Come Sail Away...

We finished running "Rebel Breakout" yesterday, using my modified version of the old West End Games Star Wars. It went fine (the "adventure" isn't all that great...though as a starter/sample, what would you expect?) but the kids really enjoyed it...they were far more enthusiastic about this little game than the supers game. Getting a chance to blast stormtroopers and fly Y-Wings I suppose...

I am satisfied with the system enough that I'm taking the time to write it up...at the moment it's about five pages long, but the final thing will probably come in around 20 or so pages, depending on formatting and how much I decide to "pad" the thing out. Probably there won't be much of the latter...I mean, it's just Star Wars. And it's really just WEG with a slightly different system. We'll see how it holds up over a couple-three adventures.

However, while folks wait for the PDF, I might as well give y'all the gist of the thing...something for the "so inclined" to ponder over the weekend (I will be very busy, with multiple baseball/soccer games and Covid vaccinations going on). Here are the basics:

• Dice pools get substituted for polyhedrals: 1D = d4, 2D = d6, 3D = d8, 4D = d10, 5D = d12, 6D = d20. Much of the mechanics involve "shifting" die size UP or DOWN. Above d20, shifts go to d20+1, d20+2, d20+3, etc. all the way up to an absolute maximum of d20+9 (the equivalent of 15D; there are a couple dudes who have these scores). Fractional "pips" from WEG are generally dropped or rounded when doing conversions.
• Target Numbers are pretty simple: Very Easy = 2, Easy = 4, Moderate = 6, Difficult = 8, Very Difficult = 12, and "Heroic" (from 2nd edition) would be around 15, if you wanted to set something that high. Many rolls are contested (meaning an opponent is trying to prevent your action), in which case you must beat the opponent's roll AND the target number to succeed.
• Character creation goes like this: start with the same six attributes (DEX, KNO, MEC, PER, STR, TEC) at 1d8 each. You can select a max of two to shift UP to 1d10 by selling down others to 1d6. Nonhumans can shift ONE 1d10 to 1d12 by selling down an additional attribute (either another 1d8 to 1d6 or a single 1d6 to 1d4). Skills are mostly the same, though I've combined some ("parry" has just been subsumed under melee, for example, "shields" are part of piloting, cultures/aliens species/planetary systems is just one combined skill as is jumping/climbing/swimming, etc.) to shorten/streamline the list. Starting characters get seven skill advances to raise die types (up to two shifts per skill); so, for example, if I have "Blaster" at d8 (because my DEX is d8), I could spend up to two of my advances to make the skill d12. Characters with force skills (force adepts, aged padawans, washed-up Jedi) can assign these skill advances to the usual control, sense, alter skills, but as they start at NO DIE TYPE (they don't fall under an attribute) the first advance gives you a d4 and the second a d6, should you choose to "max" them. Trappings (i.e. equipment or "starting stuff") is based on template, and I've got a list of 19, mostly taken straight from the original 1E list. It's workable.
• Combat works more-or-less like WEG: declare actions, adjust die type downward for multiple actions (such as shooting while dodging), high rolls happen first, rolls must beat both opponent's defense AND target numbers to succeed (tie rolls allow simultaneous attacks/damage). Melee is simplified (no parries, just compare attack rolls). Succeeding allows a damage roll versus STR (adjusted by armor) to determine wound level. Wound results are as per 1E rules (stun, wounded, incapacitated, mortally wounded) with the addition of messy, instant kills for damage rolls exceeding 4X the target's STR roll.
• Damage for melee is generally STR + damage die determined by weapon (knife: +2, club: 1d4, spear: 1d6, sword/axe: 1d8. vibroblade: 2d4, vibroaxe: 2d6). Lighsabers do 1d12 + control skill. Ranged weapons don't add STR, and range from 1d4 (thrown rock) to 1d20+2 for an E-Web heavy repeater (standard blasters are 1d10+1, heavy blaster pistols are 1d12+1). Armor has two ratings: a die roll that's added to STR versus physical attacks, and a die shift to STR versus energy attacks.

For example: a stormtrooper (STR 1d6) rolls 2d6 to resist physical damage (1d6+1d6) and 1d8 to resist energy damage (like blasters and lightsabers). If your angry wookie PC (STR 1d12) bashes him, he's a lot less likely to get killed than if the wook uses his bowcaster (1d10+3), which counts as an energy weapon. 

[working out the damage/armor stuff was one of the trickiest bits, just by the way...how to make armor effective, but not too effective (especially with regard to stormtroopers and modeling their tendency to fold like paper cups)? This actually works out quite well in play, but it took a while to get it right]

• For fans of The Mandalorian, I added my own rules for beskar armor that work like this: each piece added increases the protection of the armor (+1d6/+1 shift with one piece; +1d8/+2 shifts with two pieces; +1d10/+3 shifts with three pieces, considered a "full set"). A partial set can be worn with light body armor, increasing both physical and energy protection one step (to +1d8/+2 and +1d10/+3); however, doing so forces the character to use the body armor penalty (-1 die shift to all DEX related skills). Beskar amor by itself carries no penalties.
• Force points are awarded and used much the same as per the 1E WEG rules: spending a force point allows you to double the dice rolled for any actions taken in the round. So, for example, if I'm shooting at a 1d8 (possibly because I'm blasting multiple opponents), I'd roll 2d8 for each shot, greatly increasing my chance of success. My daughter used her force point to convince the AT-AT pilots via commlink that the PCs were actually Imperial pilots (flying Rebel Y-wings) so that they could escape without being blasted; she rolled a truly heroic success!
• We haven't seen any Jedi characters (yet), but my intention is to allow any force skills found in the 1E rules, rather than worry about characters learning "spells" (or whatever they're called) in 2E. Since it hasn't come up, I haven't had to mock up a table for it, but it will probably be an extrapolation of the stuff I've already got here. Maybe I'll put some Dark Inquisitor types in my next adventure.
• Skill points: using the rules from 1E (rather than 2E's character points) with some slight modifications. I'm handing these out in play in the form of poker chips; all players get 1 to start and then I toss them another every time they do something amusing, heroic, or "Star Wars-y," and every time they finish a combat or significant action sequence (like a chase). Chips can be spent to re-roll any failed die (one re-roll attempt only!); no player is allowed to hold more than 10 chips at a time.  At the end of the session, the GM (me) throws each player a couple-three extra chips depending on the final result of the adventure...whatever is in their pile (again: maximum of 10) gets "banked" and can be used for buying advances, as per 1E rules (i.e. for skills or for modifying ships and signature gear). Increases are strictly by die type, so it costs a number of skill points equal to the new die to advance it (to improve a skill from d6 to d8 costs eight skill points, for example). Dice that are already at d20 (or higher) can be advanced (to d20+1, d20+2, etc.) with a flat expenditure of 20 skill points; as stated previously, d20+9 is the absolute maximum. 

 Light combat
armor + 1 piece
of beskar.

And...mmm...that's about it. Oh, there's some more stuff about nonhuman's special abilities (basically: you can get an advantage by taking a disadvantage from an old list of mine), and I haven't taken the time to put together the droid stuff (I don't think it will be too hard), but that's plenty for folks who want to try stuff out. I'll add that the d6holocron site has been invaluable resource in putting this together, especially the fan-made sourcebooks for later films and SW shows (most of which are very well done).  

The kids really liked the game, and picked up the rules pretty quickly. They especially appreciated the fast-flying skill chips which caused them both to be more courageous and heroic (seeing as how I was rewarding bold action). This had the effect of pushing the pace (always good for a "Star Wars" adventure) as they competed with each other to see who would be the first to brave the dangerous circumstance...it also caused them to think of clever things to do in order to amuse me. It was a great example of a reward system impacting behavior, and I didn't mind doling out the chips as they spent 'em nearly as fast as they were earned.

In retrospect, it might appear that I've crafted something that looks like a cross between FATE and "Savage Worlds Lite" (I don't actually own Savage Worlds, but I owned and played PEG's Deadlands way back before Savage was even a thing...), though such was unintentional on my part. And I have to say that the lack of fiddly-ness, the abstract wound system (favoring the PCs), and the exuberance of space opera all combine to make for a much more satisfying play experience than what I've found in either of those particular systems. That's pretty cool, and I might play this game for a bit.

In other news, my boy has plans to introduce his D&D club (now fully half of his 4th grade class) to actual Dungeons & Dragons, which will be a serious first for all of them. He's considering the B/X system in order to teach them the game, but anticipates moving into Advanced play soon enough.

; )

Lovely Lovely Thieves

There were four possible topics I had on my mind to write about...dragons, elves, initiative, and thieves...and rather than make up my mind, I did the silly blog-o-sphere thing of rolling percentile dice to determine which it would be. The result came up "dragons" so, contrarian that I am, of course I'll be writing about thieves (again)...and the post is looooong. Brew that coffee!

I've had lots of time to think (haven't we all?) since my last post on thieves back in early June, and think I have, especially with a couple recent ideas added to the ol' noggin:

Rules exist to provide boundaries of play that (a) promote a challenging, engaging experience; and (b) maintain order by giving the players knowledge of what to expect from other players.

AND (the following flaws of setting design):

Inadequate comprehension of why a game process matters, how it adds to the game and why its implementation is a feature and not a bug.

As well as:

Vague and imprecise understanding of a rule's boundary.

...all of which have come from Alexis Smolensk's blog on design, The Higher Path. I'd cite the particular entries (here and here) but you need to be a Patron to access them; however, there's nothing there that specifically applies to thieves anyway...my application of these concepts to the thief class is coming out of my brain.

[take that for what it's worth]

As has become my usual M.O. I find it helpful to start at the earliest primordial ooze of a rule concept/system, in order to track its development and find exactly where, how, and (if possible) why it "went off the rails." In the case of the thief, we first see [Gygax's version] appear in The Great Plains Gamer Players Newsletter, a zine sold at GenCon VII in 1974.

The "original thief" has a number of small differences from how the character would eventually appear in Greyhawk (Supplement I). These include Chainmail style hit dice (as the basic classes received in Men & Magic), slightly lower XP requirements at the highest levels (85k instead of 90k for 9th level and 115k instead of 125k for every level thereafter), an alignment restriction of "neutral" (and no prohibition against lawful characters hiring them), and backstab damage that increases at a different rate (two dice for every four levels attained, minimum 2d6...this would mean 4d6 at 8th level, 6d6 at 12th level, 8d6 at 16th level, etc.). While the rules state that the class is open to humans, dwarves, elves, and hobbits (halflings), there is no mention of multi-class thieves, and no racial bonuses to skills are given for demihumans. The skills themselves (and their percentages) are entirely unchanged with the exception of hear noise which only ramps up to 100% (1-6) at 14th level, not 13th as given in Greyhawk.  Reading languages (at 3rd level) and magic (at 9th level) are given as "optional considerations" and do not list any chance of failure.

The Great Plains article also gives an admonition that "thieves are generally not meant to fight" and this is born out by their low hit dice (of all the classes given Chainmail hit dice, thieves have the worst progression...worse even than magic-users!). There are notes that, if using the "alternative combat method" thieves should progress as clerics on the combat tables (no mention is made of which saving throw type to use). Finally, there is an extensive example of how a thief might be used, describing all thief functions in action with the exception of wall climbing which, interestingly, is given NO CHANCE of failure in the article.

[the ability to "climb almost sheer surfaces rapidly, up or down" is still listed as one of the thief's unique abilities, but it includes no percentage. This makes the Greyhawk rule of 13% to slip and fall (decreasing 1% per level) to be an afterthought, explaining why it is given as a failure chance, rather than a success chance. This parallels Greyhawk's difference in handling the language/magic reading abilities of a thief]

Examining these ideas/rules thoroughly, what they are meant to do and their parameters (boundaries) of function, I find that I have a renewed interest in including the thief class, as it appears to answer all the issues raised in my earlier post:

• A neutral alignment in my setting doesn't pose any problems to inclusion in an adventuring party, lawful or otherwise (this will relate to a not-yet posted essay on alignment in my setting).
• The "point" of demihumans was (per Gygax in later writings) to give players who had rolled WEAK (i.e. non-optimal) characters an option to play something with extra (bonus) abilities. Someone wants to be a thief but rolls a poor dexterity? Be an elf thief and get infravision and better secret door detection (for example). I will not, however, be allowing multi-class thieves, with the possible exception of elves (and then only magic-user/thieves). I am also strongly considering level limits for demihuman thieves, as I want to maintain my setting's human-centric POV and do not relish the thought of "master thief" dwarves and elves running around the campaign.
• Guilds and lock picks are not a requirement of the rules/setting. I'll assume thieves make their own tools from scratch (if necessary).
• "Language reading" is the deciphering of codes and maps, not reading unknown languages. That's cool, though it seems appropriate to make success level dependent (as was done with climbing). Reading magic, however, is a different matter.
• "Low survivability" compared to other classes is mitigated by A) presumed role of the thief (i.e. non-combatant skill monkey), B) hit point adjustment (d6 hit points per hit die as originally given, instead of the d4 found in Greyhawk), C) fast advancement (fewer x.p. needed to level up / obtain hit points), and D) the addition of an AC bonus (of +1) that I will be giving to thieves only, for those with a DEX score of 15+ (this is in keeping with my current house rule of providing a small bonus to a class with a high prime requisite; it ends up being the equivalent of carrying a shield (either with or without armor) and doesn't interfere with my weapon vs. armor table.
• Issues with regard to skill use (backstabbing and pocket picking, "poor" percentages, and trap concerns, etc.) can all be addressed by being specific with skill explanations, definitions, and boundaries of play.

I'll talk about the thief's skills in a moment; first I want to talk about why the thief exists in the game...or, to be more precise, in my game.

The thief provides a particular type of play experience (that is to say, means of engaging with the game) to the player that falls outside the three defined roles in original system. It is not a fighter, though it must be at least somewhat combat-worthy (as combat participation is an intrinsic part of the game); it is not the thief's role to take hits for other party members, nor is it the thief's priority to deliver damage to opponents (sorry "rogue" fans). Likewise, the thief is not a cleric, whose role is one of defense and support; the cleric has heavy armor, magic that heals and boosts, and the ability to "turn" undead monsters with vicious, dangerous powers (paralysis, disease, level drain).

The thief is MOSTLY akin to the magic-user, sharing many traits in common: low combat ability, multiple means of interacting with the environment, not to mention some abilities that appear "magical" in nature (reading magic-user scrolls, foiling magical closures with open locks, etc. However, unlike the magic-user, the arrows in a thief's skill quiver are strictly defined; the magic-user makes choices as to which spells she brings to the party, while the thieves skills always remain the same. In this way, the thief (like the fighter) might be considered an appropriate class for the novice or beginning player: rather than knowledge of an entire textbook of spells, the player need only familiarize herself with a half-dozen skills. While the skills carry a chance of failure, they are also unlimited in usage (not that you can use them multiple times in a single instance, but multiple times in an adventure/session). Rather than increasing CHOICE with advancement in level, the character increases EFFECTIVENESS...they function better and/or more often.

This is why there's no need to make magic-users "roll dice" to see if their spells succeed (as in other RPGs...see DragonQuest as an example). Players who want to engage with the game in that "gambling style" of play can choose to play a thief gaining the abilities of invisibility, third dimensional movement, code-breaking, security defeating, and high damage delivery all in a single package. While you lose nuance and wider choice of application, as well as guaranteed success (a magic-user's invisibility, knock, and levitation spells ALWAYS functions), what you gain are a reusability factor and a streamlined simplicity not found in the wizard class. The thief is not a redundant class; it provides a different method for engaging with the game. 

Now, the skills: let's put hard boundaries to what they are and how they're used.

It's worth getting grungy to dig out the diamonds.

Though as recently as yesterday I was giving serious consideration to the idea of allowing player chosen specialization in skills (like, "add 35 percentile points to your choice of skills every time you level up"), upon reflection this flies in the face of both what the thief class represents (streamlined versatility) and what the thief models (a discreet package of skills that increase in effectiveness as the thief advances in her career). Yes, all 5th level cutpurses have a 40% chance to open locks and a 45% chance to move silently...they learned these skills as an apprentice, and by the time they've earned 10,000 x.p. this is amount of progress they've made towards mastering those abilities. By the time the master thief reaches 14th level, all her skills should have reached maximum potential.

Opening locks (by picking or even foiling magical closures): picking a lock on a chest or door requires the thief to use hand-crafted tools (no cost or encumbrance) that are upgraded automatically with any increase in level (taken out of any training costs). These are considered secreted upon the thief's person and only lost if somehow captured and stripped of all goods (including clothing); a highly unlikely situation. An attempt to open a lock can be made once and if failed then the lock "must be forced open -- a very time-consuming process." Magical closures do not include those under the spell of a hold portal or wizard lock, but refers instead to certain enchanted dungeon doors of the "puzzle" variety (without the need to work the puzzle...another time-consuming process)...such locks may include a penalty to the skill check.

Removal of small trap devices (including poison needles): these are small traps found on chests, coffers, alcoves, etc. with the specific purpose of guarding a treasure. Such traps are automatically detected by the thief (per the example given) and then the player must decide whether or not to attempt disarming the device. Failure to disarm a trap of this kind "activates it with regard to the thief and any others within range." Examination of the treasure object/resting place is enough to discover the trap (so bring a thief along with you); other methods might be tried to remove a treasure object rather than attempting to disarm the trap. Traps found in a dungeon (per Book III) "are usually sprung by a roll of a 1 or 2 [on a d6] when any character passes over or by them [including pit traps]." This thief skill is unrelated to those type of exploration traps (which I will...hopefully...be explaining in a later post).

Climb almost sheer surfaces rapidly, up and down: boundaries that need to be defined include speed of ascent/descent, distance traveled, weight carried, and definition of "failure." Speed climbers can ascend 15m (about 50') in under eight seconds; this is, of course, a product of optimal conditions, specific training, and modern equipment...but it's still close enough to what I imagine a "sheer surface climb." Considering caution (on the part of the thief) and unfamiliarity with the surface being climbed, I'd allow movement at one-half normal exploration speed: for OD&D this means one move (at 10' per 1" speed) over ten minutes; add one additional foot of climb speed per level over 1st. For example, an unencumbered 5th level cutpurse can ascend/descend 124' in ten minutes (12.4' per one minute melee round). A thief can climb faster (dividing the time spent climbing in half), but then the DM must roll a "failure check" as indicated in Greyhawk. Failure chance is doubled if moderately encumbered (9"), tripled if heavily encumbered (6"), and quadrupled if over-burdened (3"). One check is made per move. Let's say our same cutpurse is loaded with treasure (heavy encumbrance) and needs to climb 30' to reach a ledge to escape a charging pack of ghouls. While she could cautiously climb 6.4 feet per minute, she doesn't have that kind of time and opts to double her speed (the ghouls have about a 9' reach when jumping, so 12.8 feet should put her out of their reach). Her chance of failure is 27% (13 -4 = 9 x3 = 27). The point at which the character falls will be be 20% to 80% of the total distance of the move (2d4 x10%). Our cutpurse only intended to climb 30'; if she fails her roll and the die roll is a 6, she falls from 60% of the 30' (at the 18' mark), not 60% of the 60' she could have climbed. Adverse weather conditions (rain, snow, high wind) will probably increase the failure rate, and might force a check even when caution is exercised by the climber. A thief should be able to estimate the distance to her destination (i.e. the DM tells the player) in order to make a decision based on risk.

Steal item by stealth or sleight-of-hand: in Greyhawk, this bullet point becomes "filch items and pick pockets." The original is more openly defined. It still uses the same percentage chance as move silently, but it applies to the removal of any object desired "from the person of the owner or from his immediate vicinity." This is theft in plain sight...removing some item from a desk or table, adding something an individual's drink, slicing a purse, or removing a ring from the finger. Level should probably be some indication of the proximity of the thief to the victim and/or the number of prying eyes that may be observing the thief when she makes her move. Greyhawk reduces success by 5% for each level a victim is above 5th, but should this apply to hit dice as well? Would a 5th level magic-user really be more susceptible to a shell game than a 9HD hill giant? I don't think so. In this case, I'd actually use levels of experience only as most monsters are fairly stupid; an exception would be creatures with spell-casting ability: a djinni, for example, would be fooled at -15% and an efreet at -25% using hit dice in place of level.

Strike silently from behind: no, it isn't called "backstab." Gygax's original text on the subject seems to imply that a successful move silent roll would be needed to gain this advantage, though I would waive the necessity in the case of a surprised opponent assuming the thief was close enough to make a melee attack. The example target is a "man," but rather than assuming the need for a humanoid with a stab-worthy back, I'm going to make this a sneaky or underhanded critical strike against ANY living opponent (not a construct, plant, or undead type). Use the reduced damage found in Greyhawk, as I would guess the original got curbed in actual playtesting of the class. Note: this assumes a non-hostile or "on guard" opponent; a failed move silent check (remember this is the same chance as the misdirection/theft check) indicates the thief has shown her hand and is unable to catch the target unawares; roll for initiative immediately and proceed to combat.

Listen for noise behind a closed door: this is self-explanatory, though it will be discussed more in a future post that deals with exploration rules. Being a 1st level thief gives the character the same chance to hear noise as a pointy-eared demihuman; higher level increases this ability for all racial types.

Move with stealth: As far as simply "moving silently," a thief should always be assumed to be quiet but, when traveling with other types of adventurers, chance of surprising and being surprised is no different from normal. Otherwise (i.e. when solo) a move silent check need only be made when the thief comes in possible earshot of a potential antagonist; failure indicates the character has done something to give herself away (again, reverting to normal surprise chance). Movement is normal exploration speed based on the thief's encumbrance; a thief in a flight/pursuit situation (double movement) isn't concerned with being stealthy.

Hide in Shadows: the best saved for last (well, almost last). Per the original text, the percentage given is "the chance to remain undetected while hiding or moving through shadows." The stipulation for skill use is that the thief be unobserved when attempting to hide (and that there be shadows to hide within). While old, musty castles lit by candles or torches would probably have plenty of shadows, I would use this skill check for any attempt at the thief concealing herself while unobserved...standing behind a curtain, jumping in a wardrobe, hiding behind a piece of furniture, etc. Success (only checked when a potential observer enters the room...and only checked once!) indicates the thief has hidden herself so well as to remain undetected and (depending on the situation) can even move while remaining concealed. Failure would indicate the character is noticed, or gives herself away somehow, though that shouldn't negate the chance of the thief surprising the observer (checked normally). How long should the thief remain unobserved? Until she reveals herself, generally by attacking; the hiding ability in this way is very similar to invisibility. How fast can the hiding thief move? Assuming appropriate cover or distraction is available, as fast (and as far) as her cover and encumbrance allow.

This (finally) explains the combat example found on page 105 of the AD&D Players Handbook. A party of five adventurers surprise an illusionist with his band of 20 orcs; the thief uses the surprise segment to "dart to the rear of the party and attempt to hide in shadows." In the first round following, the thief uses the cover of the cleric's silence spell to move into melee range (the encounter occurred at a distance of 30') while "slinking and sliding around in the shadows." In the next round, the illusionist "does not hear the thief behind him," is stabbed in the back and dies; the final round has the thief entering normal melee with the orcs. This example ONLY makes sense in light of Gygax using his own earlier interpretations of the thief skills, as recorded in The Great Plains Gamer. Gygax makes it quite clear in the DMG that any movement on the part of the thief gives away a "hide," not to mention that the thief is unable to hide under either direct or indirect observation...no using a group of party members as cover to disappear! Furthermore, even the thief's "silent movement" is terribly slow, dropping to "exploration speed,"which is only one-tenth of normal melee speed; there is no way for a thief to sneak 30' in a single round using such rules (he'd have to have a movement rate of 30" to do so).

Bollux. I'll be using the OD&D rules (and the GPG 'zine examples) for my determination of how thief skills function. Hiding in shadows...a more difficult ability to execute than simple "stealthy movement"...functions as a minor form of invisibility, which (in my estimation) is how the skill was originally supposed to function. It cannot be used unobserved (though a suitable distraction might provide the moment to disappear), it requires some sort of cover for hiding (if only shadows cast by medieval illumination), it allows normal movement (so long as cover persists), and is lost upon attack. It's not necessarily effective in full darkness (seeing as how most monsters have some form of infravision which is only "spoiled" by the existence of a light source), but it could given suitable terrain for concealing the character (rock formations, etc.). Even the olfactory and audial senses of super-predators might be ineffective of discovering the thief: a monster might know someone was present, but not necessarily where. Springing from cover could still be a surprising circumstance (I'll write about that when I get to surprise in that later post I keep mentioning).

Okay, is that enough? I realize this post is incredibly long (I've been writing it since Tuesday morning). But is that enough definition to establish boundaries for the thief character's skills? I think so, but let me run over them really quick:

How fast a character can move while performing skills? Yes. When skills can be used and when they can't? Yes, I believe so. At what point a percentage check is made (and the consequences of failure)? Yes, with most consequences being "a return to normal rules."

The thief class allows a player to break (or modify) certain, specific game systems, much the same as magic spells. They can bypass locks without the need to force them or find keys. They can achieve surprise or evade pursuit or purloin items under observation. They can move vertically in an environment without the need for special equipment. They can acquire treasure items without setting off guardian traps. They can puzzle out coded treasure maps (mmm...still need to set up a percentile table) that might otherwise require a spell to decipher.

They do not read magic. Not unless magical writing is something that can be read with simple mundane training. Wizards require a spell to do the same, regardless of experience level or intelligence! I am discarding this "possible consideration."

Do thieves provide a method of challenging the player and giving the player an engaging experience? Yes: the class provides multiple small ways to interact with the game environment with the potential risk of failure. At higher levels, this risk is diminished, but the consequences of failure (presumably) increase. And the class occupies a niche that the other classes do not.

Okay, yeah...I am on board with adding thieves to my game. Now I just need to write them up in my ever-changing rule book.

A Hard Look At Thieves

I've written quite a bit about thieves over the years; this will be my 24th post with the "thief" tag.

While trying to put my thoughts on the character in order this morning, I asked my nine year old to give me his thoughts on the thief class. How do you feel about it?

"Overrated," was the reply. I asked him to elaborate.

"Even though thief can open locks and such, he's going to get killed." He said. "Especially in OD&D, he's just too weak in combat to survive; he doesn't get to use bows, he's forced to fight in leather armor, and even his chances of being sneaky aren't very good."

He went on: "In B/X the thief is a little better, because he can use bows and his dexterity gives him a bonus to his armor class. But you don't give DEX bonuses in OD&D and leather armor isn't good enough. They have useful abilities like climbing walls and stuff, but they're killed too easily."

What about his ability to backstab? "Well, there is THAT, but you need a couple beefy fighters in your party to distract the monsters so you can sneak around and get him from behind." You couldn't sneak up on someone? "Well, your percentage is really bad especially at low level. If I was going to take a thief to, say, the Tomb of Horrors, I'd want to be at least 6th level. At least! Then I could go armed with a sword and daggers."

So if you were to rank your class preferences, where would the thief land? "Hmm...top of the bottom." Out of four classes? "Oh, you're not talking about elves and dwarf classes? Well, if it's just the basic four [cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief] he comes in at #4 (last place) in OD&D, and maybe tied with cleric or slightly better than cleric in B/X." Clerics are worse? "Well, in B/X they don't get a spell at first level, and it's really tough that they can't use bows and arrows." That's the same in OD&D. "Yeah, but in B/X thieves get the DEX bonus and they can use bows." Oh, right, I see. And thieves need to use bows because they're kind of weak with bad armor? "Yeah, unless you're in one of Sofia's dungeons, because then you can talk your way out of fights with monsters and still get millions of gold pieces." Okay.

So is it worth having a thief in an adventuring party? "Yes, so long as they have fighters for protection. Then you can use them for other tactics." Tactics? "Like picking locks. But they need protection." Picking locks is useful? "Yeah, and fighters can't do it. Well, maybe they could, but they'd have a lot harder time. They don't have the right equipment or skills." Okay, thanks.

No mention was made of traps or hearing noise in this conversation.

As I mentioned (briefly, in passing) in my last post, I haven't actually implemented thieves in my OD&D game...if you were to read my compiled/cleaned up copy of Book 1, you would find no mention of a "thief" class. My son's inferences of the "weakness" of the OD&D thief come from (I believe) my OD&D rules (like the lack of ability score bonuses) and discussions of different weapon proficiencies in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons...the OD&D thief presented in Greyhawk appears to have the same proficiencies as the B/X thief (i.e. no restrictions on weapon use at all).

Anyway...I wanted my son's input before writing this because...well, because I appreciate his opinion on the subject. I understand that the D&D thief is/was an iconic character class for DECADES (only supplanted by the "rogue" archetype in modern versions of the game). But much as I've worked with it and used it over the years (24 posts!), I dislike the thief for a number of reasons:

- A skill set that dividing the party: picking pockets and "backstabbing" encourage PVP play. Moving silently requires the PC to be alone in her sneaking. Hiding in shadows requires the thief to be left behind (no movement) to be effective.
- An alignment restriction that might be at odds with other party members (if Paladins can't adventure with non-Lawfuls, and thieves cannot be Lawful, well...).
- Low survival rating (as pointed out by my son) without adjusting hit points and/or increasing attribute bonuses.
- As written (in OD&D and AD&D), providing demi-humans with a means of unlimited leveling, moving the game away from being humancentric by taking away one of the unique abilities of humans (the only species allowed unlimited leveling).
- Emphasizing mechanical "traps" in dungeon exploration, in order to give the thief a way to earn her keep. How many strongboxes really need poisoned needles?
- In OD&D: implies something strange with regard to the thief's (1d4) hit dice: that humans are weaker than originally modeled (1d6 hit points). I can take a magic-user's lowered survival ability being related to the pasty, sedentary lifestyle of an academic (or the corruption and body wracking toll of learning sorcery). Why d4s for thieves? Vice and (medieval) city living? Okay...but then that concerns ALL folks living in the squalor of King's Landing (or its equivalent).
- Thieves Guilds as required institutions.
- Lock picks on the normal equipment list.
- Combat considerations (backstabbing) that adds an element of tactical detail to what should be the abstract, chaotic swirl of melee. Extra justification required to explain just how backstabbing works with a number of monster types (slimes, golems, undead, beholders, dragons, giants, etc.) or else the inevitable restriction/nerfing of the class's beefiest attack form.
- Unique abilities (skills) that are so ineffective at low level as to discourage use.
- The ability to "read magic" without a spell or read and understand languages that the character doesn't know like some sort of super-linguist.

All that being said...

I could work with most of this. I have worked with most of this throughout my decades of playing D&D. And for many years I haven't had to do much with it because thieves are so garbage no one wants to play them...

[there are a lot of exceptions to this last. AD&D players with demi-humans always worked thieves into their multi-class mix. A level or five of "rogue" was often taken in my 3E days (both by myself and others). I've played thieves on more than one occasion, including a Nehwon based B/X convention game that included ONLY thieves and fighters. And my old friends Kris and Jason were notorious for ONLY playing thieves in D&D games]

I dislike that all thieves have the same skill sets, all progressing at the same increments. And yet I dislike EVEN MORE the idea of implementing a "skill system" to the D&D game.

I dislike thieves. I dislike them a lot.

The OD&D game has a character type that finds traps: the dwarf. The OD&D game has a stealthy character type: the halfling. The OD&D game has a character type that reads old, dead languages on maps: the magic-user (with the proper spell). The OD&D game has a character type that "hears noise" well: demi-humans. Does the game need to combine all these abilities in a single package?

What happened to having a party of multiple individuals contributing their individual skills, being forced to rely upon one another?

I think...I think that instead of including a "thief" class, I'd prefer to include a list of "adventuring skills" that player characters could choose from. Maybe someone is adept at free-climbing. Maybe someone is good at setting (and disarming) small traps. Etc. Characters could take a number of these skills based on their intelligence score (learning one such skill in place of a language they might otherwise know).

Maybe I'll include other skills like tracking, woodcraft, and herb lore (for healing).

I wouldn't tie success chances to level...skills would be either you have it or not. Climb sheer walls with 90% ability (penalties if doing it in windy, rainy, or snow conditions)...or whatever. Some players could build their own thief, mixing and matching the skills they want. Perhaps a magic-user was a street conjurer and pickpocket prior to her apprenticeship. Perhaps a fighter is skilled at commando-like stealth, having been a scout for the army. Whatever.

We've been playing OD&D without thieves for a while now, and I really don't miss the class. As a DM, I like having a character type that can pickpocket and backstab, but I don't like seeing it in my players' adventuring party (not in a "dedicated-to-this-way-of-life" type of fashion). My players haven't missed the class or complained about its absence. But they might appreciate adding an extra distinction to their character.

Yeah, thieves. I'm kind of done with them.

Oh My.

I suppose I should know better than to post rants penned in the wee hours of the morning following copious consumption of red wine, but sometimes the urge to hit that little orange "publish" button is so darn hard to ignore. Ah, well.

However, I do know better than to expect any sort of agreement from such a contradictory stance...I mean, it's pretty silly in the light of day to pretend that the game hasn't been doing its damnedest to define the six ability scores as something other than class-assigned mechanics ever since the first set of rule books was published. In fact, it's as ridiculous for me to state otherwise as is the publishers' various attempts to do so.

So why bother doing so? Why get mad about something that already has buy-in from so many D&D players of all stripes and generations? Just because I want to poke the bear? Generate a bunch of comments on my blog.

No, no. It was just the wine, really...loosening my already lax self-restraint. I've been having these particular thoughts lately, see? About the ascendance of importance of ability scores. And it's really started to bug me...like some hard-to-reach itch or a nagging irritation or kink in the neck that you just can't quite work out. Because it IS silly...the mechanical importance that has been attached, over time, to certain descriptive qualities that offered minor adjustments to specific individual game systems. What was once a bit of generosity has instead become all-encompassing definitions of one's fictional persona, leading to all sorts of unwelcome practices: perception rolls, social rolls, etc.

Once upon a time someone asked: "Why must my character be as stupid as me when HE has an intelligence of 18? Why must I, the shy and not-so-smooth gamer geek have to 'role-play' some interaction with an NPC, when my character has this humongous charisma stat? It's not like Bob doesn't get to "bend bars" with his 18/00 strength score...and Bob can't even do a chin-up in real life!"

AND WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN SAID (by the DM) IS:

"The characters are our avatars in the imaginary world. Ability scores provide numbers that describe certain measurable aspects that of the character that directly impact specific systems. Strength measures ability in melee combat and certain physical feats. Intelligence measures mental capacity for working magic and learning languages. Charisma measures the character's ability to make a first impression and engender loyalty in followers. Wisdom measures insight into the "clerical mysteries" and innate resistance to magical attacks. But that's ALL the numbers represent...they are a measure of certain measurable aspects. But just because you have the intelligence to master magic doesn't make you 'smart;' it means you've got a good handle on a particular career path when choosing your character's class."

That's what could have been said. It wasn't. Instead attempts have been made to fit agility, speed, reflexes, hand-eye coordination, depth perception, balance, etc. all under the single heading of "dexterity." Instead pages and pages of internet ink and silly arguments have been made trying to clearly delineate the distinctions between "intelligence" and "wisdom."

And designers from various (MOST) editions of D&D have attempted to use the ability scores as the basis for some type of skill system. And I hate skill systems...especially ones that try to use a universal mechanic to model all skills when clearly nothing could be LESS universal than "skills."

Is carpentry a skill? Is medicine a skill? I have little training in either of these, but I can learn to make a passable birdhouse or picnic table far easier than I could perform surgery. And not because it's easier to saw wood than cut flesh with a knife! But I made a working catapult when I was an eight-year old Cub Scout; I made a (poorly) working crossbow when I was but a year or two older...not that I could, for the life of me, remember now HOW exactly I did these things.

Once upon a time I was a single guy who would get dates with girls. Was this a skill? Maybe...it was a matter of learning particular social cues and finding the courage to talk to women (and the brains to listen to their own subjects of interest and not bore them overly with my own). I'd say it took me a long time to "learn" it...it wasn't until I was 19 or 20 that I really got the knack for it after perhaps a decade of trying. And even afterward it was always a difficult task...always hard to control yourself when you're with a person who's making your emotional self fire off in all sorts of unpredictable ways.

Skill systems also fail to take into account atrophy. I was once a pretty good (stage) actor...though I always had difficulty with the memorization of lines. But it's been a quarter century since the last time I was on stage; I sincerely doubt I could turn in the same kind of performance I could at my "peak," when I was reeling off reams of blank verse and captivating audiences. And it's not because my body has degenerated (the way my knees have...I definitely couldn't fence the way I did when I was in my twenties!)...I just haven't practiced my craft in decades and I've allowed my skills to lapse. This happens...I got pretty expert at laying paving stones a couple summers back when I spent eight weeks doing nothing but landscaping my back yard. Today, I can barely remember the first thing about it.

Still, I'm digressing. Here's the deal: I don't disagree that a strong character shouldn't get some (slight) bonus to a task of physical labor for which she is untrained...nor that a weak character should suffer some penalty to the same. But for the game I play (and, sure, I understand not everyone plays as I do), I feel that a character's class IS the bulk of the character's training...that's where the emphasis should be and ability scores a minor consideration as far as representing a character's "skill."

Apologies for the inflammatory scribbles.

For the Love of God...

...please, PLEASE stop using "ability checks."

Ability checks are nothing but sheer f'ing laziness, whether we're talking "roll under" or "roll versus target with ability bonuses." Just stop it. StoooooOOOOP IT, please!

Stop mistaking characters for something other than the player who's playing the character. Just stop. Stop now. If I am playing a character with a high Intelligence score that doesn't make him a frigging genius...and if he has a low Intelligence score it doesn't make him an imbecile. Nor does a specific Charisma or Wisdom score represent aspects of my personality (i.e. the player's personality) that I am obligated to play. It doesn't! It is unfortunate that the name carries connotations that expand the mechanic beyond the scope of what it's intended for but...well let's just talk sense for a moment.

Let's start with "Intelligence." Forget the name for the moment. Just forget it. Call it something else...anything! Call it "Wizard's Prime Requisite" (which it is...originally anyway). Call it "ability X" for all I care. Just divorce the mechanic from the connotation that comes with naming it "intelligence." Let's just call it "X" for now...or, better yet, call it "INT."

INT is a random attribute that determines how skilled a magic-user character is at learning his or her craft. That was the thing's original definition. Later, this wasn't simply designated mechanically with the acquisition of experience points (bonuses and penalties to XP) , but also included how well the magic-user learned spells (chances to learn, minimum/maximum numbers per level). Parenthetically it also provided a number of extra languages the character might know, presumably because it represented some sort of scholarly pursuits, even if the character was not trained specifically in the skills of a magic-user.

That's it. It doesn't mean a character is more perceptive: lots of well-read or knowledgable individuals are hopelessly obtuse about all sorts of things. A high intelligence doesn't equate with the ability to solve riddles or craft wooden furniture. Having an INT of 18 doesn't make someone "MacGuyver." It doesn't even mean the character is a particularly good student...except insofar as we're talking about being a student of magic. But you can be a stupid, stupid person and still great at your job. Happens all the time. D&D is not about "renaissance men (and women)" skilled in a variety of tasks and careers.

Wisdom isn't a stat that measures how "wise" or "intuitive" or "insightful" is your character. It's a measure of your character's ability to advance as a cleric. Again, forget the the word "wisdom;" it's a short-hand term, and a confusing one. Just call it WIS. Later editions provided that it made clerics even better (by giving them additional spells). For the non-clerics it acted as an adjustment to saving throws versus magic (though why exactly was never really made clear...certainly this was a late development in a game that mechanically went nearly unchanged between the mid-70's and 1999). You can be an extremely devoted zealot, well-versed in the tenets of your religion...or a doubter and closet agnostic who nevertheless has a firm grip on the ways of "universal (divine) law." Despite the name given to the ability, an 18 WIS doesn't make you wise; there's nothing "wise" about being an adventurer. There's nothing "wise" about joining a band of cutthroats and delving into ancient mines and tombs full of horrible ways to die. It is a MECHANIC with an unfortunate name, nothing more.

Charisma? It's not a measure of your personality. It's a measure of your abstract "it" factor, how much people naturally trust you and your immediate likability. It gives a bonus or penalty to reaction, something only checked in an initial encounter...your ability to make a first impression, probably based as much on your carriage, manner of speech, and straightness of teeth as much as anything else. Why do some people attract sycophants and fantastical followers while others have a tougher time making friends? Why do some people get elected president despite being eminently unqualified for the position? Why are some people blessed with popularity even when their words and actions are sheer nonsense? Eventually, all but the unfortunate few will see through the facade to a person's true worth based on his or her actual actions...and the length of time that takes to become disillusioned can be slowed or speeded depending on the depth to which that initial first impression got made. But it happens eventually...and probably sooner if the person shows herself to be a monster right from the get-go.

The same holds true of all the ability scores. Strength is a measure of fighting ability, not athletic ability. Originally, dexterity measure only marksmanship; later it was used to measure thieving ability (both as a thief's prime requisite and in bonuses/penalties to thief skills). Constitution adjusts a character's ability to withstand damage, not her ability to resist disease or hold her breath or sustain a sprint over distance.

I'm sorry, but I'm irritated. Hell, I'm angry. I'm mad at 5th edition and 4th edition and 3rd edition and 2nd edition (with its non-weapon proficiencies) and BECMI's "General Skills" (from the Gazetteers and, later, the Rules Cyclopedia). Hell, I'm mad at Tom Moldvay's admonition on page B60 of the B/X (Basic) Rules that:

"The DM may want to base a character's chance of doing something on his or her ability scores...to perform a difficult task (such as climbing up a rope or thinking of a forgotten clue), the player should roll the ability score or less on 1d20."

Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!

Characters are trained in the skills of their class. They're not "renaissance men (and women)." They are not taking night courses at community college. They're not hitting the gym or practicing aerial aerobics. They're not shelling out money at the hot yoga studio to increase their flexibility and focus. They're not researching the internet for the best diets to and exercises to maintain health and fitness, nor to see how to build a rowboat from scratch or live off the land or fletch their own arrows. WE can do that...even in the days before the internet we had libraries and city colleges and trade schools and a military industrial complex capable of churning out trained soldiers from hopelessly soft civilians in a matter of months based on carefully crafted science of physical and mental conditioning. But that's us...21st century people.

Stop using ability scores to define the character holistically. It's a terrible simplification. Gygax would have done well to have NEVER suggested the inclusion of "secondary skills" in AD&D, but even he provided a near-20% chance of a character having NO SKILL OF MEASURABLE WORTH. A fighter is trained to kill people, not forge and repair armor, not execute standing broad jumps or pole vault or climb like a spider. Thieves are trained to steal (in various ways); they are not tumblers and acrobats, no matter what their DEX score is. Acrobats are trained to do these kinds of things, and I encourage anyone to add such a class to their game if they find those skills desirable (I even wrote up an "acrobat" for The Complete B/X Adventurer). But don't look at a 16 dexterity as an 80% chance to perform such feats. Knowing one set of skills doesn't translate to another set (see professional soccer players versus professional baseball players versus professional ballet dancers).

Stop with the ability checks. Your wizard's 18 intelligence means she's an impressively knowledgable wizard for her level of experience. It doesn't make her an impressively intelligent person. It doesn't make her better at finding secret doors or sussing out ambush's or identifying things she's had no experience with. Your cleric's 18 wisdom makes her an impressively accomplished cleric for her level of experience...it doesn't mean she's wise. She's only as wise as YOU, the player, make her. If you decide to open the chest without searching for traps or decide it's a good idea to make a deal with a greater demon, there's ZERO RESPONSIBILITY on the DM to have you reconsider these un-wise actions. The stat is called "wisdom" but that's just a word; stop thinking of it as more than a term.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry to irritate people. I'm sorry to once again yell about things that are indelibly ingrained into some (most) D&D players' psyches, wasting everyone's blessed time, especially my own. But I was once again reading some blog on which someone was (once again) complaining about some aspect of 5E ability checks they didn't like...as if some checks were "good" and others were bad...and just, no. No. Stop the madness. There are no "good" ability checks. There are no good "skill systems" for D&D. Your character class tells you what you can do. Your ability scores might adjust some aspects of effectiveness. But YOU, player: YOU are the one responsible for working with what you've got. I don't care what your character's Intelligence or Charisma is. Your Strength and Dexterity scores mean jack-all to me outside the adjustments the game rules explicitly provide. If you can't figure stuff out, tough shit.

You need a boat? Buy one or pay someone to build it for you. You're not boatbuilder. This isn't MacGuyver; it's D&D. Boatbuilder isn't an available character class.

Stop with the ability checks already.
[vented at 2am]

Surprise and Surrender (Thief Incentives P. 2)

[continued from here]

I think it's rather telling that several of the thief skill percentages (open locks, find/remove traps, and pick pockets) were increased in AD&D to that of an OD&D/B/X thief of the 3rd level, even before adding racial bonuses or adjustments for ability scores and lack of armor (see the Unearthed Arcana).  That right there provides me with a justification for adding bonuses based on dexterity, as postulated in my prior post.

Still, though, let's talk about giving the 1st level thieves reasons for using those skills.

Open locks is rather straightforward, and doesn't really carry much risk. Assuming the thief can afford her tools, there's no reason NOT to try opening locks that are found. You'll be saving your wizard the use of a knock spell, and giving your party a chance to preserve treasure chests (for carting coins), and moving stealthily (rather than chopping down locked doors). Upping the percentage chance via a dexterity bonus just ensures an increased level of effectiveness (i.e. the locks will open more often than they would otherwise).

Climbing sheer surfaces, which I take to mean "free climbing" (without rope or equipment), carries a fairly sizable risk: death. It is explicit in the text that a failed roll results in a fall from the halfway point of the climb (checked once every 100'), and multiple D6s of damage is generally going to splatter a low-level thief all over the flagstone. That's pretty rough. On the other hand, the thief's chance of success is 87% even without a possible dexterity adjustment (and here I'd only add +1% per ability "pip," rather than +5%) meaning there's very little possibility of failure even at 1st level. Cautious thieves making extensive climbs (requiring multiple checks) might make use of spikes and ropes to prevent falls once the first successful roll has been made (tying off at the 100' mark).

Hearing noise and finding traps has the same success chance for the 1st level thief as most other player characters (they hear like a demihuman and should never have less than the 1 in 6 chance of discovering a trap that any non-dwarf PC has); as such, performing those skills aren't any more "risky" than any other character (the only risk is in potentially failing to spot a trap or hear an opponent). Removing traps is another issue, and should always receive the suggested dexterity bonus. However, it's important to note that NO WHERE in the (B/X) text does it state a failure at trap removal results in springing the trap. The example of Black Dougal dying from a poison needle comes not from missing a disarm check but, rather, from failing to detect the trap on the chest, and then proceeding to open the chest anyway. It is likewise important to notice that Dougal still receives a saving throw (just as any other PC would) and at low levels requires a 13+ to avoid the traps effects. That's a bit like saying the character had an additional 40% chance of "deactivating" the trap (assuming that the trap is only capable of delivering its damage once) and that, I think, is a reasonable risk to take to save the entire party a bit of heartache.

[the 20% chance to remove (assuming DEX16+) + 40% chance to save results in an overall success rate of 52%...better than the chance to hit armor class 8 at as a 1st level character]

Hiding in shadows and moving silently are those skills that allow thieves to stealth around like ninjas, and have a low chance of success even with a dexterity adjustment. However, both interact powerfully with the surprise rules in B/X. Hiding in shadows allows the thief to become invisible in even the slightest darkness, though it is clear from the AD&D text that creatures with infravision will still detect a thief unless there is a nearby torch or heat source (like the kind that might cast shadows...*ahem*). B/X plainly states that infravision is useless even with in "magical light" (page B21), meaning thieves can feel fairly confident of remaining hidden in any situation where they themselves can see their opponents (i.e. due to the presence of illumination). In a fantasy setting like D&D, such an effect can seem semi-magical (a sudden vanishing into darkness), similar to the supernatural portrayal of the assassin's disguise skill in the television series Game of Thrones. There is no stipulation that the thief need be unobserved to perform the skill; a simple skill check allows the character to fade from sight instantly...and as well should provide complete cover (as per page B26). In a normal combat situation (with party members relying on light sources), a successful hide in shadows should allow the discreet thief to completely avoid injury except of the collateral variety (errant fireballs and whatnot). A hidden thief should be able to attempt a surprise roll (possibly at a bonus) with no possibility of being surprised herself, save by invisible creatures.

[creatures with powerful olfactory senses might be a different story, however]

Moving silently allows thieves to sneak up on (or past) guards and creatures, facilitating a better than usual surprise chance. Bugbears "move very quietly" and achieve surprise on a 1-3 "due to their stealth" and the thief who succeeds at her skill roll should receive a similar (and probably better) bonus. After all, the thief is moving silently, not just quietly; for me, I'd probably allow a successful roll to indicate automatic surprise for the thief (an opponent fails to notice the thief until she is already lunging for the attack). However, even on a failed roll, the thief should still receive the normal surprise chance of any other character (2 in 6 chance); thus, similarly to the "remove traps" skill, the chance of the thief to achieve her aim (surprise) is actually greater than the skill percentage would indicate: about 53% for a 1st level thief (assuming the +10% bonus of a 16 dexterity).

And a thief that obtains surprise should always be allowed her "backstab" bonus.

Finally, we have the somewhat problematic pick pockets skill. Problematic as the book's example shows the thief stealing from an NPC member of the thief's own party; even the basic class description contains the text:

As their name indicates, however, they do steal -- sometimes from members of their own party.

...which sets a fairly bad precedent, considering we want players to be working together, cooperatively. Fostering inter-party conflict is NOT conducive to long-term sustainability!

I know some folks use the skill as a catchall for any sleight-of-hand a thief might want to perform, but really, how many times do you need a stage magician in a dungeon setting? Not many.

No, let's look at the typical Oliver/Fagin-esque ability. Unlike AD&D with it's "dice for random item" method of determining what's been pilfered, no such stipulation is made in B/X; my assumption is that the thief can choose what she's going to lift on a successful check. And while I would NOT recommend stealing from one's fellow party members (NPC or not) there is, I think, an oft overlooked way the pickpocket skill is underutilized: as a means of escaping capture.

"Capture? I thought DMs were supposed to avoid imprisoning PCs because such de-protagonization sucks, JB." Be that as it may, PCs can still choose to voluntarily surrender...and why shouldn't they, especially when faced with overwhelming odds? Most intelligent opponents will accept surrender, rather than risk more bloodshed to their own people. Lawful species (dwarves, elves, etc.) can be expected to treat such prisoners humanely, and humans of any ilk will likewise prefer captives, either to prosecute under their society's laws, to attempt to secure ransom, or to impress their prisoners into labor (bandits and pirates might offer captives a chance to "join up"). Even cannibalistic humanoids are unlikely to butcher PCs that surrender, instead keeping captives alive for later consumption; killing them all at once would lead to "food spoilage," after all (and besides, by the time surrender comes, there might already be casualties fit for stew pots).

Here's the thing: being captured probably won't make PCs as vulnerable as one might suspect. It's not like they're going to be slapped in stainless steel handcuffs or leg shackles. They probably won't even be bound (being surrounded by armed warriors after divesting themselves of weapons being considered sufficient precaution). The characters will be marched off to whatever passes for a "holding cell" and thieves will have plenty of opportunity to pilfer the key to the cell, or a knife to cut cords, or some other useful item. Once secluded, the party will have ample opportunity to escape by whatever means the thief has managed to secure.

[or course, the thief may very well have her lock picks anyway. Unless the PC has some humongous reputation, she's unlikely to be recognized as a "thief" but rather a lower class (i.e. "poor") fighter...besides which medieval jailers are unlikely to do serious "pat-downs" for anything smaller than a hand weapon. Regardless, a successful pocket picking can allow the thief to purloin a key (removing the need for an open locks check) or a small knife (as a means of defense and backstabbing once escape has been obtained)]

The point being that the inclusion of a thief...even a first level apprentice...provides a party with additional options, not simply limited to fight and flight.

Thoughts? Are these ideas enough incentive?

Incentivizing Thief Skills (Part 1)

Yesterday, I wrote about my re-kindled romance with the B/X system of Dungeons & Dragons and my need to address a couple of its (few) inadequacies. The first of these is a certain minimal level of survivability, to take some of the crapshoot out of the early adventure sessions (where a character can get themselves killed with a single unlucky roll). That probably deserves another post, offering additional reasons to use the proposed fortune mechanic, but first I wanted to address the other (glaring) barrier to sustainability: the lack of effectiveness found in certain classes.

This post will be about thieves; the next one will address magic-users.

I've written a lot about the thief class over the years...this will be my 20th post that includes the "thief" label. What can I say: it brings up a lot of topics for discussion. However, most of the thoughts I blogged in my last post on the subject still stand. I'll try to summarize them:

• The thief character offers a unique play style focused on gambling that, thematically, fits the class rather well.
• Removing thief skill checks (as I've done in the past) remove both this thematic play style, and removes the joy of development that comes from increased character effectiveness with advancement.
• The skill percentages, as listed make the success chance so low as to provide no incentive (risk/reward) for attempting skill use at low levels.
• The thief's lack of overall survivability (low hit points, low armor class) coupled with a lack of production makes for a character that few would want to play...at least not if forced to begin at level one.

One idea I floated in the post was the idea of adding a bonus to a thief's skill chances based on their Dexterity score: basically a +5% bonus multiplied by the standard B/X ability adjustment (+1 for 13-15, +2 for 16-17, +3 for 18). As DEX is the prime requisite of thieves, it is easy enough for beginning players to adjust the score upwards at chargen, ensuring a bonus of +5-15% to the beginning thief skills. But is that adequate? Let's examine how that looks:

	Dex 9-12	Dex 13-15	Dex 16-17	Dex 18
Open Locks	15%	20%	25%	30%
Remove Traps/ Hide in Shadows	10%	15%	20%	25%
Pick Pockets/ Move Silently	20%	25%	30%	35%
Climb Sheer Surfaces	87%	92%	97%	99%

Do put this in perspective with actual thief skill progression in B/X, with the exception of climb sheer surfaces, a thief with a dexterity of 13-15 adds one level of effectiveness, 16-17 adds two levels of effectiveness, and a dexterity of 18 adds three levels of effectiveness. As a longtime B/X Dungeon Master, I've come to assume that most players will increase their prime requisite to 16 (in order to maximize their experience bonus), meaning most such PCs will be playing with the talents of a 3rd level thief.

[with the exception of the climbing, which is equivalent to an 11th level master thief]

Leaving aside the climbing skill, we see there are three basic percentages: removing traps/hiding (the worst percentage, i.e. most difficult), picking pockets/moving silently (the best, i.e. easiest), and opening locks (the middle difficulty, though requiring "thieves tools" for use...see page X10).

Comparing these to the attack tables, we see that the starting percentages are the same as a thief attempting to attack AC 0, AC 1, and AC 2...all armor classes rarely encountered by 1st level characters in B/X. Adding the proposed +10% bonus for a dexterity of 16 betters this to AC 3, AC 4, and AC 5...still difficult considering standard armor class for most creatures on the L1 wandering monster table top at AC 7. Is this enough of an improvement to encourage actual skill use by the 1st level thief?

The question is really one of incentive: does the possible reward outweigh the high degree of risk that comes with using one's skills?

Clearly there are potential benefits for using thief skills. Most allow the PC to reach treasure that might not be readily accessible, being guarded by traps and locks, located in hard to reach (high) locations, in the pockets of opponents, or in areas where stealth could enable the saving of resources (HPs, spells, etc.). But in many cases a frontal assault can prove far more effective: attacking guards allows the entire party to bring their might to bear, as well as providing a better chance of success (assuming the usual low level opponent types), and dividing risk among multiple participants. And who needs to pick locks when you can break a latch with an axe or crowbar? Is there any other possible incentive besides "looking cool?"

2nd edition AD&D was the first D&D edition to provide XP to thieves (*ahem* -- "rogues") for the use of their special abilities, at a rate of 100 per pop. That's 100 experience points for the successful use of an ability. Considering that the rate of advancement is nearly unchanged from B/X (1250 for 2nd level and 2500 for 3rd) AND that starting rogues can have skill percentages as high as 70% to 75% for non-climbing skills(!!), it's hard not to see this as another example of 2E's misguided design parameters. But the concept of awarding XP for skill use is not a terrible one.

How many legitimate opportunities does a thief get to try their skills in an average game session? Six to eight? Less? With an average success rate of some 28% (35% with a 16 dexterity and receiving a 10% bonus) we're talking some 200-300 extra XP per session. Quite a nice little bonus for a low level character, though one whose importance fades as the character gains levels and requires more XP to advance.

That being said, is it right to give the thief class such a bonus? Is it fair? Unlike XP for treasure and monster defeats, such individual awards...an incentive for the the player to attempt a risky maneuver...are going solely to one character. And it just happens to be the character whose class already has the fastest rate of advancement (well, until 11th level; that's when the cleric passes the thief in speed). Would such an incentive breed incentive in the non-thief players at the table? I can see the argument that the player is risking their own skin in a way that other classes aren't (magic-user's spells have no chance of failure and are generally performed at a distance, while front-line fighters have heavy armor and extra hit points to increase their survivability)...but still, there's a bit of inequity there.

What if the XP bonus was reduced to 50 points per successful skill use? Would this curb the possible resentment? Would such a reduction negate the thief's incentive of trying skills except in the most exceptional circumstances?

Here's the thing: the issue is one of base competence for the thief character. A 1-in-10 or 1-in-5 chance of success is not good enough for most folks to risk their lives...especially when any reward (i.e. treasure recovered) is going to be shared out equally amongst individuals who did not take part in the risk. And while a 1-in-3 or 1-in-4 chance (adding DEX bonuses) is a LOT better, there's still a lack of incentive to perform as required when alternative options (hacking and slashing) are available. Survivability is still a consideration here...dead thieves can't spend gold.

[and I would not allow thieves to spend fortune points when using thief skills...that removes the gambling aspect of the class]

So...what to do? Lacking the standard XP carrot (because going down that rabbit hole would probably lead to a bunch of house ruled individual XP awards for different classes, leading to the gradual drifting away of the the whole D&D reward system predicated on PCs working together for the common goal of getting rich)...*ahem* Lacking the standard XP carrot, I feel the incentive must come in the form of increased effectiveness of the thief skills themselves. More "bang for one's buck" is needed, to make the risk of failure worth the possible reward.

But as this post is getting a bit long, I'll write about that in a follow-up.