Thief Abilities – Static Progression or Player Distributed Progression

[Giltonio_Santos]

sure, you have a best case scenario (18 dex) and put all the points into 2 skills. So they are terrible at everything else. There are locks and traps, and noises and walls, for that matter, in low level adventures.

Yes, they could then get, say, detect noise and open locks to that range around level 5, and two others by level 9...at which point they would be a "high" level character, and pretty good (not great) at 6 of 8 thief skills.

And that's why I said focus was key. At level 1, it's two skills with solid chance of success, one with reasonable chance (climb walls), one where you cannot even try until you're level 4 (read languages) and four others where you'll roll with whatever you manage to find (pick pockets 35% is not negligible, for instance). A level 1 fighter has the same THAC0 as a mage, unless we're talking about the weapon he specializes in. That mage can cast one spell, unless he chooses to specialize and forever neglect two schools of magic.

You can say 2E characters were not powerhouses, but the thieving skills are on par with other class features of their time, and if you planned well, they were great to use in game.

 

[TerraDave]

At 1st level that fighter will be pretty good in a fight, and that sleep spell can have big impact. But sure, the ability to assign points mean the thief can be good at something vs sucking at everything.

By level 8 (~ same XP), if they are lucky enough to 18/XX str or 18 int, that fighter or, especially, wizard, or probably going to be having a much bigger impact in game then the 9th level thief. though I guess in some games having 5 or so really good thief skills and 1 or 2 decent ones could also have big impact as, say, access to 3rd and 4th level spells.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

The issue for the thief is that the numbers are just too low until higher levels: either the base progression, or the number of points assigned in 2E means a lot of failure.

You need to allow multiple checks, easier checks--at least at lower levels--auto success or a boost to chance--or just more points, under either scheme.

I'm not so sure about this. The thief skills in 1e at least were some kind of extraordinary abilities, allowing the thief do do extraordinary things. Skills like Climb, Hide, Move Silently go way beyond what non-thieves could do. I would never have the player of a thief roll to climb a tree, for example, the thief just climbs it without a problem.

I interpreted Hide/Move Silently to gain surprise for a backstab attempt as the chance to do it when there'd be actually no chance for normal people.

In this context, low skill values aren't a problem. They become abysmal only if you try to map it to what ordinary people can do.

 

[jaz0nj4ckal]

I'm not so sure about this. The thief skills in 1e at least were some kind of extraordinary abilities, allowing the thief do do extraordinary things. Skills like Climb, Hide, Move Silently go way beyond what non-thieves could do. I would never have the player of a thief roll to climb a tree, for example, the thief just climbs it without a problem.

I interpreted Hide/Move Silently to gain surprise for a backstab attempt as the chance to do it when there'd be actually no chance for normal people.

In this context, low skill values aren't a problem. They become abysmal only if you try to map it to what ordinary people can do.

I handle my Thieves the same way. In your example: to climb a tree – I do not have my players roll a skill check, only if I believe it requires a task that is beyond normal. However, I might be a little free with my MS/HS skills for Backstab. I usually give them bonuses to these skills when attempting to surprise a monster/target during optimized conditions, but when there is “no chance for a normal person” I will go with their normal skill stats or throw in a “-2” penalties.

To keep things simple – I only allow skills to be incremented in 5% blocks, and convert to 1-20 digits. This enables me to keep suite with the rest of the stats and rolls…so in my games you will never see a player thief with 52% chance to PP.

++laugh++ we (game group) went through a time in the mid-90s when no one had a d10 dice with them - ++laugh++ for some dumb reason we would always leave them in the box of my copy of FASA’s Star Trek….

 

[TerraDave]

I'm not so sure about this. The thief skills in 1e at least were some kind of extraordinary abilities, allowing the thief do do extraordinary things. Skills like Climb, Hide, Move Silently go way beyond what non-thieves could do. I would never have the player of a thief roll to climb a tree, for example, the thief just climbs it without a problem.

I interpreted Hide/Move Silently to gain surprise for a backstab attempt as the chance to do it when there'd be actually no chance for normal people.

In this context, low skill values aren't a problem. They become abysmal only if you try to map it to what ordinary people can do.

Sure, they are a potentially powerful at will ability...which low level thieves are just not that good at.

If, in a fight, you let the theif make multiple checks and still fight, (though I am not sure that makes sense) then maybe its ok, but if there whole combat hinges on some 20% check...thats not good.

 

[Baron Greystone]

I'm not so sure about this. The thief skills in 1e at least were some kind of extraordinary abilities, allowing the thief do do extraordinary things. Skills like Climb, Hide, Move Silently go way beyond what non-thieves could do. I would never have the player of a thief roll to climb a tree, for example, the thief just climbs it without a problem.

I interpreted Hide/Move Silently to gain surprise for a backstab attempt as the chance to do it when there'd be actually no chance for normal people.

In this context, low skill values aren't a problem. They become abysmal only if you try to map it to what ordinary people can do.

This is a very good point, IMO. I hadn't really thought of it in this way before, although I've used that way of thinking with d100 skill-based games on a regular basis.

To put things in perspective, I'm an old-time player from the 70's who still plays 1st ed AD&D. I only just discovered the 2nd ed Thief ability customization. And from where I'm sitting now, I like the idea. I may not feel that way ten years from now, but at the moment it's something I'm looking forward to trying out.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I'm not so sure about this. The thief skills in 1e at least were some kind of extraordinary abilities, allowing the thief do do extraordinary things. Skills like Climb, Hide, Move Silently go way beyond what non-thieves could do. I would never have the player of a thief roll to climb a tree, for example, the thief just climbs it without a problem.

I interpreted Hide/Move Silently to gain surprise for a backstab attempt as the chance to do it when there'd be actually no chance for normal people.

In this context, low skill values aren't a problem. They become abysmal only if you try to map it to what ordinary people can do.

Indeed, they are totally an extraordinary thing. Just by looking at Hide in Shadows, for instance, it becomes really clear. Anyone can try to avoid being seen, the thieving skill points to the ability to do something clearly beyond that (the highlights are mine):

A thief can try to disappear into shadows or any other type of concealment-bushes, curtains, crannies, etc. A thief can hide this way only when no one is looking at him; he remains hidden only as long as he remains virtually motionless. (...)
Hiding in shadows cannot be done in total darkness, since the talent lies in fooling the eye as much as in finding real concealment (camouflage, as it were). However, hidden characters are equally concealed to those with or without infravision. Spells, magical items, and special abilities that reveal invisible objects can reveal the location of a hidden thief.

In my games, I allow the thief to try mundane skill checks much like any other character would, but his thieving skills allow for extraordinary exploits that others cannot try.

 

[howandwhy99]

2e or Player focusing every level works fine. I still like the original table for NPCs.

 

[GX.Sigma]

From my experience of the 2e system (just the computer games), it just felt like the system was asking me whether I wanted to suck at all but one of the skills, or suck at all the skills. The amount of skill points seemed absurd too--what is the difference between a 15/15 split and a 14/16 split? One percent on each one? Why does that choice need to be that detailed? Why not give you like 3 points per level and have it be out of 20? Actually, I'd rather it worked like the other proficiencies: untrained, proficient, expert (or whatever that was).

But I guess it's better than not getting to choose, and just sucking at all the skills (I've never played 1e, but I hear that's how it works).

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I don't know how you remember those rules but that doesn't match my experience at all. The key for success in 2E was focusing in those things you really wanted your thief to do. At level 1, for instance, a Dex 18 halfling thief could choose to be a stealthy type and end up with the following:

Move Silently 10 (base) + 10 (racial) + 10 (Dex) + 10 (no armor) + 30 (points) = 70%
Hide in Shadows 5 (base) + 15 (racial) + 10 (Dex) + 5 (no armor) + 30 (points) = 65%

Pic

Or the 13 dex halfling can use his 66% chance to surprise opponents.