You are probably right about that. I think the combination of the internet, and things like 3Es very fluid approach to multi classing (plus all its feats and other elements) played a role.
Definitely. I recall players doing what they could in 2E. Min maxing was certainly a thing. It could even occasionally present an issue, but just nothing like on the level I encountered in 3E. The biggest issue it presented in most of my campaigns wasn't so much about balance (as they only through it off so much, and if they threw it off too much, the spirit of the rules was considered much more important than the letter of the rules, so something that felt off got instantly nixed by the group (i.e. this combination was clearly not intended, it is way too powerful)...it usually presented more of a role-play issue (the player focusing more on mechanical benefit of choices rather than a character idea. And that didn't bother me that much as some players are there for the game aspect of play
But again, these all felt fairly minimal in impact. For 2E especially, when it comes to attributes, they didn't go with the 4d6 drop the lowest method as default. It did offer like 6 different methods, and if the GM wanted to that certainly could open up the floodgates. But the default (Method I) was 3d6 straight down in order. The optional methods produced better characters but they were entirely under the decision of the GM.
I agree thieves could be quite good. Though other characters did have baselines on things like climb too in the later chapters of the book (not as good as a thief but they could still do it). What I like about the 2E thieve versus later editions is they do stand out, and they are good at things, that other characters simply aren't (but primarily non-combat things or if in combat, very specific instances of combat).
Wait, I thought Voadam was saying Thieves were bad. Either way, I will argue that they definitely are
not good, having played a lot of them.
People will bring up their rapid level advancement, but they got so little out of their levels it was sad. Second worst at everything, hit points, armor (the penalties for daring to wear anything outside of leather were extremely prohibitive), and attack progression. Even with their level progression, they don't compare well to Clerics or Fighters in combat.
So you might say that "well, they're not a combat class" so let's look at their skills. The weighting for Dexterity is ridiculous; a 16 nets you a 5% bonus to one skill, a 17 basically puts you 0.5 levels ahead compared to a Thief with less Dexterity, an 18 is basically a full level of progression, and a 19 is actually 1.5 levels.
Then we get to the values themselves; if you go by 2e rules which let you optimize important abilities and ignore less useful ones for adventuring (like say, Pick Pockets), a Halfling Thief with a 19 Dexterity can get, at best, a coin flip (50%) to use, say, Move Silently and Hide in Shadows.
With a Kit, you might be able to do better, but the ones in the Thieves' Handbook are very conservative (some of the better ones are the Dwarven Locksmith and the Gnome Mouseburglar).
If you're trying to help out in combat with a bow, you're ok, but backstab is a complete waste of time, not only is it's use highly restrictive (target must be unaware of you, you must strike from behind, you must be able to reach a vital area), you multiply the damage of, at best, a long sword or broadsword, and can totally fail to kill the thing you just stabbed at which point now you are in a solo combat since you are no doubt nowhere near your party.
Even at level 5, you can be struggling to do all the things your party needs you to do, such as finding all traps, opening all locks, scouting ahead, and providing more damage than a wizard throwing darts, lol.
My experiences with the class have been miserable, as a single class. Multiclassing is really the only way to go, where you're down one level compared to a straight Thief, so at least you have something useful to do until you hit level 6-7 when you're actually competent.
