Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

[Nagol]

Um... what? The 1e thief was used for a lot longer than 2 or 3 years.

Mearl's references a Thief having d4 hit points. That places it in the Holmes Basic game from 1974 which worked from level 1 to 3 and then recommended upgrading to AD&D.

In AD&D the Thief had d6 hit points.

 

[IanB]

That is the 1e thief that I am talking about. He is talking about thief from the Greyhawk supplement. 1e edition AKA AD&D 1 edition is the d6 thief that I am referring to.

Which had the same problem with terrible % chance of success on thief skills.

That wasn't 'fixed' until 2e.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Which had the same problem with terrible % chance of success on thief skills.

That wasn't 'fixed' until 2e.

You could improve your percent by race and with a really good Dex.

 

[Obryn]

That thread wasn't about the Templar at all.

Nope, but when you say...

Looks like the devs just run, lock all their doors, and hide. Happens when people point out mistakes and others fail to acknowledge them and admit it.

...you should probably back it up with evidence. The devs don't seem to be locking those.

Thing is he was talking about a thief that I think most people didn't use. Hell the d6 HD thief came out like 2 or 3 years later and was used for 11 years.

Why are you going to point out a bad class that was only used for a short time to represent the thief? That would be like having "Clear Pepsi" represent "Pepsi" products as a whole.

Are you making stuff up, or stretching the truth? That's the Thief in B/X, BECMI, and the Rules Cyclopedia. All of which were very popular all through the 80's; probably as popular as 1e AD&D, and more familiar to a good many players. The d4 Hit Die Thief was in use from Holmes Basic in 1977 at least through the Rules Cyclopedia in 1991, which basically capped off the BECMI line. AD&D wasn't an upgrade from the Basic line; it was a separate line of game material.

And you couldn't buff his thief skills with race or dex; you were a Human if you were a Thief, and dex didn't do a thing for your thief skills.

You're making the same fundamental mistakes in history as a poster on the WotC boards. Which is awfully funny!

-O

 

[IanB]

Yeah I missed the bit about the d4. That does pretty much mean BECMI I'd guess.

 

[Dannager]

They just locked the L&L thread over on the Wizard's site. Looks like the devs just run, lock all their doors, and hide. Happens when people point out mistakes and others fail to acknowledge them and admit it.

What is really disturbing here is that despite the ample evidence in that thread that it was locked because of multiple forum rule violations and a discussion that was going nowhere (and would be long locked if it had taken place on ENWorld), you instead chose to characterize it as having been locked because the devs (who don't manage the forums) don't like criticism.

Choosing to ignore the most plausible and parsimonious reason in favor of an unlikely, borderline-paranoid reason is a pretty clear indicator that you're posting with an agenda in mind.

 

[P1NBACK]

...how 5e is around the corner and will basically be 1e again...

-O

That would be awesome.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Nope, but when you say...

...you should probably back it up with evidence. The devs don't seem to be locking those.


Are you making stuff up, or stretching the truth? That's the Thief in B/X, BECMI, and the Rules Cyclopedia. All of which were very popular all through the 80's; probably as popular as 1e AD&D, and more familiar to a good many players. The d4 Hit Die Thief was in use from Holmes Basic in 1977 at least through the Rules Cyclopedia in 1991, which basically capped off the BECMI line. AD&D wasn't an upgrade from the Basic line; it was a separate line of game material.

And you couldn't buff his thief skills with race or dex; you were a Human if you were a Thief, and dex didn't do a thing for your thief skills.

You're making the same fundamental mistakes in history as a poster on the WotC boards. Which is awfully funny!

-O

Got any evidence to back you up? Why do you think they called one basic and one advanced for a reason?

The 1st edition thief that we are talking about could have their percentages increased by race and by a high Dex. Also at this time all races were able to choose the thief as a class. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 1977 was the next step from Basic D&D.

I don't post on the Wizard's forums, I just observe.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What is really disturbing here is that despite the ample evidence in that thread that it was locked because of multiple forum rule violations and a discussion that was going nowhere (and would be long locked if it had taken place on ENWorld), you instead chose to characterize it as having been locked because the devs (who don't manage the forums) don't like criticism.

Choosing to ignore the most plausible and parsimonious reason in favor of an unlikely, borderline-paranoid reason is a pretty clear indicator that you're posting with an agenda in mind.

There is no agenda, I just call it like I see it. Seems to me Wizard's hit a nerve and when the crap hit the fan they locked the thread instead of toughening it out.

 

[P1NBACK]

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 1977 was the next step from Basic D&D.

No.

"The original Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set boxed set (TSR 1001) was first published by TSR, Inc. in 1977,[1] and comprised a separate edition of the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game, distinct from the first edition of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game, which was initially published in the same year."

Unlike recent "basic sets" which are introductions to the complete game, the original Basic game was a distinct version of D&D that stood alone from AD&D, but shared common elements.

The Basic set was actually meant to springboard characters into the "Expert Set", which comprised levels 4+.