Twiggly the Gnome
Legend
I absolutely loved the Complete Priest's Handbook, but I think it's a fair criticism to say that most of the contents would have been better suited for a blue cover book.
D&D 2E [COMPLETE] Looking back at the leatherette series: PHBR, DMGR, HR and more!
Orius
Legend
Fighter's Handbook was mostly pretty good, though for the most part, Combat and Tactics largely supersedes it.
It introduced kits, and even in this book, they're unbalanced with each other. I think it's because of 2e's attempt to focus more strongly on roleplaying, but kits with roleplaying benefits are not equal to ones with mechanical benefits. And the when you try to "balance " mechanical benefits with roleplaying penalties....
The tournament rules aren't too bad. Not really useful for a dungeon based campaign, but one that is more focused on medieval chivalry is a good fit. Besides, there are opportunities to win prizes in tournaments, so even a character that's largely looking for money and treasure would have some motivation to participate.
It introduced kits, and even in this book, they're unbalanced with each other. I think it's because of 2e's attempt to focus more strongly on roleplaying, but kits with roleplaying benefits are not equal to ones with mechanical benefits. And the when you try to "balance " mechanical benefits with roleplaying penalties....
The tournament rules aren't too bad. Not really useful for a dungeon based campaign, but one that is more focused on medieval chivalry is a good fit. Besides, there are opportunities to win prizes in tournaments, so even a character that's largely looking for money and treasure would have some motivation to participate.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
PHBR2 The Complete Thief's Handbook was a book that utterly captivated me when I first read it.
At the time, that was surprising. Even back then, I was of the opinion that (once they got to the higher levels) spellcasters were where it was at, primarily wizards but also clerics. Even fighters had their appeal; the visceral nature of just wading into a group of foes and unleashing carnage has a draw all its own. But thieves? The whole "canny knack" aspect - whether it was for slipping a dagger between someone's ribs when they weren't paying attention or tripping a trap that no one else even realized was there - seemed rather iffy to me from the get-go. That only worked if you could be smarter/wiser/luckier than your opposition, and even if you could summon that level of perspicacity all of the time, the dice were bound to fail you at some point. That's not to say that my issue with thieves was one of playability, but rather that they always seemed like a particularly narrative niche in a game that didn't play up narrativism. There's a reason why these guys weren't in Original Dungeons & Dragons.
So what was it about this book that hooked me as soon as I read it? In this case, I'll quote from the book itself (page 46):
It then went on to discuss an example of such a character: "Bluehand" Ajathar, a thief with slightly subpar thieving abilities, but who could cast wizard spells of the Illusion/Phantasm school.
That completely blew my mind.
While the section on those "lone wolves" who had custom classes was framed around the idea of them being thieves, it was obvious that it didn't have to be. Which meant that there was no reason why NPCs - or even PCs! - of any stripe couldn't be such paradigm-breaking individuals. While that may sound like a power-gamer's dream come true, I was stunned by the sheer breadth of possibilities it opened up, as it provided an in-game basis for why such an adjustment to the standard allowable classes could happen. To this day, I still think that "Bluehand" Ajathar is one of the coolest NPCs in D&D, and one I wish WotC would give a cameo somewhere.
With that out of the way, the rest of the book had some areas that I found decently interesting as well. For instance, despite how little draw I felt toward thief characters, the "Tools of the Trade" chapter did have some allure to it. The same way that a good utility mage will have a spell for every situation, the sheer plethora of thieves' equipment (helpfully categorized by area of larceny) held my interest for the same reason. Who doesn't want to be Batman, just happening to have the right piece of equipment for the job while your super-friends all fidget and try to figure out what to do?
The section on thieves' guilds did less for me, alas. Their urban concentration was one thing, but my impression had always been that they were limited to a single urban locality; that meant that not only were they not very helpful if you were adventuring in forgotten tombs and forging through orc-territory, but getting in good with a guild wouldn't be useful unless you kept going back to your guild in the same city; otherwise it was having to ingratiate yourself with a new guild in a new town, potentially over and over if your adventuring party was itinerant (as most parties seemed to be). At least with a temple, their unifying religion meant that once your cleric made it clear they had their god's approval (via higher-level spells) they were a certified big shot. At a new guild, showing that you could out-pickpocket the higher-ranking members seemed like a quick way to get a knife in the back.
To be fair, the idea of frequent urban larceny as a way to increase the personal wealth of a thief character in particular, and the party in general, never really occurred to me. Solo adventures always seemed like a good way to get yourself killed, and there wasn't really a "downtime system" back in the days of AD&D, even if activities taken in-between adventures were clearly a thing. As such, it wasn't until much later, when I stumbled across a third-party supplement making that made downtime thievery viable for rogue characters in Pathfinder 1E (specifically, Fat Goblin Games' The Rogue's Guide to Capers), that I warmed up to the idea of "casual heists" as a way of increasing cash-on-hand.
On a mild tangent, I can't remember if PHBR2 was where they first floated the idea of allowing thief skills to be raised above 95%, but only in terms of compensating for penalties. That is, you could push your Hide in Shadows score up to 120%, for example, but you'd still only have a 95% chance of success when you rolled; it was just that when you wore scale mail (-50%), your adjusted chance of success would be 70% rather than 45%. But I think that optional rule was floated elsewhere, and I'm misremembering.
Either way, this particular supplement is one that I still enjoy rereading after all these years.
Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.
At the time, that was surprising. Even back then, I was of the opinion that (once they got to the higher levels) spellcasters were where it was at, primarily wizards but also clerics. Even fighters had their appeal; the visceral nature of just wading into a group of foes and unleashing carnage has a draw all its own. But thieves? The whole "canny knack" aspect - whether it was for slipping a dagger between someone's ribs when they weren't paying attention or tripping a trap that no one else even realized was there - seemed rather iffy to me from the get-go. That only worked if you could be smarter/wiser/luckier than your opposition, and even if you could summon that level of perspicacity all of the time, the dice were bound to fail you at some point. That's not to say that my issue with thieves was one of playability, but rather that they always seemed like a particularly narrative niche in a game that didn't play up narrativism. There's a reason why these guys weren't in Original Dungeons & Dragons.
So what was it about this book that hooked me as soon as I read it? In this case, I'll quote from the book itself (page 46):
It then went on to discuss an example of such a character: "Bluehand" Ajathar, a thief with slightly subpar thieving abilities, but who could cast wizard spells of the Illusion/Phantasm school.
That completely blew my mind.
While the section on those "lone wolves" who had custom classes was framed around the idea of them being thieves, it was obvious that it didn't have to be. Which meant that there was no reason why NPCs - or even PCs! - of any stripe couldn't be such paradigm-breaking individuals. While that may sound like a power-gamer's dream come true, I was stunned by the sheer breadth of possibilities it opened up, as it provided an in-game basis for why such an adjustment to the standard allowable classes could happen. To this day, I still think that "Bluehand" Ajathar is one of the coolest NPCs in D&D, and one I wish WotC would give a cameo somewhere.
With that out of the way, the rest of the book had some areas that I found decently interesting as well. For instance, despite how little draw I felt toward thief characters, the "Tools of the Trade" chapter did have some allure to it. The same way that a good utility mage will have a spell for every situation, the sheer plethora of thieves' equipment (helpfully categorized by area of larceny) held my interest for the same reason. Who doesn't want to be Batman, just happening to have the right piece of equipment for the job while your super-friends all fidget and try to figure out what to do?
The section on thieves' guilds did less for me, alas. Their urban concentration was one thing, but my impression had always been that they were limited to a single urban locality; that meant that not only were they not very helpful if you were adventuring in forgotten tombs and forging through orc-territory, but getting in good with a guild wouldn't be useful unless you kept going back to your guild in the same city; otherwise it was having to ingratiate yourself with a new guild in a new town, potentially over and over if your adventuring party was itinerant (as most parties seemed to be). At least with a temple, their unifying religion meant that once your cleric made it clear they had their god's approval (via higher-level spells) they were a certified big shot. At a new guild, showing that you could out-pickpocket the higher-ranking members seemed like a quick way to get a knife in the back.
To be fair, the idea of frequent urban larceny as a way to increase the personal wealth of a thief character in particular, and the party in general, never really occurred to me. Solo adventures always seemed like a good way to get yourself killed, and there wasn't really a "downtime system" back in the days of AD&D, even if activities taken in-between adventures were clearly a thing. As such, it wasn't until much later, when I stumbled across a third-party supplement making that made downtime thievery viable for rogue characters in Pathfinder 1E (specifically, Fat Goblin Games' The Rogue's Guide to Capers), that I warmed up to the idea of "casual heists" as a way of increasing cash-on-hand.
On a mild tangent, I can't remember if PHBR2 was where they first floated the idea of allowing thief skills to be raised above 95%, but only in terms of compensating for penalties. That is, you could push your Hide in Shadows score up to 120%, for example, but you'd still only have a 95% chance of success when you rolled; it was just that when you wore scale mail (-50%), your adjusted chance of success would be 70% rather than 45%. But I think that optional rule was floated elsewhere, and I'm misremembering.
Either way, this particular supplement is one that I still enjoy rereading after all these years.
Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.
Last edited:
Voadam
Legend
I remember PHBR2 for the small trick equipment like pepper for throwing off tracking dogs.
Thieves were a great Gray Mouser concept that in OD&D-2e were pretty terrible in execution compared to everybody else in combat instead of the master swasbuckling swordsmaster. They were basically magic users with specific mundane utility spells that were only low percentage success in use. They could also wear leather armor and use a short bow or gain a situational backstab and in AD&D a d6 HD, none of which compared with combat spells or was enough to make getting into melee anything other than a terrible idea. And even as skill guys they were terrible to start. 2e was probably the best implementation allowing for skill customization and focusing to being able to be good in one specialty much earlier. Their big mechanical advantages in AD&D was that they were usually the only unlimited levels class for demihumans and they could multiclass with everything. Also their xp chart meant they were usually a level higher than everybody else, not enough to bring them up to mechanical par with anybody else though.
Some embraced the fact that they were sub par combatants, it always bothered me since first seeing them in Moldvay and seeing how combat focused the D&D I played usually was (and as presented in the modules and Dragon adventures).
I was very happy with the 3e concept goal of them as balanced for combat while 4e was even better in making it a reality.
Thieves were a great Gray Mouser concept that in OD&D-2e were pretty terrible in execution compared to everybody else in combat instead of the master swasbuckling swordsmaster. They were basically magic users with specific mundane utility spells that were only low percentage success in use. They could also wear leather armor and use a short bow or gain a situational backstab and in AD&D a d6 HD, none of which compared with combat spells or was enough to make getting into melee anything other than a terrible idea. And even as skill guys they were terrible to start. 2e was probably the best implementation allowing for skill customization and focusing to being able to be good in one specialty much earlier. Their big mechanical advantages in AD&D was that they were usually the only unlimited levels class for demihumans and they could multiclass with everything. Also their xp chart meant they were usually a level higher than everybody else, not enough to bring them up to mechanical par with anybody else though.
Some embraced the fact that they were sub par combatants, it always bothered me since first seeing them in Moldvay and seeing how combat focused the D&D I played usually was (and as presented in the modules and Dragon adventures).
I was very happy with the 3e concept goal of them as balanced for combat while 4e was even better in making it a reality.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
The design on the thief didn't really get playable in 3e, but with 2e's kits and special gear you could at least make a thief that was decent at their specialties. I really didn't start seeing that many thieves in play until The Complete Book of Thieves came out.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
I recall having issues with thieves in 2e, or more accurately, thief skills. Since I jumped right into using proficiencies having used them in basic dnd I often felt that they should have been proficiencies anyone could take. I don't think I can recall anyone wanting to play a thief in 2e and since I never had the thieves handbook that never really changed. Normally if one was played it was part of a multiclass (I recall having a mage/thief).
In baldurs gate 2, however, single-classed thieves could be cool with the use of the kits in the game (eventually added to the various enhanced versions of those old crpgs) though these classes tended to be quite different to those found in the complete series. I remember having a swashbuckler in icewind dale enhanced who ended up being a great damage dealer with a decent AC, they rose in level so fast that they were almost as durable as a fighter of equivalent XP, and their bonuses to hit, damage, and AC helped them keep up in combat. You still wouldn't want them as your sole melee combatant but as a skirmisher supporting the main tank, they worked quite well.
Having read the complete thieves book since 2e, it does have some cool stuff in it that could be used to create a fun urban campaign I think. I also liked the way they used the class builder from the DMG to create the unique thief/illusionist class. I think really what makes a lot of the complete series great is the various fluff pieces or discussions. I loved the complete wizard, read it so much just going over the various information on the schools of magic. In the complete thief, to me I think it would be the guilds that I'd be reading over constantly for inspiration either as a campaign or as an opponent to the players.
In baldurs gate 2, however, single-classed thieves could be cool with the use of the kits in the game (eventually added to the various enhanced versions of those old crpgs) though these classes tended to be quite different to those found in the complete series. I remember having a swashbuckler in icewind dale enhanced who ended up being a great damage dealer with a decent AC, they rose in level so fast that they were almost as durable as a fighter of equivalent XP, and their bonuses to hit, damage, and AC helped them keep up in combat. You still wouldn't want them as your sole melee combatant but as a skirmisher supporting the main tank, they worked quite well.
Having read the complete thieves book since 2e, it does have some cool stuff in it that could be used to create a fun urban campaign I think. I also liked the way they used the class builder from the DMG to create the unique thief/illusionist class. I think really what makes a lot of the complete series great is the various fluff pieces or discussions. I loved the complete wizard, read it so much just going over the various information on the schools of magic. In the complete thief, to me I think it would be the guilds that I'd be reading over constantly for inspiration either as a campaign or as an opponent to the players.
Orius
Legend
It took until getting renamed as rogues for thieves to be any real good in D&D.
The Thieves' Handbook is one of the better ones IMO, just lots of useful crunchy stuff that can be used. It makes decent use of the DMG's custom class rules, but for the most part, 2e generally ignored them and focused on kits instead.
The Thieves' Handbook is one of the better ones IMO, just lots of useful crunchy stuff that can be used. It makes decent use of the DMG's custom class rules, but for the most part, 2e generally ignored them and focused on kits instead.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
Something kits did was bring back earlier classes in 1e to 2e. They may not have been exactly the same but from memory you could play a fighter kit as a cavalier and a thief kit had the assassin. Actually something else cool about these books was bringing some of the older classes to 2e. I recall the bard book had the 1e bard in an appendix and I think the ranger book had the 1e ranger as well.
wingsandsword
Legend
The Complete Barbarian's Handbook was essentially re-importing the 1e Barbarian back into 2e. Updated somewhat and not just a reprint, but it was the one place I know of in 2e that had the Barbarian presented as a separate class and not just being a kit for a Fighter.
Similar Threads
