put points into a Thieving Ability, you had to use it.

Where in the adversarial DM, Gygaxian hellscape did you find this?

I suppose if you wanted to boost the thief at low levels, I'd suggest the following:

Allow rogues to convert NWP slots into thief skill bumps. I'd think a 2 to 1 (10% bump at character generation) would be fair, especially with the extremely limited economy of NWP slots in 2E. If NWPs are used, I'd think that number of languages from the Int ability would be good for this.

Maybe allow an additional bump of skill points based on the number of languages from the Int table, something like the normal 30/lvl+2x "number of languages". Maybe bump that to 3x, but only through 9th level?

Add the Alertness & Observation NWPs (new General NWP found in CBoT) to the base thief. This would give all thieves a bump to surprise and effectively a "passive perception" similar to the elven ability for secret and concealed doors. Possibly take the Observation ability one step further and have it also trigger a secret FT roll by the DM if the rolls for success on the Observation (1 on a 1d6 unless being explicit.)

As for backstabbing and so forth, I honestly think it's better to be left up to DM discretion.

I think there's no reason to lock out any class from learning how to hide, move silently, climb walls, or detect noise. Academic types really should be able to learn how to read languages. Turning the classic skills into NWP's , then giving Thieves bonuses to them and free proficiency feels like a better approach. After all, look how many free NWP's the Bard gets!

I've always assumed that the base thief ability is the default for any non-thief. My basis is that is how detect noise is addressed in the DMG. In Ch. 15: DM's Miscellany Table 83: Chance to Hear Noise by Race is just the base thief ability modified by the racial modifiers in the PHB. I've always just taken that to suggest that everyone has the base thief abilities, plus racial, armor, and dex adjustments. If you want to keep going from there and open them up to every class, just use the NWP system. The only thing I'd suggest is to consider all of the abilities, except RL solely Rogue and thus it would take 2 slots to get 5%.

 

[James Gasik]

Where in the adversarial DM, Gygaxian hellscape did you find this?

Page 38 of the 2e PHB:

Which isn't saying the exact same thing, I'll grant, but that's how the DM's I played under ruled it. /shrug

 

[James Gasik]

I've always assumed that the base thief ability is the default for any non-thief. My basis is that is how detect noise is addressed in the DMG. In Ch. 15: DM's Miscellany Table 83: Chance to Hear Noise by Race is just the base thief ability modified by the racial modifiers in the PHB. I've always just taken that to suggest that everyone has the base thief abilities, plus racial, armor, and dex adjustments. If you want to keep going from there and open them up to every class, just use the NWP system. The only thing I'd suggest is to consider all of the abilities, except RL solely Rogue and thus it would take 2 slots to get 5%.

Which is what people say the original Thief was meant to be like, but somewhere along the line the rulebooks gave a very different impression, especially when different sub-systems for listening (1e DMG screen) and climbing (see the 2e Mountaineering NWP) are given.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Page 38 of the 2e PHB:
View attachment 403538
Which isn't saying the exact same thing, I'll grant, but that's how the DM's I played under ruled it. /shrug

That is a suggestion within a broader outline of an optional rule that was just included because of how central Gary had made "training" in pre 2E.

The 2E DMG discussion is far less insistent upon training and the RAW states plainly:

"When a character earns enough experience to attain the next level for his character class, he immediately gains several benefits (unless the optional rules for training are used)."

I'm sorry you got stuck with DMs that just wanted to make things "realistic" when they were annoying. I never saw anyone who bothered with training and I've never utilized it in any of my games.

Which is what people say the original Thief was meant to be like, but somewhere along the line the rulebooks gave a very different impression, especially when different sub-systems for listening (1e DMG screen) and climbing (see the 2e Mountaineering NWP) are given.

I've never played 1E, nor played with anyone who started with it either so I've not really had to deal with the grognardism. I got into D&D in 1990 or so with RC BECMI and a year or so later with 2E. So, I can't really speak to the 1E DM Screen. I've got all the core 1E books, but mostly as curiosities. I had never read them until very recently, and honestly, I don't see the appeal.

That said, I never took the Mountaineering NWP to be anything other than what it says it is, a specially trained skill that pertains to a specific technical activity.

After going through this thread, I think I may relook at my house rules and possibly do some fiddling with the base thief along the lines of what I discussed earlier.

I'm not 100% on wedded to letting Int be score that provides the sole boost to thief skill points per level. Maybe something akin to the method of PSP gain for psionicist?

 

[James Gasik]

That is a suggestion within a broader outline of an optional rule that was just included because of how central Gary had made "training" in pre 2E.

The 2E DMG discussion is far less insistent upon training and the RAW states plainly:

"When a character earns enough experience to attain the next level for his character class, he immediately gains several benefits (unless the optional rules for training are used)."

I'm sorry you got stuck with DMs that just wanted to make things "realistic" when they were annoying. I never saw anyone who bothered with training and I've never utilized it in any of my games.


I've never played 1E, nor played with anyone who started with it either so I've not really had to deal with the grognardism. I got into D&D in 1990 or so with RC BECMI and a year or so later with 2E. So, I can't really speak to the 1E DM Screen. I've got all the core 1E books, but mostly as curiosities. I had never read them until very recently, and honestly, I don't see the appeal.

That said, I never took the Mountaineering NWP to be anything other than what it says it is, a specially trained skill that pertains to a specific technical activity.

After going through this thread, I think I may relook at my house rules and possibly do some fiddling with the base thief along the lines of what I discussed earlier.

I'm not 100% on wedded to letting Int be score that provides the sole boost to thief skill points per level. Maybe something akin to the method of PSP gain for psionicist?

Well, making Int do more for the system is a worthy cause, I think. I mean even now, Rogues have Int save proficiency, which implies somebody thinks it should be an important ability score for the class, even if virtually nothing they do keys off of it. You could make it MAD (as Psions get PSP's from multiple ability scores as I recall), but that just forces the Thief to spread out even more, when Dexterity is the #1 ability score they need- in AD&D, at least, the difference between one point and the next of Dex at the higher end can be equal to a full level or even more.

 

[Voadam]

I've always assumed that the base thief ability is the default for any non-thief. My basis is that is how detect noise is addressed in the DMG. In Ch. 15: DM's Miscellany Table 83: Chance to Hear Noise by Race is just the base thief ability modified by the racial modifiers in the PHB. I've always just taken that to suggest that everyone has the base thief abilities, plus racial, armor, and dex adjustments. If you want to keep going from there and open them up to every class, just use the NWP system. The only thing I'd suggest is to consider all of the abilities, except RL solely Rogue and thus it would take 2 slots to get 5%.

It was also only listen that explicitly had the same 1st level thief chances for everyone in 1e and B/X Basic which did not have the discretionary spend percentages for thieves. 1e in the DMG it says everyone has a (really poor) d20 chance based on race which as percentages match up to the thief base skill and racial adjustments and in B/X Basic a 1st level thief starts out with the same hear noise chance that everyone has using the same d6 mechanic which makes it a sort of stealth third level and higher only class power for them in both systems.

So I made the opposite inference. Listen is the only thief skill with with the same mechanic and same starting chance as everyone else so the ones that do not have that power explicitly as a thing that anyone can try seem to be intentional in not doing so. So I inferred things like picking locks and picking pockets are not things that can really be done by the untrained/unpracticed. I IRL certainly would not expect to successfully pick a lock having had no experience even trying to do so.

If you give the 1st level thief chances to everybody you are pretty much giving a 1st level thief zero even crappy unique powers. What is left is the ability to wear leather armor and wield some weapons (limited in AD&D, any in Basic) and backstab. In 2e they get the discretionary points as well as their class ability.

1e DMG page 60:

LISTENING AT DOORS
In addition to the simple exercise of observation, many times characters will
desire to listen, ear pressed to a portal, prior to opening and entering. This
requires a special check, in secret, by you to determine if any sound is heard.
Because of this, continual listening becomes a great bother to the DM. While
ear seekers will tend to discourage some, most players will insist on having their
characters listen at doors at every pretense. First, make certain that you explain
to players that all headgear must be removed in order to listen. Those wearing
helmets will probably have to remove a mail coif and padded cap as well,
don’t forget. The party must also be absolutely silent, and listening will take at
least one round.
Silent creatures — undead, bugbears, etc. — will never be heard. Sleeping or
resting or alerted creatures will not be heard either. If there is something for the
listener to hear behind the door, the following probabilities will determine if any
sound is heard:
Race Of Listener Chance Of Hearing Noise
Dwarf 2 in 20 (10%)
Elf 3 in 20 (15%)
Gnome 4 in 20 (20%)
Half-Elf 2 in 20 (10%)
Halfling 3 in 20 (15%)
Half-Orc 3 in 20 (15%)
Human 2 in 20 (10%)
Keen-eared individuals will gain a bonus of 1 or 2 in 20 (5% or 10%). Use
chance of hearing a noise to determine if a character is keen-eared the first
time he or she listens at a door, and if it is indicated, tell the player to note the
fact for his or her character. Player characters will not initially have hearing
problems (as they wouldn’t have survived if they had them). During the course
of adventuring, great noise might cause hearing loss. Handle this as you see fit.
A loss of hearing might negate the chance to hear something behind a door
without any other noticeable effects.
Hearing Noise: When a die roll indicates a noise has been heard, tell the
player whose character was listening that he or she heard a clink, footstep,
murmuring voices, slithering, laughter, or whatever is appropriate. (Of course,
some of these noises will be magical, e.g., audible glamer spells, not anything
which will be encountered at all!) Be imprecise and give only vague hints; never
say, “You hear ogres,” but “You hear rumbling, voice-like sounds.” Failure to
hear any noise can be due to the fact that nothing which will make noise is
beyond the portal, or it might be due to a bad (for the listener) die roll. Always
roll the die, even if you know nothing can be heard. Always appear
disinterested regardless of the situation.
Maximum Number Of Listeners: Each listener will take up about 2½’ of
space, so up to three can listen at a typical dungeon door.
Maximum Length Of Time For Listening: Only three attempts can be
made before the strain becomes too great. After the third attempt, the listeners
must cease such activity for at least five rounds before returning to listening again.

1e PH page 28:

B/X Basic page B8:

Page B21:

OK seeing the specifics again my memory was wrong, 1st level thieves in B/X are explicitly twice as good as other humans at listening.

 

[James Gasik]

I always wondered why the 1e Thief doesn't get a chance to have "Keen Hearing". I suppose you could assume that's part and parcel of their ability at 1st level, though I suppose it begs the question of what happens if a character with Keen Hearing later dual-classes into a Thief. "Ask your DM", I suppose, lol.

 

[Jeff2222]

For a style of play where the party tries to avoid combat whenever possible (perhaps because most XP comes from recovering loot rather than killing monsters, and/or combat comes with a significant risk of death), the stealthy Thief or Fighter/Thief can be very powerful even without heavy armour. But for a more combat focused game they might not be as useful.

In 1e I think a big reason for choosing Fighter/Thief was the severe race limits on Fighter levels, but none on Thief levels, so a Fighter/Thief could continue to progress long after a pure non-human Fighter had reached their limit.. With 2e relaxing those limits, and possibly it became more common to ignore them altogether, some of that advantage is lost and a pure non-human Fighter becomes more attractive.