D&D General Why the Great Thief Debate Will Always Be With Us

[Thomas Shey]

I still say none of that helps much when there's no process described, nor even enough other kinds of process to base it off of.

 

[Minigiant]

I still say none of that helps much when there's no process described, nor even enough other kinds of process to base it off of.

You can't create a process until you know what the process is supposed to refer to.

That was the core issue with how thieves had low ability to do their skills in the first place because there was no actual reference to say how skilled A level 1 thief was supposed to be.

Creating a rule without a reference for the rule can easily create a rule that does not work as the gamers intended. See multiple editions of D&D.

The thief cannot lock out the fighter or wizard's ability to sneak if the fighter and Wizard are sourced from a reference that says they can sneak. Because if the thief locks out the fighter or wizard's ability to do sneaking or unlocking traps but the source of the tropes that the fighter and wizard come from says that they can then you can point to the source and say that the rule for the thief is bad.

The fact that there was no source or the source was so obscure within the community meant that one the thief was added in no one could point to anything to say that "hey. this doesn't look like it matches up with our expectations".


The thief debate purely lives in the fact that there's a gray area about what the thief is supposed to be in the first place. Without that gray area, there's no debate.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You can't create a process until you know what the process is supposed to refer to.

Yeah, but its hard to extrapolate one when you have no basic model to work from, either. A lot of first generation GMs were forced into being game designers when they, honestly, didn't have the kind of skills for it.

That was the core issue with how thieves had low ability to do their skills in the first place because there was no actual reference to say how skilled A level 1 thief was supposed to be.

Creating a rule without a reference for the rule can easily create a rule that does not work as the gamers intended. See multiple editions of D&D.

I'm not sold its not still better than no rule at all. But then, I've been on record that even poor rules are better than having to have a GM constantly pull things out of their behind (and entirely possibly never do it the same way twice).

The thief cannot lock out the fighter or wizard's ability to sneak if the fighter and Wizard are sourced from a reference that says they can sneak. Because if the thief locks out the fighter or wizard's ability to do sneaking or unlocking traps but the source of the tropes that the fighter and wizard come from says that they can then you can point to the source and say that the rule for the thief is bad.

I think it requires a pretty odd reference for those two classes to not be able to do so at all. That'd fail the sniff test probably for even random players with no experience with fantasy. Lock picking and trap disarming might have a sounder argument. But of course since the thief's sneak is so poor starting out, there's not a lot of room for a lesser version to exist for those two classes.

The fact that there was no source or the source was so obscure within the community meant that one the thief was added in no one could point to anything to say that "hey. this doesn't look like it matches up with our expectations".


The thief debate purely lives in the fact that there's a gray area about what the thief is supposed to be in the first place. Without that gray area, there's no debate.

I think you're an optimist.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, but its hard to extrapolate one when you have no basic model to work from, either. A lot of first generation GMs were forced into being game designers when they, honestly, didn't have the kind of skills for it.

You can't make a system without an idea to model it from.

That's the issue.

There were no rules for sneaking, lock picking, and trap disarming because there was no coherent reference for how good PCs should be at them.

This is why there was a vacuum when the thief was added. Thievery became important before Thievery was part of the game.

This is also why the rule for thief was bad.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You can't make a system without an idea to model it from.

That's the issue.

Its part of it, but if you have no idea where to even start with representing something, knowing what you want to represent is only so much help. The closest thing pre-Greyhawk had to skill rolls was the D6 for various perception tests, and those were almost entirely race-based.

There were no rules for sneaking, lock picking, and trap disarming because there was no coherent reference for how good PCs should be at them.

There are other games that don't have particularly good reference that still manage those. They might be arbitrary, but they still exist.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the thing I dislike the most about PF2E. The skill feats feel like they take away options once they exist. Sorry, you cant intimidate a crowd by waving your pistols at them. Gotta be one at a time unless you have Group Coercion.

If skills got 1/3 the page count of spells, with some guidelines on task/DC, I think we'd be in a better spot.

Yeah. I much prefer feats like that to improve the chances of, not allow you to.

Being able to impress a crowd should have a baseline. That baseline could be roll with disadvantage, at -2, roll normally, or whatever. The feat should just improve on that. If the baseline is disadvantage, the feat allows you to roll normally. If the baseline is just a normal diplomacy check, perhaps the feat grants advantage, allows you to speak for half as long to impress folks, get a +4 to the check, or whatever.

 

[Maxperson]

Well you might have said good faith instead of faith and it would have been clearer.

I suppose it is a judgment. Now having said that, I think it's pretty easy to spot bad DMs.

I'd just like to point out that the exchange between you and @payn is the exact issue you two were discussing. Things being unclear and interpretation of those things. He responded in good faith, but the response wasn't crystal clear, and you misinterpreted that unclear response as "bad DMing." And then said bad DMing(bad faith) is easy to spot.

Now, I think a good chunk of bad DMing is easy to see, but not all of it. As an example, railroading(not the same as linear play) players is bad DMing in my opinion, and a lot of the time it's obvious. However, illusionism is a form of railroading that is nearly impossible to spot.

The ability to spot bad DMs is especially hampered if the group is new to the game. New players won't be as familiar with ways to run the game and fail to see many of the signs.

 

[Maxperson]

Why? How?

You have said that this is a thing. Why is it a thing? Why is it that person A being able to do thing X means person B cannot do thing X?


Again, you keep saying THAT this is true, but you have not said WHY it is true.

What is it about the existence of the rule which makes it so you cannot do something a different way?

The rule is a formal, explicit way things DO work. Why is it you can't...also do things in another way, that hasn't be pre-defined?


Why not?


But it's not just "an opinion." It is a claim, and a rebuttal. It rebuts the claim that an absence of rules ensures that the player is able to do the things they want to do. In the genuine absence of rules, where absolutely everything becomes a topic of negotiation...and where one and only one party has all the bargaining power...you're gonna run into a lot of situations where--to use your own phrase--you will have no idea whatsoever how to pursue your goals, or even whether those goals can be pursued at all. That's one of the major functions of rules, to provide an identified path forward.

And none of this has anything to do with whether a road from Rome to Paris means that you can't also get to Paris without taking that road. Maybe you decide to go to Venice first, and then to Paris. Or maybe you just hoof it across the Alps because you're a crazy person. Or maybe you take a ship, or you fly. Why does having a road from Rome to Paris mean that nobody is ever allowed to reach Paris any other way?

In short, if you have a feat that says, "You can do X," the very strong implication is that if you don't have that feat you cannot do X. It's how language works.

That's why I said above that I prefer feats to generally be additive to an ability everyone can already do. If you have a Jumping feat that says, "You can jump 3 feet high," it implies that you can't do it without the feat. I'd rather see a normal PC be able to jump 3 feet into the air with an athletics check of say 20(arbitrarily picked), and someone with the feat reach 3 feet with a roll of 10(also arbitrarily picked), or maybe roll with advantage.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not just the Actor Feat that grants this ability. Kenku have a similar ability as a racial feature:

• Mimicry. You can accurately mimic sounds you have heard, including voices. A creature that hears the sounds you make can tell they are imitations only with a successful Wisdom (Insight) check against a DC of 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Charisma modifier.

RE: why not give the Actor Feat advantage on a check that anyone could make to mimic speech? Well, they already have that ability:

• You have an advantage on Charisma (Deception) and Charisma (Performance) checks when trying to pass yourself off as a different person.

Thus, when someone makes an Insight check opposed by their Deception check (assuming they want you to believe their mimicry is that of another person), their check has advantage.

That just cements it even further. Now you have two abilities that specifically grant the ability to mimic, meaning that the general rule would be that people can't do it without such an exception.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In short, if you have a feat that says, "You can do X," the very strong implication is that if you don't have that feat you cannot do X. It's how language works.

Except it isn't. As I've said repeatedly. There are plenty of situations where explicitly saying that "If you have X, you can do Y" does not mean that that is the one and only way to do Y. "If you have cash, you can buy that item" DOES NOT mean "If you don't have cash, you can't buy that item."

Or are you sincerely claiming that "If you want to go from Rome to Paris, you can take the train" means "The one and only way to get from Rome to Paris is by train"?

That's why I said above that I prefer feats to generally be additive to an ability everyone can already do. If you have a Jumping feat that says, "You can jump 3 feet high," it implies that you can't do it without the feat. I'd rather see a normal PC be able to jump 3 feet into the air with an athletics check of say 20(arbitrarily picked), and someone with the feat reach 3 feet with a roll of 10(also arbitrarily picked), or maybe roll with advantage.

I strongly disagree that that is what that implies.