Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Philotomy Jurament wrote:

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:IMO, if you're going for a Swords & Sorcery feel, the easiest to dispose of is the Cleric. If it weren't for the (ultimately, disadvantageous IMO) rules that mandate really slow natural healing of HPs, the Cleric would be superfluous and I would gladly get rid of the Cleric role in favor of the Thief any day.

Yeah, at the level of least granularity, I see classes like this:

• Men of Action - Obviously, this is the Fighting Man. A Thief would fit here, too (I think I might like the Thief better as a sub-class of Fighter, actually).
• Men of Magic - This is the Magic User, and variants or sub-classes like the
  Illusionist.
• Men in the Middle - This is the Cleric.

The Cleric strikes me as a class that was designed with game mechanisms in mind, rather than designed with swords-n-sorcery source/inspirational material in mind. The Cleric is half man-of-action and half man-of-magic. He can do both, but he's not as good at fighting/action as the Fighter, and his spells are fewer and generally less impressive than the magic user. They're more "supporting role" spells.

The cleric represents one of the 4 types in literature/fairy tale (at least European based and probably cross culturally): agressor/adult male-fighter, sanctuary/healer/mother -cleric, Advisor/old wise man- Magic user, Trickster/immature/child- Thief.

All major characters in fantasy/fairy tales fall into one of these 4 categories. They are the most obvious types to include in designing a game. You can really see this dynamic watching some of the classic Disney movies. Most of these stories focus on relationships between these types and moving from one to the other (ie. growing up) learning lessons along the way. I think Foster had a pretty good essay on the types someplace in our archives.


But yeah, if push comes to shove the cleric is easiest to jettison. They already serve as backup fighters, and you could stick their healing spells in with MUs (though as I stated before you'd be loosing one literary archetype and severely muddling another.
Theres also the clerics vs. magic users = dynamic between power of man vs. power of god(s). Also religion vs science (one guys sacraficing animals the other is playing with beakers in a lab), pagan vs non pagan.

Even more base: there is the Ying and the yang thing (aggressor-MU vs passive-CL) and the 4 elements of astrology: fire, water, earth, air. I'm not big on astrology, they might correspond to 1E classes, don't know.

Falconer wrote:Strange. What, is someone planning to offer it for sale?

"Strange" is right. Preventing people from posting 36-year-old fanzine articles on the internet is absurd. Nobody's ever going to make any money on that sort of thing, and I doubt if anybody even intends to try. All it comes down to is person X not wanting people to be able to read article Y. That attitude baffles me.

Matthew wrote:Whenever I think "thief", I think "Zamorian thief", and those guys are definitely not any kind of fighting-men in my book.

I think Grey Mouser. :shrug:

But thats a *good* thing in my book. The archetypes aren't nailed down so tightly as to make our points of view mutually exclusive.

Geoffrey wrote: I regret not downloading it when I had the chance.

If you still need a copy, let me know; I should be able to help you out.

francisca wrote: I think Grey Mouser. :shrug:

But that's a *good* thing in my book. The archetypes aren't nailed down so tightly as to make our points of view mutually exclusive.

Most people do, I think. Apparently, that was a lesser inspiration, but (as with Tolkien) probably the best publicised and exercising the strongest influence on consumers. I cannot really say I have ever read much Moorcock outside of maybe the Golden Barge.

AxeMental wrote:

Flambeaux wrote:Part of why I don't run AD&D these days is because I can't stand the thief class. Never did like it or see much point in having one.

ETA: I should elaborate...every game in which I have played in the last 15 years or so that had a thief PC (usually multiples) went down the same way: everyone (players) sits around bored while the thief sneaks around doing stuff. Eventually, something might happen. Maybe. If the thief doesn't steal everything first.

I'm currently in a game with 5 hyper-active thieves. Oy! We're doing very little but waiting on them. I have no doubt there will be no treasure for my cleric at the end of the dungeon crawl.

OK now I see where your coming from. Doesn't the same thing happen though when you don't have a thief but have a designated guy taking point (maybe wearing light armor, carrying little and saying he's trying to detect traps or guards ahead)?

It does...but most of the groups I've DM'd for don't scout. And most of the games I've played in haven't relied heavily on scouting, either. One DM I played under for three years never put a single trap in a dungeon. I'd forgotten that was a possibility until I reread the rulebooks after that campaign ended.

But one of the reasons I now prefer OD&D/S&W to AD&D is that, without a thief class, everyone approaches the game differently and it is, consequently, a lot more fun.

AxeMental wrote:Like W, I can't imagine an AD&D game without the snarly human thief. *snip*
But still, your right. Even in the best of circumstances, thieves do see everything first, and usually from at least 60' distance from the group. In that case you could play a thief, or a cleric/thief, or maybe an MU (being sneaky)? The thief is such a critical part of the 1E experience, I wouldn't suggest leaving them out. I mean, what would the game be without those love-able scum bags. And as Whegie mentioned, they are the stars of the PH cover.

Nope. I can't stand playing thieves or sneaking about. I get frustrated with parties that depend on that approach. Just go in and git 'er done. Now I'm not above using a magic-user for recon work once they have access to spells like Wizard Eye.

But I don't think the game suffers for not having thieves. And since I don't like multi-classing, either, it's just as well that I avoid AD&D these days.

AxeMental wrote:The cleric represents one of the 4 types in literature/fairy tale (at least European based and probably cross culturally): agressor/adult male-fighter, sanctuary/healer/mother -cleric, Advisor/old wise man- Magic user, Trickster/immature/child- Thief.

I think you're right that it's a strong archetype in mass media during the late 70's and early 80s (note: After D&D had become popular) but the occurence of "sanctuary/healer/mother"-type characters in the inspirational material for D&D is pretty rare, especially if you add the caveat of "sanctuary/healer/mother"-type characters who actually go out and have adventures (i.e. PCs) rather than exist only in their church/sanctuary/hovel/cave to provide a resource for the actual heroes (i.e. NPCs).

Yeah the "thief as scout" technique is so "unD&D". I'm so puked out by it. But its the embracing of the term "SCOUT" for "THIEF" as road to redemption that really drives me to the insane asylum. DO I really want my kids to join the "Boy Thieves of America"!?!? Its so standard "politically correct wrong" its ridiculous. Thieves are fucking crooks, period. How many times have you heard that "stuffed shirt original background":

"He learned a lesson early and to use those skills for good..."

BARF! Thats the "tang" that kills the class for me, never mind them "running ahead to scout" its the "I'm a boy scout" processed cheese alignment shit that really makes you want to nuke them from the game forever. "I'm a good thief" well then you're a good scumbag. Get over it!

The running ahead is a pain in the ass because 50% of the time you don't know if the DM is cool with it and meanwhile, the DM's favored player (I call this type player the DM's familiar/homonculous) gets the cheese while you're "doing good" and the DM thinks its bad. Traditionally everyone should have a "party caller/leader" and the "scout ahead" thing is almost always against this thinking as a "well, I'm doing this" kind of thing.

The thing with sending the thief out alone to scout ahead is that, at low levels, they're really bad at it. They've got very low chances of successfully hiding in shadows (10%), moving silently (15%), finding traps (20%), and hearing noise (10%) so they're going to fail those rolls most of the time, and they have terrible hit points, armor class, and saving throws so when they do trigger a trap or run into a monster they're pretty much screwed. An elf or stout halfling fighter/thief (or even just a straight fighter in leather armor) makes a much better scout -- they can see in the dark, they get an automatic surprise bonus allowing them to avoid most encounters, and they've got bonuses with missiles so that with 3-4 segments of surprise they can end a lot of encounters before the monster gets a chance to react. A half-elf ranger is almost as good (he isn't as likely to gain surprise, but he can wear any type of armor and retain his bonus, and is good in melee). A dwarf fighter or fighter/thief also makes a good scout, because they can also see in the dark, have a good (50%) chance of spotting most traps that a scout is likely to run into in a hallway, and they have better hp and saves to deal with ones they fail to spot.

Which is to say that up until about 10th level a human thief or single-classed demi-human thief is worth very little except as a locksmith and trap-remover (not that they're particularly good even at those (25% and 20% respectively at 1st level), but they're at least unique abilities that another class/race can't do as well or better*).

*well, except for the monk, but he'll be dead soon enough and the thief can get his niche back

I found, when I was running WG5, that the Thief class didn’t “work” with the module. I believe because those levels had been created for OD&D either prior to Sup. I and/or for groups that didn’t use that class, even though the published module is of course under the AD&D/WoG logos. Sorry I can’t be more specific (don’t have it with me right now), but it seemed like there were a lot of challenges which required outside-the-box thinking and were supposed to be adjudicated by the DM according to his judgment of how the players were reacting, or according to specific mechanics printed in the module, etc. When the players tried to send in the thief to roll his percentile checks and otherwise threw their hands in the air with this “I don’t have that skill” attitude, that was it. I had to sternly admonish them to forget what was on their character sheets and start using their brains.

Now, this confirmed for me what Foster has said in the past, i.e. that modules written without the Thief class in mind will be different from one that assumes their existence and writes challenges targeted at them.

It is also true that a really good group and DM will approach the game correctly even with the presence of the Thief, i.e. anyone can describe to the DM how they are trying to sneak or where they are searching for a trap, etc. It’s hard to get in that mindset with a Thief around, but it is possible. In that case the Thief is treated as an expert, a shady character who really knows his stuff when it comes to his skills—i.e., they are all above and beyond what everyone else can do—but he will not help you in combat and might just slit your throats and pick your pockets. But then, again, as Foster mentioned, that doesn’t work at lower levels, when their chance is worse than even 1 in 6 which is sort of a default check for pre-Thief D&D. So I can see it being used as a high-level NPC, or possibly in an all-thief campaign (city-based)?

Falconer wrote:It is also true that a really good group and DM will approach the game correctly even with the presence of the Thief, i.e. anyone can describe to the DM how they are trying to sneak or where they are searching for a trap, etc. It’s hard to get in that mindset with a Thief around, but it is possible. In that case the Thief is treated as an expert, a shady character who really knows his stuff when it comes to his skills—i.e., they are all above and beyond what everyone else can do—

Any character can sneak about, provided the player provides the DM with a reasonable explanation on just how the PC goes about the sneaking. The thief sneaking skills come into play where it would be nigh impossible for a character to sneak, or where the player's description of action to the DM is inadequate. If the character is a thief, and the conditions aren't just right for sneaking, the DM can allow a roll for the expert to pull it off anyway. As pointed out up thread, for a low level thief, a successful roll is very difficult, and it's at best 50-50 for a mid-level thief.

So, low and mid level thieves sneaking into position, under poor conditions, is the equivalent of football's Hail Mary pass, but, they at least get that shot, whereas, the non-expert wouldn't.

Ranger tracking abilities get similar treatment. They are able to succeed, where others fail.

And, to keep this at least marginally on-topic, I do not think it necessary to include the thief class for a game to be 1e. In fact, any class can be omitted, and you've still got a 1e game. Druids, paladins, illusionists, assassins, monks and bards get excluded all the time.

I really don't mind the thief as long as I'm playing the thief or someone with the wherewithal to say these skills aren't going to come into play every 5 seconds(like my friend Taylor who is always outside the box) . Have the thieves "pray to their creative mind" and "deal their aces and throw them away for good or bad" like a spellcaster. Its like the thief character trumps the party with his free buttons always. "I successfully hid in the shadows on the surface of the sun!" Thats why the suck. The class needs their abilities to be "re-ability-ated" cause skills are "bad gaming" period. "I use my skill to make it seem like I can figure things out" is so dead to me. If you can't do it with a description then I'm supposed to sort out your application of "pushing a button" with all the variables everytime. Why don't you explain what YOU can do by telling me instead and we'll figure out this problem together? Why should the DM always end up holding the bag for "skills stupidity"? Thats the way I look at it so you might as well be a fighter who was born with a high dexterity.

The thief class is like the favorite of the "I nock an arrow and have my potion ready in hand" players. It just ain't happening but they want to push every button instead of thinking for themselves or using their imagination free of rules. For instance, never pulling back. I hate these "lets get it over with already" players. The whole dungeon is a strategy and the best players realize this but the "players of thieves" don't even think like that at all. Its all about getting away from everyone all the time to show off how they can "cleverly" push a button.

It's fun to play a thief and pretend you are a fighter while you rob everybody blind, though.
But eventually they find out and kill you.

Party Leader: "Hey, dude, we've got an extra set of plate mail sitting around back there. Why don't you try it on for size?"

New "Fighting Man" Recruit: "Nah, man, I like my leather armor for going into pitched melee. I can move around, you know? Besides, I've still got my trusty "Fighting Man" sword, right?"

Party Leader: :gives new recruit the juju eyeball: …

(Seriously, though, I think I'd have the Thief wear the plate mail, if he was trying to stay in disguise. But I wouldn't let him use any Thief abilities while armored, and I would also assign him a non-proficiency penalty in combat.)

Philotomy Jurament wrote:Party Leader: "Hey, dude, we've got an extra set of plate mail sitting around back there. Why don't you try it on for size?"

New "Fighting Man" Recruit: "Nah, man, I like my leather armor for going into pitched melee. I can move around, you know? Besides, I've still got my trusty "Fighting Man" sword, right?"

Party Leader: :gives new recruit the juju eyeball: …

Well you can always accept the armor penalties.

You got that in before my edit.