Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 7981448" data-attributes="member: 32740">People only consider 1E and 2E thief %'s in terms of modern D&D mechanics and style of gameplay.  That makes the earlier mechanics seem rather too inexplicably wacky, especially 1E.In 3E if you come across a trap all the PC's roll a d20 against their search or spot skills to find it, a roll is made against disable device skill to remove it.  If you come across a lock then only if you have training in the open lock skill can you roll to pick it.  All these "thief-ey" interactions begin and end with die rolls.  That is NOT the case in 1E and was never intended to be.In 1E those interactions all BEGIN with interaction between the players and DM.  The players state what kind of traps their PC's are looking for and where they look for them.  If their declarations match whats there then the trap is found.  No die rolls.  ANYbody can do that with equal "skill".  Same with locked doors and chests.  The players BEGIN by telling the DM how they intend to open the door or chest - look for keys, remove hinges, break them open by chiseling the wood or with a heavy blow from a hammer, slip a stiff but thin sword through a crack between planks in a door and lift the bar on the other side, or whatever the case may be.  No die rolls.  ANYbody can do it with equal "skill".  And it's a GROUP endeavor.  If any player comes up with a good enough idea that they can convince the DM will work - it works.Now why is that?  It's because Thief (rogue) was not actually even a class when the game was first written.  That clearly didn't mean that no locked doors or chests were ever opened did it?  No, it meant that they were opened by players trying all those interactive methods described above or whatever other clever ideas they came up with.  When the Thief class WAS finally introduced, with those LOW LOW chances of success it didn't invalidate all the existing ways and means of finding and removing or getting around traps.  It just gave thieves an ADDITIONAL way to solve what might otherwise be insoluable because the players just didn't come up with a winning idea.  It was a low chance, yes, but it wasn't THE ONLY CHANCE.With 2E we see that how players thought of thief abilities were to be used in gameplay was already beginning to change.  You don't START with interaction with the DM.  You start with thieves just cutting through all that with their class-ability short-cuts.  And because they can SPECIALIZE in those skills they can ensure that they work more often than not - and all the tedious player/DM interactions to open locks and deal with traps, AND climb walls, AND hear noises, AND simply hide well enough to not be noticed...  All those things were headed down the same path.  If you wanted to succeed at it - or do it at all - then you had to put skill points into it or else it was YOUR fault as a player for failing to do that.  And it would even get so far as to make having a thief in the party a seeming REQUIREMENT because otherwise how could you possibly do ANYTHING with locks and traps and stealth?  And it always starts with a die roll, NOT interaction with the DM.Low % thief skills in 1E only fail to make sense when you no longer play the game the way it was played when 1E was written.  AS WRITTEN and as INTENDED to be used, there is absolutely nothing wrong with thieves having low % chances of success.  You CANNOT evaluate 1E rules by 3E or 5E standards and styles of gameplay.</blockquote>

Verification