Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 7591027" data-attributes="member: 4348"><p>I would disagree with some of them being poorly designed (of course, that depends on how one defines designed). It's made for a playstyle that differs from the ones today.</p><p></p><p>The thief is an interesting class in that it wasn't originally planned for. Originally you had a Fighting Man, a Magic-User, and a class that combined the two (magic-user and fighting man, but maybe not as great as either) in the Cleric. You could play the entire campaign with just these three classes. A DM could figure how they climbed over a wall, snuck past the dragon, figured out where the traps were, and other things that were later relegated to a Thief. Many chose to use ability score checks.</p><p></p><p>When the thief came around, the original usage suggested was that unless under stress, the thief would automatically succeed in their Thief Skill checks (at least that's how I understand the original creator used their thief class, he's still around as well, perhaps even on these forums though I do not know his handle/name here). I don't think Gygax was as thrilled with the implementation in quite that way, so I do not think this idea was communicated in any rules of the day. He had the thief, but in some ways it was pared down tremendously from that type of usage.</p><p></p><p>If you use it as many did where the thief gets a DOUBLE CHECK, which means they can make all the ability checks as others do, but also can fall back on their thief skills, or use their thief skills but also get an ability check pertinent to them for a lesser success, it actually gives the thief a greater usage. Many who chose to do this had been using the original 3 classes with ability checks to do things already, so using a thief this way made a lot of sense.</p><p></p><p>Not everyone played it this way (why I said many...not most or all), and there were various takes and interpretations of how the rules would work.</p><p></p><p>[and if you consider that poorly designed, I suppose you could be right, but I don't think that's what you meant. For some of us, that type of design works better than the modern rules that define everything you must do in a game].</p><p></p><p>When AD&D hit the market, no wording of this was really hinted at. Those who played with the Older groups who started early only learned about these things and how this worked via word of mouth. It was further killed off by interpretations at tournaments which for some crazy reason had weird minded judges that came up with excuses as to why a Fighter might not be able to climb up a cliff, or why they couldn't hide behind a pillar (only a thief can hide behind a pillar...let's ignore common sense). AD&D was much more strict on rules and specific types of rule interpretations. As AD&D got older you no longer saw Fighters sneaking around as much or Magic-Users using their brains to solve puzzles with no combat or magic (as magic to low level Magic-users was limited). Later AD&D basically had the thief being played as you described originally and AD&D 2e continued this tradition as did 3e.</p><p></p><p>I don't consider any of those rules really bad design though. I think that's a throwaway word (and they tried to use it with 4e in reference to older editions quite a bit, I think that put a bad taste in a LOT of people's mouths in regards to that consideration) to try to promote newer editions and insult older players and their rules.</p><p></p><p>I think it is a DIFFERENT type of design that caters to different playstyles and how different groups enjoy playing. For some types of playstyles it's perfect, for others, it is not.</p><p></p><p>5e I think tried to take some of this idea (easier to homerule, less stress on being absolute rules and exact rules for everything) because it saw the strength of this type of design that was found in earlier editions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GreyLord, post: 7591027, member: 4348"] I would disagree with some of them being poorly designed (of course, that depends on how one defines designed). It's made for a playstyle that differs from the ones today. The thief is an interesting class in that it wasn't originally planned for. Originally you had a Fighting Man, a Magic-User, and a class that combined the two (magic-user and fighting man, but maybe not as great as either) in the Cleric. You could play the entire campaign with just these three classes. A DM could figure how they climbed over a wall, snuck past the dragon, figured out where the traps were, and other things that were later relegated to a Thief. Many chose to use ability score checks. When the thief came around, the original usage suggested was that unless under stress, the thief would automatically succeed in their Thief Skill checks (at least that's how I understand the original creator used their thief class, he's still around as well, perhaps even on these forums though I do not know his handle/name here). I don't think Gygax was as thrilled with the implementation in quite that way, so I do not think this idea was communicated in any rules of the day. He had the thief, but in some ways it was pared down tremendously from that type of usage. If you use it as many did where the thief gets a DOUBLE CHECK, which means they can make all the ability checks as others do, but also can fall back on their thief skills, or use their thief skills but also get an ability check pertinent to them for a lesser success, it actually gives the thief a greater usage. Many who chose to do this had been using the original 3 classes with ability checks to do things already, so using a thief this way made a lot of sense. Not everyone played it this way (why I said many...not most or all), and there were various takes and interpretations of how the rules would work. [and if you consider that poorly designed, I suppose you could be right, but I don't think that's what you meant. For some of us, that type of design works better than the modern rules that define everything you must do in a game]. When AD&D hit the market, no wording of this was really hinted at. Those who played with the Older groups who started early only learned about these things and how this worked via word of mouth. It was further killed off by interpretations at tournaments which for some crazy reason had weird minded judges that came up with excuses as to why a Fighter might not be able to climb up a cliff, or why they couldn't hide behind a pillar (only a thief can hide behind a pillar...let's ignore common sense). AD&D was much more strict on rules and specific types of rule interpretations. As AD&D got older you no longer saw Fighters sneaking around as much or Magic-Users using their brains to solve puzzles with no combat or magic (as magic to low level Magic-users was limited). Later AD&D basically had the thief being played as you described originally and AD&D 2e continued this tradition as did 3e. I don't consider any of those rules really bad design though. I think that's a throwaway word (and they tried to use it with 4e in reference to older editions quite a bit, I think that put a bad taste in a LOT of people's mouths in regards to that consideration) to try to promote newer editions and insult older players and their rules. I think it is a DIFFERENT type of design that caters to different playstyles and how different groups enjoy playing. For some types of playstyles it's perfect, for others, it is not. 5e I think tried to take some of this idea (easier to homerule, less stress on being absolute rules and exact rules for everything) because it saw the strength of this type of design that was found in earlier editions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?
Top