DracoSuave
First Post
Hey! Warlocks get to shine here too, ya know!
Thievery Skill - Trained vs Untrained
- Thread starter The Dog
- Start date
Hey! Warlocks get to shine here too, ya know!
seusomon
Explorer
I agree with what others have posted.
If you'd like to know my personal take on this as a DM, here goes.
I would use the rules as written (untrained characters can attempt thievery any time). The "spirit" of skill checks in 4e is to not worry about details and rules idiosynchrasies. All PCs are adventurers, so they have some basic competence at all adventuring skills. The +5 for training is just there because it's fun to have different characters be good at different things, and to be able to routinely pull off something others have difficulty with. By keeping it simple, you also keep the game moving and can focus on narrating the events.
If I were to take up the house rule suggestion, it would probably be connected to some campaign background. Perhaps there is a powerful thieves' guild that guards their secrets fiercely, so that only "one of their own" has the inside knowledge needed to pick the locks they have designed or disarm their traps. So these would be special locks, not just difficult (but otherwise ordinary) locks.
Of the two possibilities you suggested, I would prefer the one where training is required because of the complexity of the task, rather than requiring it for a whole category (such as picking any lock). The latter seems to go against the grain of 4e, where all characters are heroic and can do cool stuff without fussing over rules and requirements. Saying that no one except a trained thief can ever pick a lock shuts down too many fun play options. There are less blunt ways to reward PCs with the training.
If you'd like to know my personal take on this as a DM, here goes.
I would use the rules as written (untrained characters can attempt thievery any time). The "spirit" of skill checks in 4e is to not worry about details and rules idiosynchrasies. All PCs are adventurers, so they have some basic competence at all adventuring skills. The +5 for training is just there because it's fun to have different characters be good at different things, and to be able to routinely pull off something others have difficulty with. By keeping it simple, you also keep the game moving and can focus on narrating the events.
If I were to take up the house rule suggestion, it would probably be connected to some campaign background. Perhaps there is a powerful thieves' guild that guards their secrets fiercely, so that only "one of their own" has the inside knowledge needed to pick the locks they have designed or disarm their traps. So these would be special locks, not just difficult (but otherwise ordinary) locks.
Of the two possibilities you suggested, I would prefer the one where training is required because of the complexity of the task, rather than requiring it for a whole category (such as picking any lock). The latter seems to go against the grain of 4e, where all characters are heroic and can do cool stuff without fussing over rules and requirements. Saying that no one except a trained thief can ever pick a lock shuts down too many fun play options. There are less blunt ways to reward PCs with the training.
Last edited:
Ok, my personal take (which willl likely differ from everyone here) is as follows (and is still incomplete as it will no doubt change as I see it in play - it is, of course, a mistake to commit yourself to solidly to any house rule before you get to actually see it work).
I think that 'trained is trained', but that a rogue who has been trained ought to have an advantage at thievery over a non-rogue with the same training. I'm just not yet sure what that advantage should be.
I don't like the idea of just giving the rogue a bonus to the skill.
I don't like the idea of declaring that some objects are out of reach to a non-rogue.
So I am considering changing the consequences of failure. I.e. the rogue, who has spent his life attempting these actions - both successfully and not - is better at recovering when things go wrong.
So:
Disable Trap: If a failed check would have set off a trap (missed by 5 or more), the rogue gets an immediate dexterity check to avoid actually setting it off. Other trained individuals do not.
Pick Pocket: If a failed check would have resulted in the rogue's attempt being detected, he gets an immediate bluff check (opposed by insight) to deflect suspicion. Other trained individuals do not.
I'm still not sure what the advantage to Open Locks and Sleight of Hand will be, and there may be no advantage. Or any advantage may turn out to be situational. For example, if it is part of a Skill Challenge and a failure would result from a failure in either of these skills, as appropriate there may be a way to mitigate the failure (although not turn the failure into a success).
But then again, to me restoring some flavor and individuality to the classes is more important than simply distinguishing between trained and untrained. The fact that they will succeed far more often does that all by itself, so you don't need to create an arbitrary benefit beyond that +5.
If the DC is 20 and your trained character has a +9 and your untrained character has a +4, the simple fact that the trained character will succeed twice as often is all the advantage trained needs over untrained, imho.
And all of the above subject to change if we don't like how it plays out.
Final Note: One could also take this idea (mitigating failure, rather than increasing the chance for success) and use that as a distinction between trained and untrained. Either exactly as above (those trained in thievery get a mitigation roll after a failure) or by widening or narrowing the gap between 'failure' and 'failure with consequences' for trained versus untrained characters. This gives you a significant distinction while still enabling the character to try that difficult task despite not being trained in the skill.
Carl
I think that 'trained is trained', but that a rogue who has been trained ought to have an advantage at thievery over a non-rogue with the same training. I'm just not yet sure what that advantage should be.
I don't like the idea of just giving the rogue a bonus to the skill.
I don't like the idea of declaring that some objects are out of reach to a non-rogue.
So I am considering changing the consequences of failure. I.e. the rogue, who has spent his life attempting these actions - both successfully and not - is better at recovering when things go wrong.
So:
Disable Trap: If a failed check would have set off a trap (missed by 5 or more), the rogue gets an immediate dexterity check to avoid actually setting it off. Other trained individuals do not.
Pick Pocket: If a failed check would have resulted in the rogue's attempt being detected, he gets an immediate bluff check (opposed by insight) to deflect suspicion. Other trained individuals do not.
I'm still not sure what the advantage to Open Locks and Sleight of Hand will be, and there may be no advantage. Or any advantage may turn out to be situational. For example, if it is part of a Skill Challenge and a failure would result from a failure in either of these skills, as appropriate there may be a way to mitigate the failure (although not turn the failure into a success).
But then again, to me restoring some flavor and individuality to the classes is more important than simply distinguishing between trained and untrained. The fact that they will succeed far more often does that all by itself, so you don't need to create an arbitrary benefit beyond that +5.
If the DC is 20 and your trained character has a +9 and your untrained character has a +4, the simple fact that the trained character will succeed twice as often is all the advantage trained needs over untrained, imho.
And all of the above subject to change if we don't like how it plays out.
Final Note: One could also take this idea (mitigating failure, rather than increasing the chance for success) and use that as a distinction between trained and untrained. Either exactly as above (those trained in thievery get a mitigation roll after a failure) or by widening or narrowing the gap between 'failure' and 'failure with consequences' for trained versus untrained characters. This gives you a significant distinction while still enabling the character to try that difficult task despite not being trained in the skill.
Carl
Last edited:
amysrevenge
First Post
Similar Threads
