|
Emrikol posted:My theory has always been that the thief is a joke class designed to generate amusing anecdotes. In my opinion there's really no fixing the Thief class without a major overhaul, and the existence of the Thief class in itself changes the dynamic of the game a great deal since it introduces a skill system and point-buy.
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Emrikol posted:My theory has always been that the thief is a joke class designed to generate amusing anecdotes. I'm starting to think that amusing anecdotes are the prime output of the game. So, maybe I should make a system where all the classes are joke classes. (Maybe that's how DCC already works.)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:I'm starting to think that amusing anecdotes are the prime output of the game. So, maybe I should make a system where all the classes are joke classes. (Maybe that's how DCC already works.) That's kind of how DCC already works. Though level 1 DCC characters are actually quite a bit more powerful than level 1 (A)D&D characters.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:In my opinion there's really no fixing the Thief class without a major overhaul, and the existence of the Thief class in itself changes the dynamic of the game a great deal since it introduces a skill system and point-buy. The thief was certainly great for multi & dual-classing.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
I still want to know why it's so easy to climb walls though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
You want it to be easy for people to climb out of pit traps.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
admanb posted:Isn't that just a sling with +1 damage? Yeah. It's pretty much just about feel at this point. Even dropping the +1 leaves them with a no ammo magical attack they can use on a round to round basis. It's hard to suggest giving away the full 1st level version as it is pretty much a gently caress your spell button against other casters. Maybe bump the damage up to d6, but honestly it's mostly about feel while getting the caster through it's most boring levels. After that, it's a thing that doesn't matter very much. remusclaw fucked around with this message at 19:22 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
slap me and kiss me posted:You want it to be easy for people to climb out of pit traps. The thief is designed for pratfalls. Emrikol's theory is pretty convincing.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:The thief is designed for pratfalls. Emrikol's theory is pretty convincing. pre:Joinville's Benny Hill Theme Music (Illusion) Range: 60 yds. Components: V, M Duration: 1 turn/level Casting Time: 1 Area of Effect: 20-ft. radius Saving Throw: Special
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:What's the rationale behind thieves being so bad at the things they're supposed to do at low levels? And conversely, why is climbing walls so easy? 1. The thief is "bad" at these things, but they're also the only ones that can even attempt them. Open locks is supposed to work even on magically locked enclosures Climb walls is supposed to work even on completely sheer surfaces Moving silently is supposed to work regardless of terrain, even on a squeaky wooden floor Hiding in shadows is supposed to work even when the Thief is in plain sight 2. When Gygax first "designed" the Thief in Greyhawk, OD&D was only working with d4s, d8s, d6s, d12s, and d20s, so the "percentile" chance had to be done over 5% increments so that they could be represented by a d20 roll. When you cap at 100%, and your smallest increment is 5%, you need to start low to give yourself room to progress, so: Open Locks started at 15% and capped out at level 12 Remove Traps started at 10% and capped out at level 13 Pickpocket and Move Silently started at 20% and capped out at level 12 Hide in Shadows started at 10% and capped out at level 14 And then, Climb Walls starts out as a 13% chance to fail (or 87% chance to succeed), with a 1% reduction in chance per level of the Thief. That 13% chance probably comes from rolling a 1 on an 8-sided die. (thanks to Halloween Jack for figuring this out) 3. So when we finally get to AD&D, we have percentile dice now, so the chance progression can be more fine-grained, but the game inherits the low base chance of the other skills and the high base chance of climbing walls anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Reading this thread and skimming through the 52 pages -- now I've caught the retroclone tinkering bug goddammit 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
So Exceptional Strength was created specifically for Fighters so that there'd be a Fighter-only advantage to being that class, right? I was trying to find some more information about this, when I stumbled upon some "third-party" concepts for Exceptional Dexterity. This first one comes from The Strategic Review Vol 2 Num 2, from April 1976:  It's fairly self-explanatory - if the Thief has 18 Dex, you roll percentiles for the added bonus. This next one comes from Dragon Magazine #3, from October 1976 (you may remember that this is the same one with the Samurai class, the critical strike tables, and the "women character classes" articles)  There's no explanation for this one either, and unlike the first table, there's nothing to say that this specifically applies to Thieves. I would assume it would/should, though, as giving this to Fighters would really let them double-dip on the to-hit and damage rolls. Using this table and Greyhawk's Exceptional Strength, a Fighter with 18/00 Strength and 18 (flat) Dexterity would have a +5 bonus to melee attack rolls, a +7 bonus to damage, and a -4 AC adjustment while a Thief with 18 (flat) Strength and 18/00 Dexterity would have a +5 bonus to melee attack rolls, a +6 bonus to damage, and a -6 AC adjustment (obviously such stats would be extremely rare under default rolling rules)
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
The version that just effects the thief abilities seems... really dumb? And completely misses the point of exceptional strength. If you want the thief to be better at thieving things, just increase their bases -- don't tie it to having an 18 in the stat.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Emrikol posted:My theory has always been that the thief is a joke class designed to generate amusing anecdotes. I think it's simpler than that. It's Bilbo Baggins. They made a class designed from a character from a novel, whose distinguishing trait is that he's a homebody thrown into the company of a bunch of professional warriors and adventurers (and one god-like being, who is naturally the wizard) and has to desperately scramble to keep up using whatever he's good at.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Well yeah I'm not saying it's particularly well thought-out, I'm just saying it exists. I mean, by most accounts even the Exceptional Strength thing is silly because by default 3d6-then-d100 flat rolling only a ridiculously small portion of a population would ever get it naturally, with the rest I imagine only getting it from Gauntlets of Ogre Power.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:For weapon proficiency/specialization, I'd like a double-check if I'm grasping this correctly: Going from memory: If you allow it then there is an extra layer ("double-specialized") that gives +3/+3 to the specific melee weapon. Missile weapons have their own table that gives attacks/rnd by specialization. (I.e. the infamous darts and the garbage crossbows have different rates of fire.) There was a one-of on specialization regarding bows that required the use of an extra proficiency slot. Unless it was going to make a weird thing at the table/with the group I usually just let a fighter have it if they wanted it. (I usually encouraged the "rounded" tactical group. So anyone able should have some kind of ranged weapon. Once again Fighters are better than everyone if they specialize with a longbow and save their If you allow the weapon groups from the Book of Fighters (I think thats where it was) then we allowed someone to take a small or broad group, and then specialize in a specific weapon from the group. (I.e. prof in "long blades" specialized with long sword".) If you use that book there are also the weapon styles that allow specialization for other effects. The 2H style give a serious bonus on initiative (this really only works if you are factoring listed speed factor into initiative), a weapon+shield style that allows for bashing, the good old 2w style 'ala the nature drow, and a 1h specialization that (I think) lets you switch a bonus to AC or attack. Also remember that weapon damage was assigned based on size of target, not size of wielder. Longswords do 1d8 against small and 1d12 against large creatures. (I think you wrote up a ways that you were using wielder size? I mean thats fine (and makes sense, I also like the abusive "giant sized weapons" damage lists from Dragon) but I wanted to point out that the damage listing referred to the damage dealt based on target.) FRINGE fucked around with this message at 08:26 on May 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
One of the things to keep in mind is that the Thief is supposed to be somewhat supernatural in nature, at least back when they were introduced in Supplement 1: Greyhawk, like the Hide In Shadows skill isn't just regular hiding, it's literally disappearing into the shadows, while regular hiding is something that's assumed to be something that the Thief(or indeed most characters) can pull off without having to roll anything if roleplayed properly, similar cases with the rest of the Thief skills The problem is that Gygax kinda sucked at making things like that clear(there's a reason few people play either OD&D or AD&D 1e these days unless it's a Retroclone that makes things easier to understand, while plenty of people play BX/BECMI/RC D&D and AD&D 2e with the originals and not just Retroclones), so everyone assumed they were mundane skills(and Gygax never really tried to clarify since he wasn't a fan of any PC options besides Human Fighters in the first place*, and only included anything else as playable due to the demands of his players and Arneson), which is why the Thief is assumed to suck in most TSR versions of the game *which is kinda ironic since Combat is a terrible option most of the time in TSR D&D for a whole bunch of reasons
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Basically. Thanks! drrockso20 posted:One of the things to keep in mind is that the Thief is supposed to be somewhat supernatural in nature, at least back when they were introduced in Supplement 1: Greyhawk, like the Hide In Shadows skill isn't just regular hiding, it's literally disappearing into the shadows, while regular hiding is something that's assumed to be something that the Thief(or indeed most characters) can pull off without having to roll anything if roleplayed properly, similar cases with the rest of the Thief skills Yeah I mentioned this in my earlier post but I do want to emphasize that the Thief can open magically locked locks, hide in plan sight, and climb up sheer surfaces. The low percentage chance to Open Locks is also reflective that it's a percentage chance for what's essentially a Knock spell, and that if you were pitting the Thief against a mechanical-only lock, the expectation was that you'd either let the Thief open it for free or give them a big percentage bonus.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Thanks! Argh, no. I wish this was true, but a close read of the 2e phb (pg 56) says otherwise: "a thief can try to pick padlocks, combination locks, and solve puzzle locks... [picking locks requires tools and the thief suffers penalties if the tool is unsuitable] " "this skill is far less useful when dealing with magic or invisible traps... [halve the skill when dealing with these]" "a thief can never become hidden when a guard is watching him, no matter what his dice roll is"
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
Even though the original texts may not support it, I do prefer the idea that anyone can be sneaky, but the thief's abilities are extraordinary. Philotomy wrote on it:quote:While I prefer to run without the Thief class, there are campaigns where I've allowed them. When I allow Thieves, their class skills are treated as extraordinary capabilities. That is, anyone can hide, but a Thief can hide in shadows. Anyone can move quietly, but a Thief can move silently, without even making a sound. Anyone can climb, but a Thief can climb sheer walls. Et cetera. Granted, I find some of this finicky. I'm frankly not into the Old School Primer suggestion that DMs and PCs talk through the minute details of getting around a pit trap. Sure, I want the players to tell me what they're actually doing, but in the end it's not like typical dungeon traps make any mechanical sense, and in the end I'm going to call for a check (skill, save, or ability score, whatever) if it's doubtful that the PC can do what the player says they're doing.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Okay, I'll cop to any confusion since I started the conversation under AD&D 2e and then went off on a tangent. I'll admit that these definitions do shift around a bit. From Greyhawk:  From Mentzer's Basic Set:  this removes the implication that Thieves can open even magically-locked locks, but then makes them the only class capable of opening any locks at all.  the descriptions of the Thief skills in the B/X sets are so generic as to have lost the Greyhawk meaning, if they were ever intended to be like that. The writing in Moldvay is even simpler than this. From AD&D 1e:  this one then changes how Climb Walls are supposed to work, because now the wall need to be coarse and have ledges and cracks and then for AD&D 2e, I acknowledge what you referenced in that PHB as being true if we go even farther back than Greyhawk, Playing at the World has an article about the very first appearance of the Thief  this has the same "magical enclosures" phrase in Greyhawk that implies Thieves are also capable of unlocking magical locks, along with climbing "sheer surfaces"  this implies that hiding in shadows can also be done while on the move, not requiring stillness. as an aside, that second part I highlighted implies that, at least for some players, if you couldn't pick a lock, you could always force it open, with the cost being that of time. But yes, I do acknowledge that these definitions have changed across different editions, and I apologize for a jumbled point.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Hey, it's not your fault that the language is inconsistent across several versions of a game that all came out within a few years.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Lockpicking is weird and annoying, I increasingly feel like. Like, if you're running old school there are 4 possible ways they can go down: you have a thief and make the check, have a thief and fail, try to kick it down and fail, try to kick it down and succeed. Just saying "you can't go through this door" is boring--way more interesting is saying "you have to pay a price to get through it", and making it so that having a thief or rolling well makes that price way less prohibitive. The two big prices for stuff like this that's baked into the game are just time and noise (both of which cause wandering monster checks). So I've started using this system as a baseline, with special doors maybe having slightly modded results: Lockpick attempt success: Unlock the door instantly and quietly, no time spent or noise generated. Lockpick attempt failure: Unlock the door after 10 minutes of effort, no noise generated (although if there's something in the room it'll probably hear the players milling around directly outside for 10 minutes). Kick down door success: Open the door instantly, make a ton of noise and roll a WMC. Kick down door failure: Open the door after hacking away at it for a while (10 minutes if anyone has an axe, 30 otherwise), making a ton of noise the whole time. If a door is special enough to be magically enchanted then maybe I'll make it so that you need a successful check to break through it, but even then only if it's more of a "unlock a side adventure" type of thing than a "well, time to go home I guess" type.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Yeah a wandering monster check is like the default "failure with a cost" answer for a dungeon crawl.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Well yeah I'm not saying it's particularly well thought-out, I'm just saying it exists. Older D&D and Retroclones: I'm not saying it's particularly well thought out, I'm just saying it exists.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Looking for a good retroclone/"Feels like old D&D" game for a hex crawl campaign. Hoping to tilt more towards heroic rather than shitfarmers-struggling-to-kill-goblins feel, as it's likely going to be a rotating campaign where whoever feels like hosting gets to run a party through their section of the hex map. Most of the players are familiar with 2e, and while I could just houserule things to allow for lighter play and expanded elements they like, I anticipate less resistance to a wholly new system getting houserules and modifiers. Tactical combat isn't really a concern - while they'll be mapping things on graph paper, it's not something folks are too invested in. Mostly looking for something that's relatively modifiable. Let me know if more information is needed to learn which retroclone is the right one.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Hedningen posted:Looking for a good retroclone/"Feels like old D&D" game for a hex crawl campaign. Hoping to tilt more towards heroic rather than shitfarmers-struggling-to-kill-goblins feel, as it's likely going to be a rotating campaign where whoever feels like hosting gets to run a party through their section of the hex map. Most of the players are familiar with 2e, and while I could just houserule things to allow for lighter play and expanded elements they like, I anticipate less resistance to a wholly new system getting houserules and modifiers. If you want heroic you don't really want a retroclone. I'd just recommend 5E at that point.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
admanb posted:If you want heroic you don't really want a retroclone. I'd just recommend 5E at that point. I mean, the works of Sine Nomine might fit the bill. Works like Spears of Dawn, Scarlet Heroes and Godbound certainly go for heroic. And all three have free verisions to demo.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
5e isn't particularly heroic either. You're rolling up with 10+Con mod HP, which is maybe 5 to 6 HP more than what a retroclone would give you if you rolled. And by level 20, when you're supposed to be defending the planes from existential threats, you get... an extra attack.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
I'd say both ACKS and DCC would work with some very minor tweaking
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Yeah, I figured that was the case - it's a weirdly specific plan. I guess my goals, more concretely, are closer to what I've read in ACK and Godbound - generally giving space for heroics - but the plan I'm describing is more of a "roll up six characters and have a stable of options for inevitable character death" sort of experience. It's hard to balance the two - honestly, something that could handle quick character generation and building things around several competing "adventurer companies" where each map section has a different player-run company depending on who's running things. The rough pitch was "let's play D&D again!" and then a bunch of preferences that eventually settled on something where people could drop in and out and GM duties could rotate. Hex seemed like a good plan, and most folks seem to remember the game through some idealized lenses, so finding something to cover it would be good. ACK seems a frontrunner from bare skimming, but I'm gonna keep looking around to see options. The hardest part is articulating what exactly my gaming group is looking for.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
The Nightmares Underneath is also a pretty good candidate in my opinion
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
I'm also going to throw out that if the group is familiar with AD&D 2e, the retroclone For Gold & Glory is a direct clone of it.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
DCC is definitely More Heroic OD&D once you get past the level zero funnel. Level 1 DCC characters have a lot of advantages.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
admanb posted:DCC is definitely More Heroic OD&D once you get past the level zero funnel. Level 1 DCC characters have a lot of advantages. Yeah if your players are smart and don't get too unlucky with rolls, DCC characters have a lot of survivability to them
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:The Nightmares Underneath is also a pretty good candidate in my opinion Oh this looks interesting, thanks for mentioning this system.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
I don't know if anyone will be interested, but one of the guys in my (mostly tabletop wargames) group and I were talking about D&D/OSR and he decided to start up a PBP for us. Being a PBP, things are slow, but he's collected the first week's adventure, and will be serializing them on a blog. We're using the Basic Fantasy ruleset in order to keep things light and fast, and are adventuring in the Thunder Rift setting (which I had never heard of before.) As players, we are trying to supply a lot of the flavor text, so whenever a character does or says something, it's usually the player writing it. The DM gathers it together and spruces things up if he needs to. I don't know how if the blog will be updated weekly, or if it will be done at natural "chapter breaks," but hopefully, it will provide some entertainment. Please note that we can be smartasses, but we will try to hold off on the entire campaign devolving into dick jokes as long as possible. Adventures in Thunder Rift berzerkmonkey fucked around with this message at 21:01 on May 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
So here's your design question for the day, based off a discussion from general chat a bit ago. You have to remove either 'classes' or 'attributes' from your game, which would you choose and why?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:So here's your design question for the day, based off a discussion from general chat a bit ago. Attributes, between it and Classes I'd say the latter is more important to the D&D experience
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
DalaranJ posted:So here's your design question for the day, based off a discussion from general chat a bit ago. Classes. Look at all the trouble people have creating characters like Conan. He's a Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue/Ranger/Zamboni Operator/... Multiclassing is a mediocre way handle that.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 05:07
|
|
