Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 8298854" data-attributes="member: 15700">I have never heard of this before.&nbsp; Do you have any source that confirms this?&nbsp; It seems odd the thief would be later expanded to have a d6 HD when it had that in 1978 (designed at the same time Holmes basic)Also, you seem to have ignored the&nbsp; point I was making, that being thief skill% were for skills no other class could reasonably have a chance of being successful at.&nbsp; That's an important part.&nbsp; That part that makes it balanced, because no other class could do those things.&nbsp; That was the intent anyway, and natural progression.&nbsp; I admit it's ambiguous in the rules, but back then (1977) gamers were coming from OD&amp;D and it was still very much learning from existing DMs, so it was as unwritten rule sort of that that is what those skills were for.&nbsp; Player skill mattered.&nbsp; For most attempts at hiding or picking locks, or whatever, anyone could try that.&nbsp; You narrated your actions to the DM.&nbsp; Maybe they had your roll under an ability score (a common house rule back then).&nbsp; But the actual thief skills?&nbsp; Reserved for those things that non-thieves wouldn't have a chance of succeeding with.Honestly, that right there should have been a big red flag for WoTC when designing 3e.&nbsp; I.e., unless you're clear that anyone can attempt any skill, players will assume that unless you have a skill for it, you couldn't do it.&nbsp; What happened in 1e and 2e when you had new players join en masse, that word of mouth expectation and understanding of the rule got lost, and people started assuming you had to make those rolls for everything not just tasks that other classes couldn't do.&nbsp; When viewed that way, of course the % skills look weak.&nbsp; They were never intended to be used that way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 8298854, member: 15700"] I have never heard of this before. Do you have any source that confirms this? It seems odd the thief would be later expanded to have a d6 HD when it had that in 1978 (designed at the same time Holmes basic) Also, you seem to have ignored the point I was making, that being thief skill% were for skills no other class could reasonably have a chance of being successful at. That's an important part. That part that makes it balanced, because no other class could do those things. That was the intent anyway, and natural progression. I admit it's ambiguous in the rules, but back then (1977) gamers were coming from OD&D and it was still very much learning from existing DMs, so it was as unwritten rule sort of that that is what those skills were for. Player skill mattered. For most attempts at hiding or picking locks, or whatever, anyone could try that. You narrated your actions to the DM. Maybe they had your roll under an ability score (a common house rule back then). But the actual thief skills? Reserved for those things that non-thieves wouldn't have a chance of succeeding with. Honestly, that right there should have been a big red flag for WoTC when designing 3e. I.e., unless you're clear that anyone can attempt any skill, players will assume that unless you have a skill for it, you couldn't do it. What happened in 1e and 2e when you had new players join en masse, that word of mouth expectation and understanding of the rule got lost, and people started assuming you had to make those rolls for everything not just tasks that other classes couldn't do. When viewed that way, of course the % skills look weak. They were never intended to be used that way. [/QUOTE]

Verification