TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[Mannahnin]

I'll go ahead and make the distinction you're trying to make - that compared to WotC's versions of D&D, the TSR-era Thieves were bad. It's an important distinction because WotC changed a great deal about the game, so much so that Gary Gygax said WotC's game was no longer even D&D.

Can you quote him? We're talking about the same Gary who did voiceover work for D&D Online, right?

Beyond that...
A) Thieves are simply bad and could use help in TSR editions regardless of any comparison to other versions. If you have a 10% to 50% chance of performing a key character function, and the DMG advises the DM to impose a likely-to-be-deadly consequence for failure, the math simply works out that the character is unlikely to survive long unless they simply avoid using their skills.
B) You've apparently forgotten that third party and OSR variant versions of D&D exist, contributing to your inaccurate guess.

I'll further note that Thieves were better (THAC0) at combat than Magic-Users and just as good as Clerics (according to the Rules Cyclopedia).

I don't think you can reasonably argue that how good a D&D character is in combat is represented solely by their attack rolls. Attack rolls, armor class, hit points, special abilities, and to some extent saving throws all factor in.

Thieves in TSR editions have equal or slightly inferior attack progressions to clerics, while having inferior armor class, saving throws, and in some editions hit dice.

Again, I agree that everyone didn't enjoy play TSR-era Thieves, but, some people did and the class wasn't as objectively useless as you depict here. I started with AD&D and ran it for high school friends, so unlike some people my opinions here - like yours - aren't formed from just reading the books

I explicitly noted that some folks enjoy them despite their mechanical weaknesses. I started with BECMI in 1985, switched to 1E AD&D shortly thereafter, but played a lot more 2E AD&D than either. Started delving into the OSR around 2010, but only started playing OD&D and other old editions again really regularly in the last five years.

Definitely seeing them in play helps. I was a little confused as a kid by Gary's advice in the 1E DMG to be harsh on Thieves and adjudicate as if they were overpowered, because even at that age I could read the tables and see the small percentages. But I had faith that he knew what he was talking about. In retrospect, after playing the game for years, his advice on that particular topic looks worse and worse.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Definitely seeing them in play helps. I was a little confused as a kid by Gary's advice in the 1E DMG to be harsh on Thieves and adjudicate as if they were overpowered, because even at that age I could read the tables and see the small percentages. But I had faith that he knew what he was talking about. In retrospect, after playing the game for years, his advice on that particular topic looks worse and worse.

Absolutely wild, I had totally missed this.

I feel like a thief broke up his first marriage or something, like, what did the thief ever do to him?

 

[Mannahnin]

Really? Climb walls started at 85%, even slightly-slippery dropping that to 70%. With no armor your base at 1st level increased to 95% and just 90% to slightly-slippery services. You should have been making those most of the time. Depending on what you are climbing and why, using spikes and ropes to harness yourself helped stop much of any falling damage in my experience.

What bothered me more was the distances climbed in the DMG. And of course the confusing differences between information in the player's handbook and DMG. I don't recall how much 2E cleaned it all up.

Yeah, Climb Walls seems at first glance to be the one thing they're actually competent at, but once you look at the full rules in the DMG this "most abused function" is definitely less reliable.

He tells us that the average dungeon wall is climbed at 9' per round, that it doubles your failure chance (so from 85% we drop immediately to 70% for slightly slippery, as you noted), and you have to make your check every single round or slip and fall*, naturally suffering fall damage. Anyone want to do the combinatorics and see how bad your odds of climbing, say, a 20' or 50' wall actually are under those rules?

*(There isn't the "you don't fall but can't progress if you fail by 4 or less" provision from, say, 5E climbing, which would equate roughly to missing your chance by less than 25%. )

 

[Willie the Duck]

TSR Thieves are bad to some people. There's been people in this thread who've posted their enjoyment of playing the class. This idea that they were objectively bad doesn't pass the sniff test, especially when you consider that once the Magic-User ran out of spells, that class was a liability to many parties

I don't recall seeing anyone stating something as objectively bad (those two words together in general are pretty iffy). In general, I find it helpful to assume any statements on this board not otherwise clarified to be positions or statements of opinion.

Regardless, I'm sure plenty of people did enjoy playing thieves in TSR A/D&D (I certainly did at times). That doesn't specifically exclude them from being 'bad' (by whatever metric we want to use). Houserules exist, play patterns can override mechanical limitations, people can play multiple characters (or different characters at different levels), and people can put up with a lot of mechanical issues if the thematics are good (and there's a lot of appeal to a lovable rogue).

I'm not sure if I agree that the Magic User supports the argument well or not. I mean, clearly 'you do your one thing, and then get out of the way and try not to die' is a viable character-type strategy -- and one deployed in part of the game. I'm not sure that means it should happen for the thief, given that they are by also tasked with being out in front of failed-to-be-disarmed traps and behind enemy lines when HiS/MS fails. Beyond that, I think the MU is notable in that 1) the low levels where they run out of (applicable) spells very quickly and then are nothing but liability is a major frustration of playing them, and 2) towards the upper levels, those things they can do start to increase in power and prominence, whereas those things a thief can do drop off in relative utility.

Some folks really like playing on hard mode. Your Mileage May Vary as always.

Individual tastes always vary. Though whether TSR-era Thieves are bad in combat and have terrible chances of using most of their skills is simple to see if you just read the text and look at the numbers.

I've spent a lot of time playing these editions in the past five years, in particular. Right now I'm running both an M-U and a Thief in an OSE game, though the DM has implemented house rules to help them both.

I'd hesitate to use strictly the numbers for this. Part of what influences the outcome is going to be the textual language. AD&D and BX or 2E have not-dissimilar percentages for thieving skills, but 1E is much more stringent on saying no to a thief even getting to roll that percentage in the first place. Also consider that a significant part of combat ability is going to be born out on the magic item table. For that, the BX/BECMI ability of thieves to use any weapon is going to come into play.

I'll further note that Thieves were better (THAC0) at combat than Magic-Users and just as good as Clerics (according to the Rules Cyclopedia).

ThAC0 (a portion of combat ability) is the same for thieves and clerics in BX, BECMI, and RC. In oD&D (and I assume B) they are unlinked and it wobbles around with one or the other doing better at a given level. In 1e a cleric is slightly ahead on the attack matrices. In 2e it settles down with the cleric ahead (advancing at 2/3 point of ThAC0 per level compared to the thieves' 1/2). All of this not accounting for the thief potentially being ahead in level based on their xp chart (but then again also not accounting for other combat influencing factors like armor, hp, weapons-usable, magic items, etc.).

 

[Willie the Duck]

Can you quote him? We're talking about the same Gary who did voiceover work for D&D Online, right?

He worked with WotC on the 3.0 roll-out, and apparently was very positive about parts of it, but eventually did voice some unhappiness with the new game. Mind you, a lot of it seems to be old-man-yells-at-clouds level of they've-changed-it-now-it-sucks. See: "The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good." Mind you, aside from whether Gary's opinion on the subject matters, it's also important to remember that this was the Gary of 2000-2004 (and the one thing we know was constant about Gary was that his positions shifted over time).

 

[LordBP]

He worked with WotC on the 3.0 roll-out, and apparently was very positive about parts of it, but eventually did voice some unhappiness with the new game. Mind you, a lot of it seems to be old-man-yells-at-clouds level of they've-changed-it-now-it-sucks. See: "The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good." Mind you, aside from whether Gary's opinion on the subject matters, it's also important to remember that this was the Gary of 2000-2004 (and the one thing we know was constant about Gary was that his positions shifted over time).

Funny thing is that I thought the same thing when 3.0 came out.

 

[Riley]

That's a lot for the 4d10 (avg 22, max 40) + con bonus per level that a 4th level fighter gets. 18 con and a little above average rolls or 15-17 con and really good rolls.

We… had adopted some house rules, and habits, that favored above-average stats.

And I’m now remembering that was probably/actually a 5th level fighter when switched over, but as I dual-classed immediately after gaining 5th, I misrecalled as 4th because I never actually played that character as a pure 5th level fighter - and 4th level took forever.

Also, in that long-running campaign we house-ruled 1) max-possible hp at 1st level, and 2) a minimum of half-hd rounded up per level thereafter.
(It worked for us.)

So that 5th level fighter with Con of 15 would’ve had an absolute minimum of 11+7+7+7+7=39 hit points under our rules, and I rolled only 3 ‘extra’ hit points from occasionally rolling a 7,8, and/or 9 on one or more level gains.

 

[Voadam]

We… had adopted some house rules, and habits, that favored above-average stats.

I allowed the UA human rolls option in addition to the DMG methods in my long term 1e campaign. I think those generated the highest average RAW legal stats in D&D's history of options and had the good stats tied to your class concept. Still ended up with a party that included 4 elves (two grugach and two drow) using DMG stat methods.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Because it's what I started with and its vibes are impeccable.

I mean, the actual rules are a big mess, but the vibes are amazing.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

He tells us that the average dungeon wall is climbed at 9' per round, that it doubles your failure chance (so from 85% we drop immediately to 70% for slightly slippery, as you noted), and you have to make your check every single round or slip and fall*, naturally suffering fall damage. Anyone want to do the combinatorics and see how bad your odds of climbing, say, a 20' or 50' wall actually are under those rules?

Yeah, that is part of what I was referring to. In the PHB it says you make a single check half-way through the climb. So, I think many tables ran it that way.

Say our 1st level thief with no armor is 95%, 90% for slightly slippery.
They have to climb a 30' wall.
According to the PHB, you make the check at 15' and only make a single check. Success you finish the climb, failure you fall.
According to the DMG, you make the check at 9', 18', and 27' (we'll be generous and say that is close enough to reach the top).
OR, you put them together...
You make the check at 4.5' (half the 9' for the round), then at 13.5' (half the next 9' increment), and 22.5'. You wouldn't make another check because that would be at 31.5'--past the 30' top.
OR, you do something entirely different LOL, after all it was AD&D...

Anyway, for this example (30') you have to make three checks according to the DMG (worst case), so odds of making the climb is 72.9% given a typical slightly-slippery dungeon wall. Putting the armor back on of course makes it much worse... just 70% per check or 34.3% to make three checks in a row.

But, in my experience, most DMs did a single check half-way, so 70% for the one check isn't horrible.

Of course, this is a reason (along with numerous pit traps) while most wizards knew feather fall.