"?" about "The D&D Rules Cyclopedia"

[daveb22]

ok, so i bought a pdf and have read through it and everyone here was right, simply awesome book. thanks for the recommendations

 

[rounser]

It seems to me that the RC thief is completely busted. 1d4 hp and a percentage chance at it's skills spread out over 30 levels (the tables are better in Basic/Expert boxed sets), and the penalties for failure suck too. Maybe the XP charts make up for it a bit, but you'd mostly be better off with a ten foot pole and an axe than an RC thief, so far as I can see.

 

[Remathilis]

It seems to me that the RC thief is completely busted. 1d4 hp and a percentage chance at it's skills spread out over 30 levels (the tables are better in Basic/Expert boxed sets), and the penalties for failure suck too. Maybe the XP charts make up for it a bit, but you'd mostly be better off with a ten foot pole and an axe than an RC thief, so far as I can see.

I'm inclined to agree with you there; The only advantage is speed of leveling and, by extension, a faster rate of attack bonus and saves, but that evens out eventually.

Personally, I'd give them d6 HD like in AD&D.

 

[rounser]

Personally, I'd give them d6 HD like in AD&D.

I think they need a lot more help than that. Even the 2E thief is barely viable, and the existence of thief skills create problems as to what other classes can and cannot do.

Knock, elven boots and fly duplicate their abilities, and what they can get away with in combat with regard to their skills is subjective, and only hinted at by the rules. Thieves are, in short, problematic. If not completely overhauled or relegated purely to NPC henchman status, perhaps they're best ditched entirely.

 

[Remathilis]

I think they need a lot more help than that. Even the 2E thief is barely viable, and the existence of thief skills create problems as to what other classes can and cannot do.

Knock, elven boots and fly duplicate their abilities, and what they can get away with in combat with regard to their skills is subjective, and only hinted at by the rules. Thieves are, in short, problematic. If not completely overhauled or relegated purely to NPC henchman status, perhaps they're best ditched entirely.

Well, since you opened up that can of worms...

Yes, the thief class has never, ever, been executed properly. In theory, he's supposed to be an slick skillful adventurer whose role was a scout, explorer, and secondary fighter. He's never been that. Magic routinely trumped his primary roles, and his combat ability has never been worth a bucket of warm spit. In AD&D (1e and 2e) thieves made great X/Thief multi-class characters, where X is fighter, mage, or both, but single class thieves often began to lose their luster from 5th-9th level (right when magic becomes ascendant).

FWIW, fighters end up in the same boat around 12th level.

At least third edition rogues made attempts to balance rogues (class abilities like evasion, better skill rules, sneak attack) but in the end I rarely saw high-level rogues even in 3e. 4e's look interesting because, for the first time, they are expected to get into melee and deal damage.

I said back on page one I'd love to play RC D&D again. This is somewhat true; I would, but I don't think I could make a long-running game of it. Too many little fiddily rules (like how thieves work or demi-human level limits) would make me irritated to the point of wanting to move on to another iteration of D&D (3e, 4e or C&C) eventually.

Guess you can never go back.

 

[jdrakeh]

There's always the Flame Princess Build-Your-Own-Old-School-Group-Method if you'd like to run an older edition and don't know anyone willing to play.

Despite claims, that 'method' tends to fail as often as it succeeds. I've put in hundreds of man hours attending meetups, posting fliers, etc over the years in an effort to get people interested in obscure games. . . only to get one or two bites (or no bites at all, depending upon the game system).

You'll naturally do better with something like AD&D 1e (which is one of the most popular RPGs ever published) than you will with something like TWERPS (which is one of the most obscure, relatively unknown, RPGs ever published). Or, at least, this has been my own experience.

The reality is that some game systems simply have very few people who are willing to give them a chance and, sadly, these people tend to be pretty far flung as a simple matter of probability.

 

[rounser]

Too many little fiddily rules (like how thieves work or demi-human level limits) would make me irritated to the point of wanting to move on to another iteration of D&D (3e, 4e or C&C) eventually.

I don't think there's anywhere to go, now. 3E is too stat-intensive to prepare for, the combats in 3E and 4E run too long with all those stunts and minis, the 4E implied setting is wacky, and the rules challenge suspension of disbelief. The OD&D clones fail to improve on the original sufficiently to meet today's standards (even C&C, although it's the best of a bad lot), retaining silliness such as the d4 rogue hit points just for sake of tradition.

Perhaps the answer is just work around the RC limitations. For instance, thieves become an NPC henchman class, hired as the party's "burglar". Demihuman PCs who reach the limit retire, and the player then runs a new human PC of the appropriate level who has heard of the party's fame and exploits, and seeks to join them now there's a vacancy. By that level you're probably looking for a change, and for some reason the idea of demihumans retiring seems to "fit" (perhaps LotR is to blame for this impression).

Would that keep it from bothering you? It bothers me too, but the above workarounds seem to make the RC viable again. And as jdrakeh points out, you need the D&D RC branding to get players.

 

[Treebore]

Just goes to show experiences vary widely, I have been playing thieves since 1E and never had a problem filling my role. Plus I loved dual classing with the thief class. Thief is probably my all time favorite class. This is with never, ever having played a halfling thief. Who absolutely rock at being thieves, due to racial modifiers. In 1E and 2E at least.

 

[pawsplay]

The RC is one of those rare things. Although there are plenty of quirks and oddities to complain about, Basic D&D is, in the end, the best possible Basic D&D there could be. The RC is an amazingly complete and useful book.

 

[rounser]

The RC is an amazingly complete and useful book.

It is, although the internal artwork is perhaps a step down from what the boxed sets got, and that influences the game's feel. Is the monster selection sufficient to sustain interest for a campaign? Probably, although AD&D seemed to get the lions share of cool monsters, spells and magic items. Luckily, they're pretty much compatible.

RC + monstrous compendiums + encyclopedia magica is a possibility, but it somewhat defeats the purpose of the RC being a self-contained game. Then again, the Creature Catalog was designed for use with RC, so much of a muchness really.