TheRPGSite

Found in one of the latest articles here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120507).  

What do you think of this assessment?

RPGPundit

I am mildly annoyed by the use of "myth" and "legend" to mean "kewl supernatural abilities".

I posted the article in the DndNext thread already but overall I don't mind the goals except I would prefer skills get evenly distributed to every archetype with the siloing occuring in areas of focus instead.  That's just me though.

As I stated in the D&D Next thread, too superhero and not picaresque enough for my tastes.

I dislike how designers hamstring Fighters to make designspace for Rogues. Narrowing the scope of each class (except generalist Magic Users) to fit roles (THAT CHARACTERS MUST ALWAYS STICK TO TO BE EFFECTIVE) is too much like Japanese computer rpgs. Fighters should get as much mechanical advantage for not fighting fair.

Rogues skill mastery auto-success hoopla sounds awful to me.

As someone who mostly likes to play Thieves and sometimes Fighters as a player, I like the general message of the post. Social skills are still not something I consider good for the game, but the rest of the suggested abilities are par for course in high-level play. If the extraordinary abilities are kept to higher power levels, people can just stick to the lower end and middle of the curve.

This here is a pretty likeable understanding of Thief abilities:

QuoteRogue are in a class by themselves when it comes to attempting ability checks and using skills. Not only is a rogue more skilled than other classes, but he or she can achieve many difficult tasks without much exertion. To the rogue, luck and chance play no role in determining success. The rogue's talent and training make such concerns negligible.

Traditionally, the mechanics of D&D have reflected better training by increasing the chance of success. That doesn't quite capture the rogue's level of talent. The rogue isn't just more likely to succeed. Instead, he or she takes success for granted in most cases. It's only when facing a real challenge that the rogue must worry about the outcome.

And from Philotomy's musings (http://philotomy.com/#thieves):

QuoteWhile 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.

As an example, consider the act of sneaking up behind a human sentry. The Fighting Man takes of his mail and hard boots, and makes an effort to be quiet on his approach. I'd probably give him an increased chance of surprising the sentry: maybe 3 or 4 in 6, depending on the exact circumstances. If a Thief were trying the same thing, he'd use his move silently ability. If the Thief makes his roll, he's moving without making any audible noise, and since he's out of the sentry's line of sight (i.e. behind him), I'd give him automatic surprise. If the Thief failed his move silently roll, he made some noise, but he's still moving quietly; I'd give him the same chance to surprise as the stealthy Fighting Man (i.e. 3 or 4 in 6).

Quote from: Sean !;537250I dislike how designers hamstring Fighters to make designspace for Rogues. Narrowing the scope of each class (except generalist Magic Users) to fit roles (THAT CHARACTERS MUST ALWAYS STICK TO TO BE EFFECTIVE) is too much like Japanese computer rpgs. Fighters should get as much mechanical advantage for not fighting fair.

Rogues skill mastery auto-success hoopla sounds awful to me.

This would never be an issue if every archetype got the same amount of skill points and the same access/costs to a list of general skills with reduced costs in their archetypal skills. Or just flat out give every archetype the same number of class skills and full access to a general list at same cost for all archetypes. As Melan points out Rogue abilities are something any archetype can do but the rogue should get bonuses on top. Much like a fighter in a stand up combat.

The easiest method is just give Rougue more 'skill points' this will mean they have more skills and the skills they have will be better. It doesn't preclude a fighter learning to move silently or a wizard learning read languages it just enables rougues to be bteer at it.

On Ben's point I am also loath to see High level rougues getting Superpowers but generally speaking in myth an legend that is what happens.

Quote from: Sean !;537250Rogues skill mastery auto-success hoopla sounds awful to me.

They might just be taking the fiddly rolling bits out of climbing, jumping, and the like. There are a lot of skills that a rogue really ought to not roll in combat, if only to keep things down around a roll per round.

x-posting for relevance from the D&D Next thread

Quote:

QuoteOriginally Posted by John Morrow  
I disagree. I think all classes have justification for skills and would rather see all classes have decent skill acquisitions so that players can choose to have their characters have things to do out of combat. A Fighter could learn how to fix weapons and armor, carouse, or deal with courtly etiquette. A Cleric or Magic user could learn history or have investigation skills. And so on. And what I've seen the concentration of skill points in Thief do in 3.x is encourage players to take a few levels of Rogue just to get skill points, which is the tail wagging the dog. I think this is the wrong way to go with Rogues.

I'd much rather see Rogues be master of movement and not getting hurt. They should have the ability to move silently in shadows without being seen, move through combat without getting hit, roll with hits to lesson the demage, land from falls without getting hurt, flee from opponents chasing them, move across uneven terrain without penalty, and be able to use vertical surfaces to move. I'm thinking less full-blown acrobat and more parkour (that page has a good list of maneuvers one could start with, too). Stuff like this. They should also have the ability to not only spot but dodge out of the way of traps that have been sprung.

I don't think that makes sense.
Just to do their job Rogues needs additional skills
Hide in Shadows, move silently, pick locks, pick pocketc, etc etc ... A fighter with no skills can still do his job, ie hit stuff, and a wizard can do his job, cast spells. The Rogue is in effect a collection of their skills.

Also the rogue you outline is just one sort of rogue I want to have acces sto a myriad of rogues archetypes, from the deft acrobat to the fat greasy fence to the glib con man. Narrowing the class to just be uber competant at one aspect is something players can do for an individual PC but nopt something you do for hte entire class.

Rogues as more skillful doesn't seem like it would quite work if they're trying to make the game so that skills are optional.
 
Anyway, I'd rather that things integral to classes be treated as class features (e.g. how 3E handled wild empathy or bardic knowledge) rather than be separate skills; there's no point having optional skills that you end up having to take. I'd rather have skills kept for interesting flavour/background abilities - like crafts, knowledges and professions.
 
 
Not a fan of skill auto-success (I even hate take-10), or the uber social skills(I'd rather use a Charisma check if I had to dice it).

There are things that characters can do that doesn't involve fighting or spell casting.  That it is perfectly D&Dish that there are classes that can do them better than other classes. In my mind, the Rogue is one of those types of classes.

It would be ideal that they would get away from focusing on the Rogue role in combat and focus more on the skills or abilities that the Rogue has. That the core rules actually contains a class that not really part of the combat game. And goes further and explains how a campaign can be organized so that such a class has a important role even outshining the other classes in certain situations.

In my opinion this would be a crucial elements in returning the D&D mechanics to being more than just a combat oriented game like it was in 4e.

Quote from: estar;537307There are things that characters can do that doesn't involve fighting or spell casting.  That it is perfectly D&Dish that there are classes that can do them better than other classes. In my mind, the Rogue is one of those types of classes.

It would be ideal that they would get away from focusing on the Rogue role in combat and focus more on the skills or abilities that the Rogue has. That the core rules actually contains a class that not really part of the combat game. And goes further and explains how a campaign can be organized so that such a class has a important role even outshining the other classes in certain situations.

In my opinion this would be a crucial elements in returning the D&D mechanics to being more than just a combat oriented game like it was in 4e.

Totally agree.
It's why I liked the reference to the 3 Pillars of design as 'Roleplay' (social is better), Exploration and Combat because it means they are thinking about games that aren't just about combat.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;537302Rogues as more skillful doesn't seem like it would quite work if they're trying to make the game so that skills are optional.
 
Anyway, I'd rather that things integral to classes be treated as class features (e.g. how 3E handled wild empathy or bardic knowledge) rather than be separate skills; there's no point having optional skills that you end up having to take. I'd rather have skills kept for interesting flavour/background abilities - like crafts, knowledges and professions.
 
 
Not a fan of skill auto-success (I even hate take-10), or the uber social skills(I'd rather use a Charisma check if I had to dice it).

I think having a skill system that thieves use is essential. Every version of D&D since thieves were introduced had a skill system for them to do thiefy stuff its just it was a separate skill system that didn't fit with anything else.

So you include the skill system as a core part of the Rogue class and then you give the option to open the sytem up to all PCs if you want to use the skill option in your game.

Also making the rogues skills optional just means you can play different sorts of rogues. So drop hide in shadows and focus on lock pick, drop read languages and focus on disguise or whatever. The 2e kits give you enough ideas for different sorts of rogue with different balances of skills.

I would assume that class abilities would be obligated at the most basic version of the game. Then a level up become one of a set of class options (aka feats) then at the very top become one of a pool of options/feats open to all. The DM just chooses where to set the dial.

Maybe your templates give you skillsets and the class + level decides how well you execute them - So a Fighter with Street Urchin Template has thievery/hidey skills but can't do them as well as Rogue with Street Urchin.

But Rogue with Merchant, Thug or Seductress etc is a different Rogue entirely

Quote from: Sean !;537313Maybe your templates give you skillsets and the class + level decides how well you execute them - So a Fighter with Street Urchin Template has thievery/hidey skills but can't do them as well as Rogue with Street Urchin.

But Rogue with Merchant, Thug or Seductress etc is a different Rogue entirely

I agree that is a great design option (my heartbreaker takes a similar route) but isn't it easier to give the fighter x skill points and the thief 2x rather than set as defined from a set template & level combination because you don't want all street urchin fighters to be indentikits.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537315I agree that is a great design option (my heartbreaker takes a similar route) but isn't it easier to give the fighter x skill points and the thief 2x rather than set as defined from a set template & level combination because you don't want all street urchin fighters to be indentikits.

It's easier and I understang what you mean about identikits but giving thieves twice the skills reinforces Fighters as less skilled than Rogues whereas I would prefer Fighters to be just as many skills - just not able to put off Rogue-ish stuff as well as Rogues.

Quote from: Sean !;537316It's easier and I understang what you mean about identikits but giving thieves twice the skills reinforces Fighters as less skilled than Rogues whereas I would prefer Fighters to be just as skilled - just not able to put off Rogue-ish as well as Rogues.

But fighters get a slew of stuff they can do outside the skill space. Combat moves, specialisation etc etc .
Thieves only get their skill stuff.

Look at it practically. From 1e the thief at 1st level has 6 skills 4 if you compress them. Stealth (Hide in shadows/Move Silently), Pick Pockets, climb walls, Mechanics (Open Lock/Remove Traps). That really defines the class.
They have 2 Feats, Thieves Cant and Backstab.
They have horrible to hit tables and d6 hit dice and are restricted to Leather armour.

A fighter can already fight far better than a thief. If you give them 6 skills as well I think it unbalances the game and erodes the thief niche. Even if you say 'thief skills cost a fighter double' you get into issues with barbarian and ranger sub fighters.
A ranger should be able to move silently as well as a thief, a barbarian should be able to climb walls as well. etc etc ...

So the easiest was , remembering KISS, is to give the thief more skill points and let them spend them as they wilt. The majority of thieves will spread them across all their required skills so the ranger who spends skill on "stealth" will be just as good as most thieves who need to buy all their class skills.

In my heartbreaker I have gone a step futher and the GM builds templates under the 3 classes. These templates have access to differrent skill lists so the Ranger and Barbarian figther archetypes have access to a wilderness skill list that includes 'stealth' as a skill. The same stealth skill appears on other skill lists as well.  Now in my game the rogue bosses the 1/3 of the design base I term Skills (the warrior bosses combat and the Wizard bosses Magic) so they get access to more skills.
This seemed like the simplest design choice. Though I can accept that some players don't like a PC to have more than a handful of skills.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;537302Rogues as more skillful doesn't seem like it would quite work if they're trying to make the game so that skills are optional.
 
Anyway, I'd rather that things integral to classes be treated as class features (e.g. how 3E handled wild empathy or bardic knowledge) rather than be separate skills; there's no point having optional skills that you end up having to take. I'd rather have skills kept for interesting flavour/background abilities - like crafts, knowledges and professions.
 
 
Not a fan of skill auto-success (I even hate take-10), or the uber social skills(I'd rather use a Charisma check if I had to dice it).

DING!

Thief abilities should be hardwired into the class and completely separate from skills which can then be optional.

This way, every class can have the same allotment of skill resources without nerfing the thief.

Also, while some skills can work as a poor mans thief abilities, the actual thief abilities should be far superior. For example any character can take the stealth skill which aids in sneaking around. The thief (only) will have move silently as a class ability.

While a character using stealth must check against those trying to hear him/her, the thief using MS successfully makes absolutely no noise much like wearing elven boots.

Likewise any character can take climbing, but only thieves can climb sheer surfaces without tools.


This allows the thief to do its thing with or without the skill system in place.

If the fighter class is done to encompass a broad range of types then the combat rogue can be done using the fighter class and the right skills.

Kind of like how 2E had swashbuckler kits for fighters and rogues. If you wanted the thief abilities primarily then you took the rogue version. If you wanted to be more combat oriented then you chose the fighter version.

Either way there needs to to be design space for a thief that isn't all about fighting. That was a mistake 3E and 4E made.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;537326DING!

Thief abilities should be hardwired into the class and completely separate from skills which can then be optional.

This way, every class can have the same allotment of skill resources without nerfing the thief.

Also, while some skills can work as a poor mans thief abilities, the actual thief abilities should be far superior. For example any character can take the stealth skill which aids in sneaking around. The thief (only) will have move silently as a class ability.

While a character using stealth must check against those trying to hear him/her, the thief using MS successfully makes absolutely no noise much like wearing elven boots.

Likewise any character can take climbing, but only thieves can climb sheer surfaces without tools.


This allows the thief to do its thing with or without the skill system in place.

If the fighter class is done to encompass a broad range of types then the combat rogue can be done using the fighter class and the right skills.

Kind of like how 2E had swashbuckler kits for fighters and rogues. If you wanted the thief abilities primarily then you took the rogue version. If you wanted to be more combat oriented then you chose the fighter version.

Either way there needs to to be design space for a thief that isn't all about fighting. That was a mistake 3E and 4E made.

Its a valid approach. I just don't like mulitple systems that do the same thing differently just for the sake of it. It just rankles.

What is my thief takes the stealth skill? The point on the Swashbuckler is exactly my raison d'etre.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537328Its a valid approach. I just don't like mulitple systems that do the same thing differently just for the sake of it. It just rankles.

What is my thief takes the stealth skill? The point on the Swashbuckler is exactly my raison d'etre.

They are not the same thing. Stealth is a weaker substitute for move silently. The skill would be for those who are not thieves and wouldn't ever be as good as thief would be.

A thief taking stealth in this case would be like a fighter who is already specialized in the longsword taking proficiency: longsword.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;537326DING!

Thief abilities should be hardwired into the class and completely separate from skills which can then be optional.

This way, every class can have the same allotment of skill resources without nerfing the thief.

Also, while some skills can work as a poor mans thief abilities, the actual thief abilities should be far superior. For example any character can take the stealth skill which aids in sneaking around. The thief (only) will have move silently as a class ability.

While a character using stealth must check against those trying to hear him/her, the thief using MS successfully makes absolutely no noise much like wearing elven boots.

Likewise any character can take climbing, but only thieves can climb sheer surfaces without tools.


This allows the thief to do its thing with or without the skill system in place.

If the fighter class is done to encompass a broad range of types then the combat rogue can be done using the fighter class and the right skills.

Kind of like how 2E had swashbuckler kits for fighters and rogues. If you wanted the thief abilities primarily then you took the rogue version. If you wanted to be more combat oriented then you chose the fighter version.

Either way there needs to to be design space for a thief that isn't all about fighting. That was a mistake 3E and 4E made.

I really like this idea and I think it is a great way to represent it. :)

I am anxious to see how the pillar of 3 is incorporated.  In 4e, it was all about combat.  That's what you spent 90% of your gaming time on.  The thief was never best in combat, but was the best in exploration.  So 4e basically screwed him and caused legions of people to say how weak of a class he was, which caused 4e to make the rogue just as good in combat as the fighter.  And that, IMO, is ridiculous.  No class should be anywhere close to the fighter as far as mundane combat goes.

But then again, I think the belief that every class should be as equally good in EVERY scenario is bullocks too.  I like me some niche protection, because it makes your character special.  If every class was equally good in everything, why have classes at all?  So I'd like to see more of a balance of the 3 pillars, so every character has a moment to shine.

Quote from: Benoist;537221I am mildly annoyed by the use of "myth" and "legend" to mean "kewl supernatural abilities".

As opposed to what?

Quote from: Halloween Jack;537361As opposed to what?

Actual myth and legends.

Sounds like every other edition. Rogues are good at sneak attacks, but mages will kick their ass everywhere else.

Quote from: danbuter;537370Sounds like every other edition. Rogues are good at sneak attacks, but mages will kick their ass everywhere else.

dm: you see 3 goblins
thief: i prepare to sneak arou-
mu: SLEEP SPELL ! yEAH bWOI smackdown!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;537333They are not the same thing. Stealth is a weaker substitute for move silently. The skill would be for those who are not thieves and wouldn't ever be as good as thief would be.

A thief taking stealth in this case would be like a fighter who is already specialized in the longsword taking proficiency: longsword.

Only if you choose it to do that.

If I have I don't know spent 15 ranks in Stealth and I am a ranger and I am 15th level am I still worse than a 1st level thief?

If I make a stealth role to move 'quietly' how do you differentiate than in play from a thief moving 'silently' ?
You end up with 2 effects competing for the same design space

Quote from: danbuter;537370Sounds like every other edition. Rogues are good at sneak attacks, but mages will kick their ass everywhere else.

I disagree.

Thief:  "If you're so bad, open that lock."
Mage: "Ah-ha!  I'll show you.  abracadabra!  There, it's open."
Thief: "Now do it again."
Mage: "um...I can't.  used that spell already."
Thief: "How about disarming that trap?"
Mage: "Sorry. Can't do it."
Thief: "how about sneaking into that area and spying on the chief?"
Mage: "Ha!  I totally can do that with silence and invisibility."
Thief:  "How long do those last again?  We need you to be hidden for about an hour."
Mage: "Um.."
Thief: "Ok, let's say you snuck in and opened the lock to get the map.  You're discovered and must fight, what do you do?"
Mage: "well, I would cast melfs acid arrow or sleep or something, if I didn't use my spells on knock and invisibility."
Thief: "So you bleed and die?"
Mage: ...

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537392I disagree.

Thief:  "If you're so bad, open that lock."
Mage: "Ah-ha!  I'll show you.  abracadabra!  There, it's open."
Thief: "Now do it again."
Mage: "um...I can't.  used that spell already."
Thief: "How about disarming that trap?"
Mage: "Sorry. Can't do it."
Thief: "how about sneaking into that area and spying on the chief?"
Mage: "Ha!  I totally can do that with silence and invisibility."
Thief:  "How long do those last again?  We need you to be hidden for about an hour."
Mage: "Um.."
Thief: "Ok, let's say you snuck in and opened the lock to get the map.  You're discovered and must fight, what do you do?"
Mage: "well, I would cast melfs acid arrow or sleep or something, if I didn't use my spells on knock and invisibility."
Thief: "So you bleed and die?"
Mage: ...

and that is how it is supposed to work.  Mage's are great utility pieces, and can do some of anything...but only when they prepare and set up the right situations.  
Vancian magic's best features are strategic.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537392I disagree.

Thief:  "If you're so bad, open that lock."
Mage: "Ah-ha!  I'll show you.  abracadabra!  There, it's open."
Thief: "Now do it again."
Mage: "um...I can't.  used that spell already."
Thief: "How about disarming that trap?"
Mage: "Sorry. Can't do it."
Thief: "how about sneaking into that area and spying on the chief?"
Mage: "Ha!  I totally can do that with silence and invisibility."
Thief:  "How long do those last again?  We need you to be hidden for about an hour."
Mage: "Um.."
Thief: "Ok, let's say you snuck in and opened the lock to get the map.  You're discovered and must fight, what do you do?"
Mage: "well, I would cast melfs acid arrow or sleep or something, if I didn't use my spells on knock and invisibility."
Thief: "So you bleed and die?"
Mage: ...

Well he might point out invisibility lasts for hours and hours ...... :)
But a fairpoint and it works until they are about 6th level. Then the Wizard just uses Clairvoyance/clairaudience and we can all stay at home :)

Oh and you don't disarm traps you use unseen servant to trigger them. Since it has both a physical presence, last for hours and it can't be harmed its the perfect trap detector and its only 1st level.

Quote from: Benoist;537365Actual myth and legends.

D&D thieves and fighters are typically weaker than in most actual myths and legends. What do you think of when you think of myth and legend?

Quote from: jibbajibba;537382Only if you choose it to do that.

If I have I don't know spent 15 ranks in Stealth and I am a ranger and I am 15th level am I still worse than a 1st level thief?

If I make a stealth role to move 'quietly' how do you differentiate than in play from a thief moving 'silently' ?
You end up with 2 effects competing for the same design space

For the ranger I suppose it depend on what was opposing his stealth roll vs what chances the thief has to move silently.

If that ranger is sneaking past a guard with the perception of a turnip then he may well have a better chance than the thief. Despite being only 1st level though, if that thief makes the move silently check then he isn't noticed even by a guard with dog-level hearing because he doesn't make any noise.


Its like the old days with boots of elvenkind-they just work. :D

Quote from: jibbajibba;537398Well he might point out invisibility lasts for hours and hours ...... :)
But a fairpoint and it works until they are about 6th level. Then the Wizard just uses Clairvoyance/clairaudience and we can all stay at home :)

Oh and you don't disarm traps you use unseen servant to trigger them. Since it has both a physical presence, last for hours and it can't be harmed its the perfect trap detector and its only 1st level.

Well, the point still stands (and besides, triggering traps often destroys whatever was in the box).  The mage might be able to replicate a lot of rogue skills, but only for a very limited amount of time, and you better hope to god nothing goes wrong.  Besides of which, if a mage came to my table as a player and I found out all his spells he memorized were to replicate the thief, he'd be kicked aside because he'd be absolutely worthless in combat and other areas.

That's a really, really stupid position to take.

I played a mage in a 3e game a couple years ago. I had ZERO combat spells. I boosted the fighters strength (which raised his damage), used wizard eye, clairvoyance and unseen servant, and basically made every dungeon easy to complete. The other players loved me, and the DM was frustrated, as I turned many of his "hard" encounters into easily winnable situations.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537403Well, the point still stands (and besides, triggering traps often destroys whatever was in the box).  The mage might be able to replicate a lot of rogue skills, but only for a very limited amount of time, and you better hope to god nothing goes wrong.  Besides of which, if a mage came to my table as a player and I found out all his spells he memorized were to replicate the thief, he'd be kicked aside because he'd be absolutely worthless in combat and other areas.

Well possibly if the trap is on a box and not on a corridor or a door or a gate or a whatever.

And if a Mage came to my table with a load of Rogue replicating skills then we would have a great time playing the two off each other. We don't kick people aside because their PC design choices not mesh with the over all Team Tactics :)
But its always funny at high level when the thief tries to sneak and the mage suggests we just use mass invisibilty instead, or just teleport in using the clairvoyance spell to guide us.
By the time you get to about 9th level the wizard has access to close to 40 spells every day so he can do just about everything.

I should stress that rogues are my favourite character class by a long margin because they create so myuch room for role playing.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537392I disagree.

Thief:  "If you're so bad, open that lock."
Mage: "Ah-ha!  I'll show you.  abracadabra!  There, it's open."
Thief: "Now do it again."
Mage: "um...I can't.  used that spell already."
Thief: "How about disarming that trap?"
Mage: "Sorry. Can't do it."
Thief: "how about sneaking into that area and spying on the chief?"
Mage: "Ha!  I totally can do that with silence and invisibility."
Thief:  "How long do those last again?  We need you to be hidden for about an hour."
Mage: "Um.."
Thief: "Ok, let's say you snuck in and opened the lock to get the map.  You're discovered and must fight, what do you do?"
Mage: "well, I would cast melfs acid arrow or sleep or something, if I didn't use my spells on knock and invisibility."
Thief: "So you bleed and die?"
Mage: ...

Mage: Charm Person -> thief... go do all that stuff for me!
Thief: Yes master!

Quote from: jibbajibba;537408And if a Mage came to my table with a load of Rogue replicating skills then we would have a great time playing the two off each other. We don't kick people aside because their PC design choices not mesh with the over all Team Tactics :).

Let me clarify.  If a player showed up like that, they wouldn't automatically get kicked to the curb, but if there was already a thief in the party and a player memorized all those spells, there would be problems.  Mainly from everyone else saying, "We need you to act as artillery and crowd control.  We need you to identify items we can't.  Those are things we need you to do, and if you insist on just trying to be the thief, you should have played a thief because we already have one and don't need another one.  What we need is what we mentioned."

Not to mention, the vast majority of time spent playing (especially in 1e) was from level 1-7 or so, and spells were at a premium, and using up all those spell slots to do what the thief could do was a waste in most people's eyes.  Luckily, I've never had a player play a MU with the purpose of replacing the thief.

Quote from: Sigmund;537413Mage: Charm Person -> thief... go do all that stuff for me!
Thief: Yes master!

Yeah, that's a great way to keep players playing together.

Quote from: Sean !;537316It's easier and I understang what you mean about identikits but giving thieves twice the skills reinforces Fighters as less skilled than Rogues whereas I would prefer Fighters to be just as many skills - just not able to put off Rogue-ish stuff as well as Rogues.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537322But fighters get a slew of stuff they can do outside the skill space. Combat moves, specialisation etc etc .
Thieves only get their skill stuff.

Look at it practically. From 1e the thief at 1st level has 6 skills 4 if you compress them. Stealth (Hide in shadows/Move Silently), Pick Pockets, climb walls, Mechanics (Open Lock/Remove Traps). That really defines the class.
They have 2 Feats, Thieves Cant and Backstab.
They have horrible to hit tables and d6 hit dice and are restricted to Leather armour.

A fighter can already fight far better than a thief. If you give them 6 skills as well I think it unbalances the game and erodes the thief niche. Even if you say 'thief skills cost a fighter double' you get into issues with barbarian and ranger sub fighters.
A ranger should be able to move silently as well as a thief, a barbarian should be able to climb walls as well. etc etc ...

So the easiest was , remembering KISS, is to give the thief more skill points and let them spend them as they wilt. The majority of thieves will spread them across all their required skills so the ranger who spends skill on "stealth" will be just as good as most thieves who need to buy all their class skills.

In my heartbreaker I have gone a step futher and the GM builds templates under the 3 classes. These templates have access to differrent skill lists so the Ranger and Barbarian figther archetypes have access to a wilderness skill list that includes 'stealth' as a skill. The same stealth skill appears on other skill lists as well.  Now in my game the rogue bosses the 1/3 of the design base I term Skills (the warrior bosses combat and the Wizard bosses Magic) so they get access to more skills.
This seemed like the simplest design choice. Though I can accept that some players don't like a PC to have more than a handful of skills.

Catching up with this I agree with Sean! If a rogue's main ability is that they get lots of skills, then next design step is to go "no no no! these other classes don't get skills, that would be treading on the rogues' toes!". You do end up with the 3E fighter all over again - remember how they got all of three skills, which were basically going to cost you double if its anything other that Jump, Intimidate, Climb, or Ride? If you want to take some skills to support your character concept of being a peasant with Profession: Farmer who was conscripted into the war (sorry, cross-class skill), it would be multiclassing time. And that was the other problem, that people would be making fighter/rogues not to sneak or do anything particularly rogue related but so they could pump up some other skill (the point John Morrow brought up).

Skills that let other characters do fairly minor rogue  stuff is one solution, but not the only one. I'd be fine with making characters multiclass if they want extra Rogue abilities :)
Also, as far as making types of rogues go, they could always have some choice as to which class features they pick up.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;537400D&D thieves and fighters are typically weaker than in most actual myths and legends. What do you think of when you think of myth and legend?

Given than a OD&D Fighting Man is a Veteran at 1st level, a Hero and as such, acquires the fighting capability of four men at 4th level, and becomes a Superhero (not to mix up with the spandex supers) at 8th level with a fighting capability of eight men, I tend to disagree. The logic is the same in AD&D, where the 1st level Fighter in AD&D is a Veteran already, becomes a Hero at 4th, Superhero at 8th, compared to a world of 0-level combatants as the baseline of normality in the campaign. That's the problem with you people throwing around this kind of stuff: you're spewing total bullshit without relating it to any particular context, and when you do, you in fact have no fucking idea what it is you are talking about.

The "M.U makes the Thief redundant" argument has always been bullshit.

The spells that M.Us get that replicate thief abilities (or those of any other class really) are there to fill a gap in the party's ranks, not as competition, should you have a full compliment of classes.

Does a thief render M.Us redundant if they gain the ability to read scrolls?

Quote from: jibbajibba;537297x-posting for relevance from the D&D Next thread

Thanks for bringing this over.  It's more appropriate here.

To restore my links, parkour's Wikipedia page is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkour) and the YouTube video I gave as an example of cool yet not superheroic parkour is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6xEkjeV60Q).

Quote from: jibbajibba;537297I don't think that makes sense.
Just to do their job Rogues needs additional skills
Hide in Shadows, move silently, pick locks, pick pocketc, etc etc ... A fighter with no skills can still do his job, ie hit stuff, and a wizard can do his job, cast spells. The Rogue is in effect a collection of their skills.

As someone who has played far more skill-based role-playing games than class-based role-playing games, I would argue that you are ignoring the fact that a fighter's combat abilities could also be considered skills, as can a wizard's casting ability.  All characters are a "collection of skills".  You have no problem with combat abilities of a fighter or the casting ability of a wizard being handled by a non-skill subsystem, but you insist that a thief's distinctive abilities be skills, which also implies that anyone could learn them.  The solution to keeping the Rogue's abilities distinctly Rogue abilities is to make them special class abilities rather than simply skills that anyone could learn if you didn't artificially starve them of enough skill points to be as good at it.

Later on, you argue that a 1e thief has essentially 4 skills.  Two of those skills are movement abilities of the sort I was talking about -- Stealth (the ability to move without detection) and Climb Walls (the ability to move up or across vertical surfaces).  The other two are not necessarily something every Rogue needs.

I'm going to back up a bit and repeat your last couple of sentences because they also link in with the next part of my reply.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537297A fighter with no skills can still do his job, ie hit stuff, and a wizard can do his job, cast spells. The Rogue is in effect a collection of their skills.

Also the rogue you outline is just one sort of rogue I want to have access to a myriad of rogues archetypes, from the deft acrobat to the fat greasy fence to the glib con man. Narrowing the class to just be uber competant at one aspect is something players can do for an individual PC but not something you do for the entire class.

Here, I'm also going to pull in one of your replies from the other thread where you list some more of your archetypes:

Quote from: jibbajibba;537284Again just one rogue archetype.

Sinbad, Aladin, Nift the Lean, The Grey Mouser, Locke Lamora, Cardinal Chang, Bilbo, Robin Hood, Dick Turpin, Silk, Jack of Shadows, Captain Jack Sparrow, The Scarlet Pimpernel, the list is endless and varied.

On the one hand, you complain about rogues being confined as a single narrow archetype out of many and then you turn around and confine fighters and wizards to single narrow archetypes, assuming that as long as they can hit things in combat or cast some spells, that's good enough and they don't need to do anything else.  I think that's nonsense.  What if I want to play a warrior scholar?  How about an investigative wizard?  How about a charismatic preacher cleric?  Without skills, I can't do that very well, so does it make sense that I'd need to dual class with Rogue to make those concepts work?  Or does everyone else have to one dimensional out of combat to carve out a niche for Rogues?

And not to put to much of a point on it but I would argue that several of your iconic Rogues look more like fighters to me, not Rogues.  By such an expansive standard, I would argue that the Three Musketeers would also be Rogues.  As for Bilbo, his "skill" is basically a magic ring.  He's about as much of a Rogue as any other random D&D peasant.

As for supporting the "fat greasy fence", I think that archetype is about as relevant to the typical D&D game as Friar Tuck would be as a Cleric archetype or David Copperfield would be as a Wizard archetype.  Nobody is taking a fat greasy fence into a dungeon.  In D&D 3.x terms, I'd represent the fat greasy fence maybe as an Expert, not a Rogue.  And if that's not convincing enough, I could provide you with dozens of potential Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard archetypes that your "they don't need skills" approach would also not support.

Quote from: John Morrow;537534Thanks for bringing this over.  It's more appropriate here.

To restore my links, parkour's Wikipedia page is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkour) and the YouTube video I gave as an example of cool yet not superheroic parkour is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6xEkjeV60Q).



As someone who has played far more skill-based role-playing games than class-based role-playing games, I would argue that you are ignoring the fact that a fighter's combat abilities could also be considered skills, as can a wizard's casting ability.  All characters are a "collection of skills".  You have no problem with combat abilities of a fighter or the casting ability of a wizard being handled by a non-skill subsystem, but you insist that a thief's distinctive abilities be skills, which also implies that anyone could learn them.  The solution to keeping the Rogue's abilities distinctly Rogue abilities is to make them special class abilities rather than simply skills that anyone could learn if you didn't artificially starve them of enough skill points to be as good at it.

Later on, you argue that a 1e thief has essentially 4 skills.  Two of those skills are movement abilities of the sort I was talking about -- Stealth (the ability to move without detection) and Climb Walls (the ability to move up or across vertical surfaces).  The other two are not necessarily something every Rogue needs.

I'm going to back up a bit and repeat your last couple of sentences because they also link in with the next part of my reply.



Here, I'm also going to pull in one of your replies from the other thread where you list some more of your archetypes:



On the one hand, you complain about rogues being confined as a single narrow archetype out of many and then you turn around and confine fighters and wizards to single narrow archetypes, assuming that as long as they can hit things in combat or cast some spells, that's good enough and they don't need to do anything else.  I think that's nonsense.  What if I want to play a warrior scholar?  How about an investigative wizard?  How about a charismatic preacher cleric?  Without skills, I can't do that very well, so does it make sense that I'd need to dual class with Rogue to make those concepts work?  Or does everyone else have to one dimensional out of combat to carve out a niche for Rogues?

And not to put to much of a point on it but I would argue that several of your iconic Rogues look more like fighters to me, not Rogues.  By such an expansive standard, I would argue that the Three Musketeers would also be Rogues.  As for Bilbo, his "skill" is basically a magic ring.  He's about as much of a Rogue as any other random D&D peasant.

As for supporting the "fat greasy fence", I think that archetype is about as relevant to the typical D&D game as Friar Tuck would be as a Cleric archetype or David Copperfield would be as a Wizard archetype.  Nobody is taking a fat greasy fence into a dungeon.  In D&D 3.x terms, I'd represent the fat greasy fence maybe as an Expert, not a Rogue.  And if that's not convincing enough, I could provide you with dozens of potential Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard archetypes that your "they don't need skills" approach would also not support.

Okay a few points I will try to tackle them in order.

I agree that fighter's abilities could be classes as skills and so could the wizards. However, I think from a D&D paradigm that is going a step too far. I think one of the main faults of 4e was they ignored the differences between classes and it all became a wash. So I think combat is separate enough for it to merit its own methodology and I think Magic also is.

However, I think a thief rolling to pick locks is a skill check. You can dress it up you can claim its a core competancy but you can't deny its a skill check. If you highlight it as different then you have to do the same with skills innate to each class, ranger's tracking, bardic lore etc ... In a world of class propagation and D&D is always prey to that, every magical smith class, animal trainer class, dwarven miner class would have a separate subsystem for their specialist class skill. To me that is a bit daft.
I don't want rule bloat for its own sake and I don;t want to be hemmed in by the tyrany of the unique. My real reason for that is that I want to give the DM the toolkit to create their own sub classes and if every class has unique mechanics I can't do that.
I don't think you need to reduce fighters skills or a wizards. I think you need to give the Rogue more. So say a 1st level D&D figther gets 3 skill and they have a wilderness warrior template. they can pick tracking, survival, stealth, or riding, climbing and animal handling, or etc etc .... the first level rogue has 8 skills but they must pick 5 from the Rogue class of skills. they might have a wilderness scout template and pick the other three from the same wilderness list as the figther did. I haven't nerfed the figther I have just given the rogue more skills.

Okay I argued that a 1eAD&D thief had essentially 4 skills. Really 6. I was just demonstrating the stuff that makes them a rogue was all skill based. Now I would definitely expand that list for a new game. Forgery, Bribery, disguise, Informtaion Gathering (if you want to keep that type of skill personally I would drop it), Cytpography, Appraisal, should all be on that rogue skill list and te rogue shuld be able to spend their skills points in that rogue space as they see fit.

Now I think your rogue example is a narrow niche. The Dungeon Scout rogue if you will.  I don't think all rogues should be restricted to that narrow niche I want to play all the rogues I listed. I agree you could play a swashbuckler rogue like a musketeer, excellent idea. And Bilbo is a first level rogue surely? If we make him a PC at all.
I have played fat greasy fence characters, not in dugeons but in City adventures. High appraisal, excellent pick locks and forgery.

I would not allow multiclassing at all. I would allow classes to cross buy skills at a high cost. I think Multi-classing represents the very worst of min-max optimisation. However I can conceed that some players want to be able to optimise and min-max so an all inclusive D&D has to allow it.

Now I want a skill system I want Wizards and fighters to have skills as well. But the design ask was how can you play rogues with skills that define their class but not use skills in the wider system. I tried to cover that although I think that is limiting. I want my fighter Barbarian template/theme to have wilderness skills, I want my figther swashbuckler theme to have acrobatics, I want my Battlemage to have skills with artilery. However, I can see that for a OS feel a group of players might want not to have those skills and want they to be assumed in some way, like secondary professions. However, even a tough OS crew wouldn't deny the thief a check to move silently or hide in shadows would they?


These are all issues I have been struggling with in my heartbreaker. Trying to allow flexibility without rule bloat, keeping the base design simple but encouraging customisation. Allowing a fighter pirate or a rogue pirate each with a similar flavour but enough meaningful difference. Trying to see where magic fits into the design space and how much magic non wizard classes should have access to. Then trying to apply those base constructs to some of the iconic fantasy characters. I think I have something moreorless workable. If I ever get it written up I will share it although I expect little interest in the final result.

Quote from: Benoist;537525Given than a OD&D Fighting Man is a Veteran at 1st level, a Hero and as such, acquires the fighting capability of four men at 4th level, and becomes a Superhero (not to mix up with the spandex supers) at 8th level with a fighting capability of eight men, I tend to disagree. The logic is the same in AD&D, where the 1st level Fighter in AD&D is a Veteran already, becomes a Hero at 4th, Superhero at 8th, compared to a world of 0-level combatants as the baseline of normality in the campaign. That's the problem with you people throwing around this kind of stuff: you're spewing total bullshit without relating it to any particular context, and when you do, you in fact have no fucking idea what it is you are talking about.

I think he means that Achilles could not be damaged by physical blows, that Orpheus could use his music to charm Cerberus himself, that Galahad was immune to any form of corruption and could beat any man in battle, that Cuchulain  would never die unless he ate dogmeat, that Beowulf coudl beat a sea serpent in the sea armed only with a knife. You know myths and legends.

I think the idea when you reach 20th level or whatever is that you are becoming close to mythic figures. Mythic figures can do more than fight a dozen guards at once. They can fight unyielding for 4 days and nights, they can slip through walls, they can stand on a willow branch and leap 30 feet walls, they can wrestle with giants and beat antelopes in a foot race.
I hasten to add that that sort of Immortal Play is not for me but I think that is what WotC are alluding to.

Basically the discussion between John and Jibba highlights the problem with a pure class system, or a class system that attempts to add in a robust skill system.  On the one end, you have archetypes with mostly class powers, which leads to class bloat (why was the Barbarian created?  because the AD&D Fighter can't do Conan - and don't try to tell me it can, you're wrong :D), or you have a skill system with some class powers, and the distinction between classes is minimized (which isn't too much of an issue for me, niche protection is childish specialsauce).

Rolemaster did the best I think at providing a robust and diverse skill system while still having effective differences between classes due to varying costs for those skills.

Quote from: CRKrueger;537598Basically the discussion between John and Jibba highlights the problem with a pure class system, or a class system that attempts to add in a robust skill system.  On the one end, you have archetypes with mostly class powers, which leads to class bloat (why was the Barbarian created?  because the AD&D Fighter can't do Conan - and don't try to tell me it can, you're wrong :D), or you have a skill system with some class powers, and the distinction between classes is minimized (which isn't too much of an issue for me, niche protection is childish specialsauce).

Rolemaster did the best I think at providing a robust and diverse skill system while still having effective differences between classes due to varying costs for those skills.

Very true. I am trying to get to a happy medium.
I think Rolemaster did a lot of things well but it can be distilled down to a simpler model. Likewise what has been posted here about Hackmaster. it uses a lot of the things that I came to myself but just seems overly cumbersome.

Article is gibberish or crap, as it ignores the fact that this is about a game.

QuoteRogues are tricky opponents, because determining what they might do next is almost impossible. A smart rogue always keeps a few tricks in his or her back pocket, ready to spring them when the time is right. Whether it's throwing a handful of caltrops under a bugbear's feet as it tries to charge, leaping from an ambush to drive a blade into an ogre's back, or dodging beneath a dragon's claws and tumbling into the shadows to hide, a rogue always has a trick in mind.

Rogues may be tricky opponents, but what about a the rogue's player? We know what he or she as up his or her Rogue's sleeves, because we can read the character sheet. (As for the things not on the character sheet, they would be possible with any other character.) So how does one play a Rogue?

@Jibba Jibba: I think I'm in the opposite camp since I found Rolemaster's approach a bit bland. Inventing a new class looked like a simple task of setting the development costs for some skills and (at worst) inventing a couple of new skills, but new classes e.g. out of the Companions were pretty well redundant - you could have made something that looked like most of them with another class and the right skill selections, it'd only have fiddled around some of the development costs. Few if any had unique features. So while I think its understandeable to want to have a system that works for creating new classes easily, I do think it sucks some of the life out of them.
 
I'd like an approach where a degree of customizability is built into the classes themselves - a choice of class features where necessary - instead of having the skill system do all of the job of customizing the character. That would make it possible to have skill-less characters while still playing your "Fighter/barbarian" or "Fighter/cavalier" and at the same time cuts down on min/maxing in the skill choices (same with rogue there could be e.g. a Thief/Acrobat option...but do you want everyone taking Acrobatics if its just a general skill?)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;537607@Jibba Jibba: I think I'm in the opposite camp since I found Rolemaster's approach a bit bland. Inventing a new class looked like a simple task of setting the development costs for some skills and (at worst) inventing a couple of new skills, but new classes e.g. out of the Companions were pretty well redundant - you could have made something that looked like most of them with another class and the right skill selections, it'd only have fiddled around some of the development costs. Few if any had unique features. So while I think its understandeable to want to have a system that works for creating new classes easily, I do think it sucks some of the life out of them.
 
I'd like an approach where a degree of customizability is built into the classes themselves - a choice of class features where necessary - instead of having the skill system do all of the job of customizing the character. That would make it possible to have skill-less characters while still playing your "Fighter/barbarian" or "Fighter/cavalier" and at the same time cuts down on min/maxing in the skill choices (same with rogue there could be e.g. a Thief/Acrobat option...but do you want everyone taking Acrobatics if its just a general skill?)

My actual system works like this

3 classes each class has many archetypes. You select an archetype. The base game coems with 6 archetypes for each of the 3 classes but also includes the toolkit for GMs to create their own to suit their world. Only GMs get to build archetypes.

The classes are each focused a sphere of the dsesign space. Figthers dominate Combat, Casters magic and Rogues skills. the archetypes are made up of a combination of options drawn from a simple list.
this includes attack bonus, defense bonus, HD (d6/8/10/12), weapons options - which are effectively skills, armour options agians the same, skills, and magic. The general skills are deived into lists and the lists are applied to the template. I am trying to stick to 30 skills but they appear in multiple lists and lists are themselves categories as environmental or focused.

So a Fighter/barbarian will probably look like

HD d10
Attack: 2  (this is a cost to improve their to hit bonus)
Defense: 2 (as above)
Weapon Styles: All 2 (cost to get ranks in weapons styles)
Armour: Light - 2; Medium 2
Skill lists: Wilderness
Freebies :    1 Rank Wilderness Survival
      1 Rank Combat from - Mounted/one handed/two handed/archery/sheild
      1 Rank Endurance
Skill cost: 2

A fighter/Cavalier might look like this

HD: d10
Attack:2
Defense: 2
Weapon style: All (except Thrown and Knive fighting) 2
Armour: Light; 3 Medum 2 Heavy : 2
Skill list : Courtly, Military
Freebies:    1 Rank Mounted Combat
      1 Rank Heavy Armour
      1 Rank Heraldry
Skill Cost 2


Very simple but hopefully with enough color applied through context.

For Rogues

Rogue/Scout

HD:d8
Attack: 3
Defense: 3
Weapons Styles: Archery, Single Handed, Fencing, Knife Fighting, Thrown
Armour: Light- 3
Skill list: Rogue, Wilderness
Freebies:    1 Rank Stealth
      1 Rank Tracking
      1 Rank Climbing
      1 Rank Observation
      1 Rank Wilderness Survival
Skill Cost: 1

Rogue/Buglar

HD: d6
Attack: 3
Defence: 3
Weapon Styles: Single Handed, Knife fighting, Fencing, Thrown
Armour: Light - 3
Skill List : Rogue, City
Freebies:   1 Rank Stealth
      1 Rank Climbing
      1 Rank Pick Locks
      1 Rank Appraisal
      1 Rank Observation
      1 Rank Criminal Subculture
Skill Cost: 1



I haven't got my notes with me to check the exact details but from memory that is pretty close.

I am trying to create variation and depth without rules bloat and unique subsystems for each archetype.

Quote from: CRKrueger;537598Basically the discussion between John and Jibba highlights the problem with a pure class system, or a class system that attempts to add in a robust skill system.  On the one end, you have archetypes with mostly class powers, which leads to class bloat (why was the Barbarian created?  because the AD&D Fighter can't do Conan - and don't try to tell me it can, you're wrong :D), or you have a skill system with some class powers, and the distinction between classes is minimized (which isn't too much of an issue for me, niche protection is childish specialsauce).

Rolemaster did the best I think at providing a robust and diverse skill system while still having effective differences between classes due to varying costs for those skills.

Hah.  
So true.

All my PCs think I use a straight skill system.  The truth is that since their are guilds that each player belongs to (dozens of them avaialble in a medium sized town, many more in larger ones, example here from my online Steel Isle Town game (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955729/List%20of%20Schools-Steel%20Isle%20Town)) , these operate in some ways as classes, in that a player can choose a starting school that has is advantageous in the skills they want their player to have.
The nice thing here is that as players and NPCs move on and build relationships, they can learn skills from other schools, allowing for them to really build what they want.  which makes the game about 85-90% skill based and 15-20% class based on the continuum.

Quote from: LordVreeg;537634All my PCs think I use a straight skill system.  The truth is that since their are guilds that each player belongs to (dozens of them avaialble in a medium sized town, many more in larger ones, example here from my online Steel Isle Town game (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955729/List%20of%20Schools-Steel%20Isle%20Town)) , these operate in some ways as classes, in that a player can choose a starting school that has is advantageous in the skills they want their player to have.
The nice thing here is that as players and NPCs move on and build relationships, they can learn skills from other schools, allowing for them to really build what they want.  which makes the game about 85-90% skill based and 15-20% class based on the continuum.

Sounds like WFRP-style careers.

Quote from: Dodger;537640Sounds like WFRP-style careers.

Or at least, in the same direction on the continuum....

I think it is important that a 'Thief' be less capable than a fighter in an open field melee. I like backstab in its 1E version; I dislike 'near constant flank attack uber damage bonus' of later editions.

As for skills, as someone above said, give the Thief some 'Thief Skills' for free, as part of the Thief class, independant from skills anyone can have.

If a Fighter really wants to pick pockets, let him multiclass with Thief.

Quote from: Bill;537647I think it is important that a 'Thief' be less capable than a fighter in an open field melee. I like backstab in its 1E version; I dislike 'near constant flank attack uber damage bonus' of later editions.

As for skills, as someone above said, give the Thief some 'Thief Skills' for free, as part of the Thief class, independant from skills anyone can have.

If a Fighter really wants to pick pockets, let him multiclass with Thief.

right, and more, the thief does not have to be as valuable in combat at all...since there are other areas he is more valuable in.

Quote from: Bill;537647I think it is important that a 'Thief' be less capable than a fighter in an open field melee. I like backstab in its 1E version; I dislike 'near constant flank attack uber damage bonus' of later editions.

As for skills, as someone above said, give the Thief some 'Thief Skills' for free, as part of the Thief class, independant from skills anyone can have.

If a Fighter really wants to pick pockets, let him multiclass with Thief.

I have no issue with that. I do think that having the theif roll his thief skills on %dice roll under and all other skills in the system being D20 target is a bit odd and I do think that in order to simplify you might want to allow some sorts of other characters have access to a subset of those skills. So a ranger gets move silently or a barbarian gets climb walls.

Its not rocket science (that skill woudl only be open to the sage class obviously :) )

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537435Let me clarify.  If a player showed up like that, they wouldn't automatically get kicked to the curb, but if there was already a thief in the party and a player memorized all those spells, there would be problems.  Mainly from everyone else saying, "We need you to act as artillery and crowd control.  We need you to identify items we can't.  Those are things we need you to do, and if you insist on just trying to be the thief, you should have played a thief because we already have one and don't need another one.  What we need is what we mentioned."

Not to mention, the vast majority of time spent playing (especially in 1e) was from level 1-7 or so, and spells were at a premium, and using up all those spell slots to do what the thief could do was a waste in most people's eyes.  Luckily, I've never had a player play a MU with the purpose of replacing the thief.



Yeah, that's a great way to keep players playing together.

Get over yourself.

Quote from: One Horse Town;537527The "M.U makes the Thief redundant" argument has always been bullshit.

The spells that M.Us get that replicate thief abilities (or those of any other class really) are there to fill a gap in the party's ranks, not as competition, should you have a full compliment of classes.

Does a thief render M.Us redundant if they gain the ability to read scrolls?

This

Quote from: John Morrow;537534As someone who has played far more skill-based role-playing games than class-based role-playing games, I would argue that you are ignoring the fact that a fighter's combat abilities could also be considered skills, as can a wizard's casting ability.  All characters are a "collection of skills".  You have no problem with combat abilities of a fighter or the casting ability of a wizard being handled by a non-skill subsystem, but you insist that a thief's distinctive abilities be skills, which also implies that anyone could learn them.  The solution to keeping the Rogue's abilities distinctly Rogue abilities is to make them special class abilities rather than simply skills that anyone could learn if you didn't artificially starve them of enough skill points to be as good at it.

Later on, you argue that a 1e thief has essentially 4 skills.  Two of those skills are movement abilities of the sort I was talking about -- Stealth (the ability to move without detection) and Climb Walls (the ability to move up or across vertical surfaces).  The other two are not necessarily something every Rogue needs.

I'm going to back up a bit and repeat your last couple of sentences because they also link in with the next part of my reply.



Here, I'm also going to pull in one of your replies from the other thread where you list some more of your archetypes:



On the one hand, you complain about rogues being confined as a single narrow archetype out of many and then you turn around and confine fighters and wizards to single narrow archetypes, assuming that as long as they can hit things in combat or cast some spells, that's good enough and they don't need to do anything else.  I think that's nonsense.  What if I want to play a warrior scholar?  How about an investigative wizard?  How about a charismatic preacher cleric?  Without skills, I can't do that very well, so does it make sense that I'd need to dual class with Rogue to make those concepts work?  Or does everyone else have to one dimensional out of combat to carve out a niche for Rogues?

And not to put to much of a point on it but I would argue that several of your iconic Rogues look more like fighters to me, not Rogues.  By such an expansive standard, I would argue that the Three Musketeers would also be Rogues.  As for Bilbo, his "skill" is basically a magic ring.  He's about as much of a Rogue as any other random D&D peasant.

As for supporting the "fat greasy fence", I think that archetype is about as relevant to the typical D&D game as Friar Tuck would be as a Cleric archetype or David Copperfield would be as a Wizard archetype.  Nobody is taking a fat greasy fence into a dungeon.  In D&D 3.x terms, I'd represent the fat greasy fence maybe as an Expert, not a Rogue.  And if that's not convincing enough, I could provide you with dozens of potential Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard archetypes that your "they don't need skills" approach would also not support.

Just to add to what's already been said, the fact also is that combat "skills" are something that all player characters get, not just the fighter. Why shouldn't rogue skills be the same? Fighters are better at the combat skills, and they should be, just as the rogue should be better at rogue skills. However, I'd like to see all characters be able to be stealthy, possibly educated, capable of deception, attacking from concealment and even able to at least spot traps. I would just agree that rogues should be better at those things. Now pick-pocketing, extreme acrobatics, picking locks, and maybe "hiding in plain sight" could be rogue-exclusive abilities IMO. Add in more skill points if a skill system is used, and I'd be happy. Maybe it would make sense to make rogues have the potential to be poison masters as well (perhaps sharing the herbalist type skills with the ranger/druid classes). Disguise would be a good rogue ability, one that maybe they could use on others as well as themselves, with lesser effect in that case. They'd then be able to encompass spies and assassins as well as thieves. Either just as rogues with different "builds" or as sub-classes... either would work for me.

Quote from: Bill;537647I think it is important that a 'Thief' be less capable than a fighter in an open field melee. I like backstab in its 1E version; I dislike 'near constant flank attack uber damage bonus' of later editions.
.

That's because in later editions, especially 4e, almost all of your time was spent in combat.  So in order to make the thief relevant, they had to boost up combat damage.

Really bad design, IMO, any time you ignore a huge chuck of what D&D is (exploration).

Quote from: Sigmund;537652Get over yourself.

Yeah, because expressing your disdain for a player who shows up with a MU who memorizes all their spells to replace the thief another player is currently playing is highly unusual...


Whatever.  Good thing you're here to keep everything "realz" and keep everyone in line...

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537661Yeah, because expressing your disdain for a player who shows up with a MU who memorizes all their spells to replace the thief another player is currently playing is highly unusual...


Whatever.  Good thing you're here to keep everything "realz" and keep everyone in line...

You're right. It is unusual. You're also right, it is good I'm here. Grow a sense of humor and some perspective and we'll all be much happier.

Quote from: Sigmund;537662You're right. It is unusual. .

Not it's not.  If you're at a game table, and the MU decides to memorize all his spells to replicate what the player who is playing the thief does and nothing else, the other players are going to give him grief about it.  A huge part of early D&D was having everyone play their role.  A MU who can't inflict damage, identify magic, or do crowd control in a dungeon romp when the other players are expecting it is going to cause friction.  Especially when there's already a player who does the things the MU just spent all their spell slots on.

And it would also be highly unusual for a MU to charm one of the other PCs against their will, putting them at risk, and that player not having a problem with it.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537664Not it's not.  If you're at a game table, and the MU decides to memorize all his spells to replicate what the player who is playing the thief does and nothing else, the other players are going to give him grief about it.  A huge part of early D&D was having everyone play their role.  A MU who can't inflict damage, identify magic, or do crowd control in a dungeon romp when the other players are expecting it is going to cause friction.  Especially when there's already a player who does the things the MU just spent all their spell slots on.

And it would also be highly unusual for a MU to charm one of the other PCs against their will, putting them at risk, and that player not having a problem with it.

But that is not how games play. Chances are the MU has a limited set of spells say at 5th level the MU can cast what 3/2/1 and chances are he has in his book 5/3/1 so the stuff he memorises is goign to be hugely limited to the spells he actualy has access to .

If the choice is between Knock, Read Magic, Find Familar, Spider Climb and Burning Hands I can suggest the 3 that are best for a dungeon adventure.....

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537664Not it's not.  If you're at a game table, and the MU decides to memorize all his spells to replicate what the player who is playing the thief does and nothing else, the other players are going to give him grief about it.  A huge part of early D&D was having everyone play their role.  A MU who can't inflict damage, identify magic, or do crowd control in a dungeon romp when the other players are expecting it is going to cause friction.  Especially when there's already a player who does the things the MU just spent all their spell slots on.

And it would also be highly unusual for a MU to charm one of the other PCs against their will, putting them at risk, and that player not having a problem with it.

Couple things. First, a PLAYER deciding to have his character try to horn-in on  the "niche" of another PLAYER'S character is not a GAME problem. It's a PLAYER problem. Also, as you pointed out, it's not a problem that can be successfully accomplished in D&D between the wizard and the thief. Also, this player problem can be much more easily and thoroughly solved by the other players, and the game designer does not need to get involved. Lastly, despite my post about the wizards charming a thief being a joke, nowhere in the post did I specify that the thief the wizard charmed was another player's character. On top of all that, if the players can't handle the occasional inter-character strife, they need to lighten up as well. The fist-fight between my halfling ranger and our human fighter in-character is still one of my favorite D&D game events/memories. It isn't joked about in OotS for no reason, it's part of what makes RPGing fun. So as I said before, lighten up.

Quote from: Benoist;537525Given than a OD&D Fighting Man is a Veteran at 1st level, a Hero and as such, acquires the fighting capability of four men at 4th level, and becomes a Superhero (not to mix up with the spandex supers) at 8th level with a fighting capability of eight men, I tend to disagree. The logic is the same in AD&D, where the 1st level Fighter in AD&D is a Veteran already, becomes a Hero at 4th, Superhero at 8th, compared to a world of 0-level combatants as the baseline of normality in the campaign. That's the problem with you people throwing around this kind of stuff: you're spewing total bullshit without relating it to any particular context, and when you do, you in fact have no fucking idea what it is you are talking about.

I asked you what you were thinking of in terms of "actual myth and legends" and you reference decades-old D&D mechanics. I wish that was a surprise.

Heroes from actual myth and legend are much stronger than 8 soldiers even at the "journeyman" stage of their character arc. So I repeat my question, what (and what characters) are you thinking of when you think of "actual myths and legends?"

Quote from: Sigmund;537669Couple things. First, a PLAYER deciding to have his character try to horn-in on  the "niche" of another PLAYER'S character is not a GAME problem. It's a PLAYER problem. .

Who said it was a game problem?  In fact, it seems like my original post was one of a player disagreement, not a game disagreement, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;537671Heroes from actual myth and legend are much stronger than 8 soldiers even at the "journeyman" stage of their character arc. "

Not necessarily.  Davy Crockett, King Arthur, Alexander, Ghangis Khan, Leonidas, etc.  The list goes on about legendary figures that aren't superheroes.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537678Not necessarily. Davy Crockett, King Arthur, Alexander, Ghangis Khan, Leonidas, etc.  The list goes on about legendary figures that aren't superheroes.

With the exception of Arthur, those are real people sometimes cast into a legendary narrative. I'm talking about heroes from "myth and legends."

There's also a funny bit of circular logic going on here where a Fighter 8 is a "superhero" and is as strong as 8 soldiers, therefore "as strong as 8 soldiers" is the standard for a superheroic fighter. The original, actually relevant question is what Benoist thinks of as heroes from "actual myth and legend," since he disagrees with my assertion that D&D martial characters are weaker than heroes of myth and legend, and said that modeling D&D characters on "actual myth and legend" precludes what he terms "kewl supernatural abilities." Western mythic and legendary heroes perform often grotesquely superhuman feats. It's the standard.

That's also setting aside the fact that if D&D dragons existed, the idea of a "realistic" swordsman in plate armor killing one is preposterous.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537661Yeah, because expressing your disdain for a player who shows up with a MU who memorizes all their spells to replace the thief another player is currently playing is highly unusual...

Since when did having more than one thief (or cheap thief substitute in this case) become a bad thing? :confused:

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537678Not necessarily.  Davy Crockett, King Arthur, Alexander, Ghangis Khan, Leonidas, etc.  The list goes on about legendary figures that aren't superheroes.

I would say that the fact that King Arthur caries a sword that can cut through anything and a sheath that prevents him from ever being cut or suffering a killing blow. The fact that when he dies he will be born away by the Faey to return at the time of Britian's greatest need and his life force is somewhow mythically linked to the land of which he is king possibly sets him above the average 4th level fighter.....

If you are taling about historical real people like Alexander, Davy Crocket etc then I would agree they aren't super heroes but neither are they mythic figures. Everyone knows Frank Lampard is a legend but he can't like fly or nothing.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537664Not it's not.  If you're at a game table, and the MU decides to memorize all his spells to replicate what the player who is playing the thief does and nothing else, the other players are going to give him grief about it.  A huge part of early D&D was having everyone play their role.  A MU who can't inflict damage, identify magic, or do crowd control in a dungeon romp when the other players are expecting it is going to cause friction.  Especially when there's already a player who does the things the MU just spent all their spell slots on.

My bad, I guess I should have read the whole thread before responding to your previous post.  LOL! :)

This is counter to my experience with D&D, especially AD&D.  We routinely had multiple thieves, or a monk and a thief; especially at low levels of play.  Also, usually, there weren't just 4 PCs in the group which covered the four basic class concepts only; we usually had 5-8 PCs in the group.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537664And it would also be highly unusual for a MU to charm one of the other PCs against their will, putting them at risk, and that player not having a problem with it.

This is a topic better suited for its own thread, which I am going to create in a moment. :D

Quote from: Halloween Jack;537679With the exception of Arthur, those are real people sometimes cast into a legendary narrative. I'm talking about heroes from "myth and legends.".

Yeah, and all of those are legends.  Or are we only using your own personal definition of legends?  Are we shifting the goalposts now?

Quote from: jibbajibba;537684I would say that the fact that King Arthur caries a sword that can cut through anything and a sheath that prevents him from ever being cut or suffering a killing blow. .

I'm not just talking about Arthur from the D&D description of him.  Most of the stories about Arthur were that he was just a great warrior without any godlike abilities.

Quote from: Drohem;537686My bad, I guess I should have read the whole thread before responding to your previous post.  LOL! :)

This is counter to my experience with D&D, especially AD&D.  We routinely had multiple thieves, or a monk and a thief; especially at low levels of play.  Also, usually, there weren't just 4 PCs in the group which covered the four basic class concepts only; we usually had 5-8 PCs in the group.

I don't have a problem with multiple thieves, because that's the role of the class.  I don't even have a problem with a MU memorizing thief like spells if there is no thief in the group.  I have a problem with a player who chooses to bring a MU into the group that may already have a thief, and ignore 80% of his spell repertoire because he insists on memorizing spells that replicate the thief's skills.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537687Yeah, and all of those are legends.  Or are we only using your own personal definition of legends?  Are we shifting the goalposts now?

We're not shifting the goalposts, we're using the original goalposts of "actual myth and legend." Which includes both myth and legend. You cherry-picked mostly historical figures who are referred to as "legends."

Quote from: Benoist;537221I am mildly annoyed by the use of "myth" and "legend" to mean "kewl supernatural abilities".

Quote from: Benoist;537365Actual myth and legends.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;537400What do you think of when you think of myth and legend?

Quote from: Halloween Jack;537671Heroes from actual myth and legend

Don't accuse me of "shifting goalposts," you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;537692We're not shifting the goalposts, we're using the original goalposts of "actual myth and legend." Which includes both myth and legend. You cherry-picked mostly historical figures who are referred to as "legends."




Don't accuse me of "shifting goalposts," you have no idea what you're talking about.

WFT?  Dude, you said give some examples of myths and legends.  I gave you a half dozen legends off the top of my head.  I didn't cherry pick anything.  You want more?

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537687Yeah, and all of those are legends.  Or are we only using your own personal definition of legends?  Are we shifting the goalposts now?



I'm not just talking about Arthur from the D&D description of him.  Most of the stories about Arthur were that he was just a great warrior without any godlike abilities.

No the D&D description of him came from the ledgends. La Moret D'arthur, TE Whites hte once and future King... etc etc

Here are some legends
Beowulf - finghts a gian Sea serpent in the sea with a dagger
Hercules - holds up the sky on his shoulders as well as numerous other tasks
Cuchlain - can not be killed unless he eats dog meat
Karna -  in the Mahabarata can fight hundreds or shoot arrows out of the sky with his bow

Quote from: jibbajibba;537697No the D&D description of him came from the ledgends. La Moret D'arthur, TE Whites hte once and future King... etc etc

And there are a ton of other stories about him just being a great warrior who fought back the Romans.

QuoteHere are some legends
Beowulf - finghts a gian Sea serpent in the sea with a dagger
Hercules - holds up the sky on his shoulders as well as numerous other tasks
Cuchlain - can not be killed unless he eats dog meat
Karna -  in the Mahabarata can fight hundreds or shoot arrows out of the sky with his bow

A legend is not the same thing as a myth.  A legend is largely based on some sort of historical account.  Don't believe me, go look up the word in the dictionary.  So all of those "legendary" heroes from reality are just that: legends.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537689I don't have a problem with multiple thieves, because that's the role of the class.  I don't even have a problem with a MU memorizing thief like spells if there is no thief in the group.  I have a problem with a player who chooses to bring a MU into the group that may already have a thief, and ignore 80% of his spell repertoire because he insists on memorizing spells that replicate the thief's skills.

Bolded part by me...

Thank you as that clarifies it for me. :)

I'm with you here then as well.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537698And there are a ton of other stories about him just being a great warrior who fought back the Romans.


A legend is not the same thing as a myth.  A legend is largely based on some sort of historical account.  Don't believe me, go look up the word in the dictionary.  So all of those "legendary" heroes from reality are just that: legends.

oh dear... sematic weasle words at their very worst.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537709oh dear... sematic weasle words at their very worst.

Say what now?  I'm using the common definition of the word used.  There's nothing semantic or pedantic about it.  HJ's the one (and you now) that is trying to say that a "legend' is only actually someone from mythology, which is a very tight and limited sample of what the word actually means and encompasses since it ignores the vast majority people who are literally defined as legendary.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537709oh dear... sematic weasle words at their very worst.

No dog in this hunt really, but the difference between the words Legend, Fable, and Myth isn't important?  Seriously?  Saying someone who actually existed isn't a Legend is like saying a Terrier isn't a dog.  Historical existence, or the possibility of such is what separates a Legend from a Myth in the first place.  It's the friggin' definition.

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/20207291.jpg)

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537716Say what now?  I'm using the common definition of the word used.  There's nothing semantic or pedantic about it.  HJ's the one (and you now) that is trying to say that a "legend' is only actually someone from mythology, which is a very tight and limited sample of what the word actually means and encompasses since it ignores the vast majority people who are literally defined as legendary.

No I'm not. I'm saying "myth and legend," which includes both myth and legend. (Thanks, logic!) Because we were originally talking about "myth and legend" before you butted in, tried to shift the goalposts, and then accused me of shifting the goalposts.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537698A legend is not the same thing as a myth.  A legend is largely based on some sort of historical account.  Don't believe me, go look up the word in the dictionary.

Quoteleg·end [lej-uhnd]
noun
1.
a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical.
2.
the body of stories of this kind, especially as they relate to a particular people, group, or clan: the winning of the West in American legend.

You've just been hoist by your own petard, sir. Legends are necessarily from sources who believed the account to be historical, but which can include miracles or obviously unreal deeds and situations. There's also a qualitative difference between a character whose "legendary" like King Arthur, and may or may not have existed, and Alexander and Leonidas, who definitely existed but have had tall tales attached to them. That's also true of Bruce Lee and professional wrestlers, and everyone knows we're not talking about them when we say "legend."

How about introducing some sort of "mastery" component to the Rogue class that adds in to particular skill areas whether or not "skills" are used.  Say the Rogue can pick a small number of areas of expertise and add their class level to all rolls to do stuff in that area.

people playing without skills could still have Rogues doing Roguey stuff, and people using skills, the Rogues are better in a subset that they have specialised in while everyone else still reaching the "competent" point in all their skills, including the Rogue in all skills outside their core mastery.

Quote from: Psychman;537753How about introducing some sort of "mastery" component to the Rogue class that adds in to particular skill areas whether or not "skills" are used.  Say the Rogue can pick a small number of areas of expertise and add their class level to all rolls to do stuff in that area.

people playing without skills could still have Rogues doing Roguey stuff, and people using skills, the Rogues are better in a subset that they have specialised in while everyone else still reaching the "competent" point in all their skills, including the Rogue in all skills outside their core mastery.

That's a very good idea, especially with scaling task difficulty. :)

Quote from: Halloween Jack;537752No I'm not. I'm saying "myth and legend," which includes both myth and legend.

And I gave a list of legends.  Something you just reiterated that you were looking for an example of

Quote(Thanks, logic!) Because we were originally talking about "myth and legend" before you butted in, tried to shift the goalposts, and then accused me of shifting the goalposts.

When you say you're including legends, and I give examples, and you shift the definition of what a legend is to exclude the people I just listed, that's shifting the goalposts

Good lord...

QuoteYou've just been hoist by your own petard, sir. .

Man what? You must be trolling, because you seriously can't be this stupid

Oh, and if you're gonna quote the online dictionary, might as well quote all of it:

QuoteLegend,  originally denoting a story concerning the life of a saint, is applied to any fictitious story, sometimes involving the supernatural, and usually concerned with a real person, place, or other subject:

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537660That's because in later editions, especially 4e, almost all of your time was spent in combat.  So in order to make the thief relevant, they had to boost up combat damage.

Really bad design, IMO, any time you ignore a huge chuck of what D&D is (exploration).

I have seen people play 1E and 4E equally hack and slash. I blame people more than the version of the game.

I am biased toward roleplay over combat though.

basic/1E/2E are my favorite, but I don't mind 4E.

3E/3.5/Pathfinder I am starting to dislike.

Technically, if all the players love hack annd slash I can't really say they are doing it wrong.

Quote from: Psychman;537753How about introducing some sort of "mastery" component to the Rogue class that adds in to particular skill areas whether or not "skills" are used.  Say the Rogue can pick a small number of areas of expertise and add their class level to all rolls to do stuff in that area.

people playing without skills could still have Rogues doing Roguey stuff, and people using skills, the Rogues are better in a subset that they have specialised in while everyone else still reaching the "competent" point in all their skills, including the Rogue in all skills outside their core mastery.

Sounds similar to what 3e/Pathfinder does. Gives Rogues "knacks" sometimes tangentially based off skills or not to do things beyond mere skill use. Worked in those games and it works for me.

Quote from: Bill;537756I have seen people play 1E and 4E equally hack and slash. I blame people more than the version of the game.
.

Certainly you could do that in 1e, and some people have.  But the ways the rules are written, it takes a lot more time to do the same thing in 4e as it does in 1e in the context of the combat encounter.  I am pretty sure if you took a poll, the vast majority would agree that in 4e, much more time of the gaming session is spent on tactical combat than in 1e.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537755When you say you're including legends, and I give examples, and you shift the definition of what a legend is to exclude the people I just listed, that's shifting the goalposts

No, no. All the people you listed count as legends. I just find it curious that you listed only roughly historical characters and no mythical characters. You included Davy Crockett and didn't mention, say, Beowulf. As if you were trying to exclude more immediate and obvious examples that might strengthen my argument.

QuoteOh, and if you're gonna quote the online dictionary, might as well quote all of it:

Clearly you looked up a different one.

Quote from: Halloween Jack;537767No, no. All the people you listed count as legends. I just find it curious that you listed only roughly historical characters and no mythical characters. .

When you asked for examples that didn't conform to your preconceived opinion, I provided them.  Why would I give you examples that supported your (incorrect) assumptions when that wasn't what you asked for.

Seriously, it isn't that hard to follow.

QuoteClearly you looked up a different one.

It had the same two points as yours.  So OK, what link did you use for your definition.  Easy enough to check.

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537768your (incorrect) assumptions

What are those? Why are they incorrect?

Quote from: CRKrueger;537745No dog in this hunt really, but the difference between the words Legend, Fable, and Myth isn't important?  Seriously?  Saying someone who actually existed isn't a Legend is like saying a Terrier isn't a dog.  Historical existence, or the possibility of such is what separates a Legend from a Myth in the first place.  It's the friggin' definition.

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/20207291.jpg)

It's totally unimportant in this context or do you think that when the D&D guys were tlaking about powers like from myth and legend in application to high level D&D characters they were refering to high level PCs being like Michael Jordan a legendary ball player or like Beowulf .... When peple say 'of myth and legend' they are talking about larger than life myths and not wow I could be a fighter as good as Ali .....

Quote from: Acta Est Fabula;537716Say what now?  I'm using the common definition of the word used.  There's nothing semantic or pedantic about it.  HJ's the one (and you now) that is trying to say that a "legend' is only actually someone from mythology, which is a very tight and limited sample of what the word actually means and encompasses since it ignores the vast majority people who are literally defined as legendary.

what do you actually think the D&D guys meant in the actual context of their article....

Quote from: jibbajibba;537809When peple say 'of myth and legend' they are talking about larger than life myths and not wow I could be a fighter as good as Ali .....

When people say "of cats and dogs" not surprisingly, most of the time I think they are in fact considering both cats and dogs.

When someone says "out of myth and legend" I think they're referring to both some myth like Hercules and some legend like Leonidas.  Now that depends on context.  Since were talking about heroes in a RPG, you're probably talking about myths and legends and know what you're actually saying, or at least I hope you do.

If you're just blathering on about something and say "out of myth and legend" to make it sound poetic, then no, I don't expect you know what you're actually saying.  :p

Quote from: CRKrueger;537827When people say "of cats and dogs" not surprisingly, most of the time I think they are in fact considering both cats and dogs.

When someone says "out of myth and legend" I think they're referring to both some myth like Hercules and some legend like Leonidas.  Now that depends on context.  Since were talking about heroes in a RPG, you're probably talking about myths and legends and know what you're actually saying, or at least I hope you do.

If you're just blathering on about something and say "out of myth and legend" to make it sound poetic, then no, I don't expect you know what you're actually saying.  :p

Well read the actual quote from the article and decide what you think they meant :)

Anyway can we get back to actually talking about rogues :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;537697Cuchlain - can not be killed unless he eats dog meat

Being picky here, I admit, but I don't think that's strictly correct. Eating dog meat (and thereby breaking his geas) weakened him but I don't think he was invincible unless he ate dog meat.

Quote from: Dodger;537959Being picky here, I admit, but I don't think that's strictly correct. Eating dog meat (and thereby breaking his geas) weakened him but I don't think he was invincible unless he ate dog meat.

AHHH... :)
How about he defeats Death in single combat, defends Ulster single handedly against an entire army and has beserk warp spasms (just like Slaine)

The point is generally he is a bit tougher than Davy Crocket, Ali or Michael Jordan ... all absolute legends... hey didn't Davy Crocket kill a bear when he was 3 years old ? :)

I can see a reluctance to give non-caster high level PCs 'supernatural powers' but its been in the game for a long time. A 13th level Monk can fall any distance and not harm themselves is they are next to a Wall etc etc . The 'exotic' classes have always come with a lot of special mythical abilities at high levels its the just the figther and the rogue that get left behind, despite legends of great thieves and warriors in Western mythological traditions. Again not really my cup of tea I like my rogue / warriors cut from the S&S mould but I can see that there might be a desire to fill that gap.

Back to rogues.
Those people that want to protect rogue skills by separating them out and running them with a unique sub-system, aren't they falling into the 4e exception based design trap. Each class/ sub-class needs unique mechanical rules to protect its niche. Only Rangers can track, only bards can sing, etc .
I see that as lazy design and opens you up to multiple splats and class bloat.
 
I would rather give subclasses access to skill lists based on their background and allow those skills to cross polinate. Just by giving rogues extra skill points they must spend on the rogue skill list you automatically give them the advantage they need to dominate that space without preventing new specialist sub-classes having access to the same skills.

Because all the building blocks are then in the core design you kill the class bloat splat treadmill because the DM already has the tools to create any subclass he can think of and they all draw from the same mechanical design pool which eliminates exception based design.

Of course in a 5e situation you can simply restrict the rogue to drawing from the rogue skill list and remove the skill section from the rest of the game giving you a non skills based old school feel.

Surely that is the simplest solution to deliver all your design objectives?

OK well...
 
1) I don't see what the point of having classes under your system is; it'd be easier to give players 50 points and tell them to go wild... ?
 
2) Classes should have unique rules because they are special. If a class isn't unique, why make it a separate class in the first place? Why offer the rogue less niche protection than the fighter or mage (whose abilities you want to keep as class features) - why let fighters or mages become fighter/rogues or mage/rogues easily when the rogue can't pick up extra fighting or magic ?
 
Also I don't actually want "skills" to operate at a high level of power; I'd rather they operate on the order of something more like non-weapon-proficiencies - things that help define a character concept rather than winning the game. Putting Stealth and Spot on the same list as Profession and Craft is IMHO a bad idea. I'd rather lose the first two skills (by making them class abilities, since they're not going to be as good as the other options) than the last two.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;537983OK well...
 
1) I don't see what the point of having classes under your system is; it'd be easier to give players 50 points and tell them to go wild... ?
 
2) Classes should have unique rules because they are special. If a class isn't unique, why make it a separate class in the first place? Why offer the rogue less niche protection than the fighter or mage (whose abilities you want to keep as class features) - why let fighters or mages become fighter/rogues or mage/rogues easily when the rogue can't pick up extra fighting or magic ?
 
Also I don't actually want "skills" to operate at a high level of power; I'd rather they operate on the order of something more like non-weapon-proficiencies - things that help define a character concept rather than winning the game. Putting Stealth and Spot on the same list as Profession and Craft is IMHO a bad idea. I'd rather lose the first two skills (by making them class abilities, since they're not going to be as good as the other options) than the last two.

1) The Classes determine a shape to the characters by limiting spread so rather than getting generic jack of all trades you end up with more focused characters. A fighter who opts to take rogue skilsl will spend more so will be a weaker rogue. Therefore if that characterts wants to go down that path they shoudl play a rogue. The classes add strucutre without acting as straightjackets

2) Again as part of the whole system rogues and fighters could pick up magic and rogues and mages can learn how to fight. In all versions of D&D all classes can fight Fighters are just better at it. The same applies to thief skills in a system like this anyone can try to remove a trap but the thief is better at it. Again I am not in favour of dual/multi classing but happy to have cross polination of skills and powers at a cost.
Again this is common in D&D a ranger gets spells and can fight, a Paladin has the same.
I am less concerned about niche protection as a concept than I am about fitting the classes into the setting.

3) Okay that is fine. I think that Non-weapon proficiencies especially from 1e/2e are actually quite a lot more powerful than that the only issue is they don;t really scale.
The point remans that the theives abilities are skills. It's undeniable. If you want to run a separate sub-system for them then fine but they are still skills. You end up having a 2 speed system. This is the skills list for everyone - pile of crap that just add colour; these are the list of skills that are class based and are useful. You are going to get a lot of skills in that second category as you add classes. Like I said ranger tracking, Bardic social skills, Assasins getting a subset of rogue skills, Black Priests that get hide in shadow, Barbarians that can survive in the wilderness, Acrobats that can leap or pole vault. You will not stop Class bloat and by circumscribing thieves skills as unique to the class you set a precedent for all other classes.

But at least we are talking about rogues :)

No one can stop Class Bloat :)
 
2E had separate skills for the thief outside the main skill system, while 3E had them integrated into the core skill system, and I think you'll find that even excluding PrCs there were way more class variants in 3E.
 
There are more than one reason for this ($), but in order for you to stop class proliferation you need way more than just thief skills as core skills - you would need most or all of the classes to have their main features defined by the skill system. Thief skills in the common pool only slows down the appearance of new mutant Thief subclasses.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;538014No one can stop Class Bloat :)
 
2E had separate skills for the thief outside the main skill system, while 3E had them integrated into the core skill system, and I think you'll find that even excluding PrCs there were way more class variants in 3E.
 
There are more than one reason for this ($), but in order for you to stop class proliferation you need way more than just thief skills as core skills - you would need most or all of the classes to have their main features defined by the skill system. Thief skills in the common pool only slows down the appearance of new mutant Thief subclasses.

I think I would go in that direction though.

Combat & combat specialties
Magic and magic specialities
Skills and skill specialities

With classes all being difined on those axes

So The Monk is basically a fighter with a certain set of combat specialities and some Yogic type magic and some skills.
The Barbarian is a figther with a certain set of combat skills and a certain set of skills
The Paladin is a fighter with certain combat skills some divine magic and some skills (or indeed a Cleric with the same combination )

Now this excludes all the feat like class powers. Now I am all for that as I don't think feat like powers that don't scale are great and I think that in AD&D they were poorly distributed. However its easy to fix as you have a pool of feat like Powers and either attach them to classes at certain levels or you allow the PC to select from a sub list of the pool at certain levels typically every odd level or whatever.

When you look at AD&D classes this is basically how they work anyway. Monks and Druids get access to the 'Speak with Animals' feat, Paladins and Clerics get access to the  'Turn Undead' feat, Paladins get the 'Lay on hands' feat which is unique to them but you could easily see it also being taken by a priest of a god of Healing.

So all you are bascially doing is codifying and  revealing the design system used to create new classes to the DM.

You are right it may impact your abilty to sell splats and therefore your revenue stream but from a design perspective I think its more elegant.

Quote from: jibbajibba;538026I think I would go in that direction though.

Combat & combat specialties
Magic and magic specialities
Skills and skill specialities

With classes all being difined on those axes

The problem is that skills and skill specialties doesn't define a Rogue.  It defines what D&D 3.x called an "Expert".  Sure, if you take Rogue skills you've got a Rogue but if you take knowledge skills, you've got a Scholar.  You could use skills to build anything, not just a Rogue.  So what you are really arguing is that there is nothing distinct about a Rogue that makes them distinctly special and so maybe Rogue shouldn't even be a stand-alone class.  Maybe it's just one collection of skills among many that a player could choose, or not, and a party might being along a lock and trap expert into a dungeon just like they might bring knowledge skill expert along for an urban investigative adventure.  They're like a carpenter, plumber, or electrician.  An expert you call in to solve a specific problem, perhaps best handled with an NPC.

Quote from: John Morrow;538225..a party might being along a lock and trap expert into a dungeon just like they might bring knowledge skill expert along for an urban investigative adventure.  They're like a carpenter, plumber, or electrician.  An expert you call in to solve a specific problem, perhaps best handled with an NPC.

Like how the dwarves brought along Bilbo in The Hobbit! :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;537591I agree that fighter's abilities could be classes as skills and so could the wizards. However, I think from a D&D paradigm that is going a step too far. I think one of the main faults of 4e was they ignored the differences between classes and it all became a wash. So I think combat is separate enough for it to merit its own methodology and I think Magic also is.

And if the weird stuff that a Rogue does is not separate enough to merit its own methodology, does the Rogue deserve a distinct class or is Rogue simply a flavor of a generic skill expertise class that could just as easily be a Scholar or Weaponsmith with a different selection of skills?

Quote from: jibbajibba;537591However, I think a thief rolling to pick locks is a skill check. You can dress it up you can claim its a core competancy but you can't deny its a skill check.

I'm not.  But what about backstabbing?  What about scaling sheer surfaces?  What about moving stealthily without being seen or heard?  Sure, all of those things could be handled with skill rolls, but so could combat rolls and spell checks.

Part of what I have in mind goes back to the old GDW board game Asteroid (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1772/asteroid).  One of the characters in that game was a jewel thief by the name of Alex.  The rule with Alex was that if he began and ended his turn hidden from a sentry robot, the robot wouldn't spot him even if he was visible during the move.  A simple rule that requires no skill rolls and is better for it.  How could that translate to D&D?  At first level, a Rogue can cross 5 feet without being spotted.  At second level, 10 feet.  At 3rd level, 15 feet.  Or maybe a somewhat slower progression.  The same thing could be done with sheer surfaces.  The Rogue gets a free 5 feet at first level and more as they go up.  Also give them better saves to dodge out of the way of trouble.  All not skill rolls.  

Movement already has non-skill rules and limits, which is why I focused on it.  It's also something that most of your iconic examples have in common.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537591If you highlight it as different then you have to do the same with skills innate to each class, ranger's tracking, bardic lore etc ... In a world of class propagation and D&D is always prey to that, every magical smith class, animal trainer class, dwarven miner class would have a separate subsystem for their specialist class skill. To me that is a bit daft.

If you want to reduce this to an excluded middle argument, then the flip side of your extreme is that we don't need classes and all class abilities could be handled with skill checks which is, not unsurprisingly, what most non-D&D systems do.  The slope isn't that slippery and there is no problem handling some class abilities with special rules and others with skills or feats.  

Quote from: jibbajibba;537591I don't want rule bloat for its own sake and I don;t want to be hemmed in by the tyrany of the unique. My real reason for that is that I want to give the DM the toolkit to create their own sub classes and if every class has unique mechanics I can't do that.

The solution to that set of preferences is to pick any number of other games out there that have unified resolution mechanics and use skills to define characters, but that's not really how D&D does things.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537591I don't think you need to reduce fighters skills or a wizards. I think you need to give the Rogue more. So say a 1st level D&D figther gets 3 skill and they have a wilderness warrior template. they can pick tracking, survival, stealth, or riding, climbing and animal handling, or etc etc .... the first level rogue has 8 skills but they must pick 5 from the Rogue class of skills. they might have a wilderness scout template and pick the other three from the same wilderness list as the figther did. I haven't nerfed the figther I have just given the rogue more skills.

Why require them to take the Rogue class of skills, then?  What would be wrong with simply calling your class "Expert" and if a player chooses to be an expert in stealth, picking pockets, disarming traps, and opening locks, then they pick those skills.  If they want to be a Scholar, they pick a different set of skills?

Quote from: jibbajibba;537591Now I think your rogue example is a narrow niche. The Dungeon Scout rogue if you will.  I don't think all rogues should be restricted to that narrow niche I want to play all the rogues I listed.

In AD&D, the description of Thief states:

"The primary functions of a thief are: 1) picking pockets, 2) opening locks, 3) finding/removing traps, 4) moving silently, and 5) hiding in shadows."

D&D originally had a very narrow niche.  In arguing against a fairly narrow niche, I think you are arguing counter to the spirit of character classes which are designed around niche archetypes, not vague broad types of characters.  I think what you are talking about has more in common with the broad Champions categories of "brick", "energy projector", "speedster", etc.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537591I agree you could play a swashbuckler rogue like a musketeer, excellent idea.

Not "a musketeer".  I was talking about the titular iconic characters, who should be some sort of Fighter on the basis of their fighting prowess.  They illustrate my point that there are plenty of Fighter character concepts that include rogue-like skills and abilities as well as other skills.  Any character class can make an argument for skills, and if all that defines a Rogue is that they spend even more time on skills, does that really make Rogue a distinct class that warrants forcing players to take Rogues skills to justify its existence?

Quote from: jibbajibba;537591And Bilbo is a first level rogue surely? If we make him a PC at all.

Frankly, I'd rate Bilbo a Commoner.  What Rogue-like skills does he actualy display?

Quote from: jibbajibba;537591I have played fat greasy fence characters, not in dugeons but in City adventures. High appraisal, excellent pick locks and forgery.

Sure, and being used to skill-based and point-buy systems, I can think of dozens of character types that have nothing to do with the traditional D&D thief that I could build with a robust skill system and lots of skill choices.  What I don't understand is why you think Rogues should be distinctly blesses in that regard.

Quote from: jibbajibba;537591I would not allow multiclassing at all. I would allow classes to cross buy skills at a high cost. I think Multi-classing represents the very worst of min-max optimisation. However I can conceed that some players want to be able to optimise and min-max so an all inclusive D&D has to allow it.

The desire to multi-class is often simply the desire to play concepts that don't fit neatly into the single class paradigm.

Dude, come on!  Give Biblo the Expert class at least.  :)

So the Rogue is just a background or theme now?:eek:

"The desire to multi-class is often simply the desire to play concepts that don't fit neatly into the single class paradigm"


In regards to the above,

Yes. Using myself as an example, I love the concept of a warrior mage.

Without a single class that represents that, multiclassing can handle it.

The problem is when a player expects to be the best warrior ever, and best mage ever, all in one package.

Well implemented multiclassing is a positive thing.
Poorly implemented multiclassing is an abomination.

Quote from: Bill;538301"The desire to multi-class is often simply the desire to play concepts that don't fit neatly into the single class paradigm"


In regards to the above,

Yes. Using myself as an example, I love the concept of a warrior mage.

Without a single class that represents that, multiclassing can handle it.

The problem is when a player expects to be the best warrior ever, and best mage ever, all in one package.

Well implemented multiclassing is a positive thing.
Poorly implemented multiclassing is an abomination.

I think usually Multiclassing is an abomination and just falls into the optimiser's hands.

I want sepearte classes to feel distinct but at the same time but at the same time to allow access to other areas but at a cost.
1e & 2e xp levels meants that a multiclassed elf Fighter/Mu was 8/8 when the rest of the party were 9th level giving hte elf a huge benefit. Dual classing was complex and usually crap (although you could give a MU a level or two of fighter to abuse the system if you were clever about it - see my post on dual classing ages back if you want details)

Quote from: John Morrow;538228the spirit of character classes which are designed around niche archetypes

You're right, but not just narrowly delimited niches. Colorful and distinctive niches.

Paladin. Ranger. Monk. Bard.

If you're going to have a class-based system, and D&D must be that, then you must play to the strengths of class-based design. Each class (be there few or many) should be a niche, each class should have a strong and distinctive theme, each class should be evocative.

It should be fairly obvious, when building a character of that class, what social and adventuring role it has. Fighters hit beings with things. Rogues sneak around. Clerics heal. And so forth.

This is one of the strengths, IMHO, of Arcana Evolved (and the earlier Arcana Unearthed). The classes were different, and obviously different, and each was distinctive and evocative.

I built a "genericized" rogue for my 3e campaign, and a somewhat genericized ranger. Both worked mechanically, but in broadening their possible roles, in broadening the possible abilities of the classes, I leeched away the color and the distinctiveness. They were, as a result, somewhat bland.

Rogues need to be as strongly defined as Paladins or Monks. Otherwise, you may as well be playing a skill-based system. (Which I personally prefer, but that's just not D&D.)

Quote from: John Morrow;538228And if the weird stuff that a Rogue does is not separate enough to merit its own methodology, does the Rogue deserve a distinct class or is Rogue simply a flavor of a generic skill expertise class that could just as easily be a Scholar or Weaponsmith with a different selection of skills?

I'm not.  But what about backstabbing?  What about scaling sheer surfaces?  What about moving stealthily without being seen or heard?  Sure, all of those things could be handled with skill rolls, but so could combat rolls and spell checks.

Part of what I have in mind goes back to the old GDW board game Asteroid (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1772/asteroid).  One of the characters in that game was a jewel thief by the name of Alex.  The rule with Alex was that if he began and ended his turn hidden from a sentry robot, the robot wouldn't spot him even if he was visible during the move.  A simple rule that requires no skill rolls and is better for it.  How could that translate to D&D?  At first level, a Rogue can cross 5 feet without being spotted.  At second level, 10 feet.  At 3rd level, 15 feet.  Or maybe a somewhat slower progression.  The same thing could be done with sheer surfaces.  The Rogue gets a free 5 feet at first level and more as they go up.  Also give them better saves to dodge out of the way of trouble.  All not skill rolls.  

Movement already has non-skill rules and limits, which is why I focused on it.  It's also something that most of your iconic examples have in common.



If you want to reduce this to an excluded middle argument, then the flip side of your extreme is that we don't need classes and all class abilities could be handled with skill checks which is, not unsurprisingly, what most non-D&D systems do.  The slope isn't that slippery and there is no problem handling some class abilities with special rules and others with skills or feats.  

The solution to that set of preferences is to pick any number of other games out there that have unified resolution mechanics and use skills to define characters, but that's not really how D&D does things.

Why require them to take the Rogue class of skills, then?  What would be wrong with simply calling your class "Expert" and if a player chooses to be an expert in stealth, picking pockets, disarming traps, and opening locks, then they pick those skills.  If they want to be a Scholar, they pick a different set of skills?

In AD&D, the description of Thief states:

"The primary functions of a thief are: 1) picking pockets, 2) opening locks, 3) finding/removing traps, 4) moving silently, and 5) hiding in shadows."

D&D originally had a very narrow niche.  In arguing against a fairly narrow niche, I think you are arguing counter to the spirit of character classes which are designed around niche archetypes, not vague broad types of characters.  I think what you are talking about has more in common with the broad Champions categories of "brick", "energy projector", "speedster", etc.

Not "a musketeer".  I was talking about the titular iconic characters, who should be some sort of Fighter on the basis of their fighting prowess.  They illustrate my point that there are plenty of Fighter character concepts that include rogue-like skills and abilities as well as other skills.  Any character class can make an argument for skills, and if all that defines a Rogue is that they spend even more time on skills, does that really make Rogue a distinct class that warrants forcing players to take Rogues skills to justify its existence?

Frankly, I'd rate Bilbo a Commoner.  What Rogue-like skills does he actualy display?

Sure, and being used to skill-based and point-buy systems, I can think of dozens of character types that have nothing to do with the traditional D&D thief that I could build with a robust skill system and lots of skill choices.  What I don't understand is why you think Rogues should be distinctly blesses in that regard.

The desire to multi-class is often simply the desire to play concepts that don't fit neatly into the single class paradigm.

Okay we are looking at the design ask for D&D rogues. We are not looking at Rogues in another game we are therefore bound by the strictures of Class and level. Lets state that at the begining.
I actually think that in any game classes (or professions or archetypes) that grant access to some areas of the game at a cheaper cost or more easily than others prevent the colours of the game from running together too much to produce a sludge. But I can see that is a preference thing.

Lets look at the other mundane class, the fighter. The base figther gets no unique skills, aside from the frankly rather daft attacks versus sun 1HD opponents and the ability to attract followers and build a castle (anyone can build a castle you just need money and most classes get followers). They don't get to change into bears, or teleport, or move super fast. There is nothing a fighter can do that no one else can do. He is just better at it. And in AD&D he isn;t much better at it.
A 10th level fighter will have (9 x 5.5 +3) = 53 HP and require 12 to hit AC 0. He will have AC c. -2 to -4 from Magical armour and shield
A 10th level Cleric will have (9 x 4.5 +2) = 43 HP and require 14 to hit AC 0
He will have AC c. -2 to -4 from magical armour and shild and a fuck load of spells.

So really the fighter ain't a lot better. Does that mean that we should ignore fighters as a class? no of course not because they are iconic for the genre just like rogues

I propose giving fighters access to combat options. I would cascade these from fighting styles running fighting styles much like I would run skills. So if you are a Master of one handed weapon you can use a one handed weapon in each hand, you can perform a repoiste attack , etc ... I would allow other classes to learn the same skills just at a higher cost. the same thing as I would do for rogues and rogue skills.
In actually play the fighter class will be much better at fighting and the rogue class will be much better at roguing.

Backstab is a feat. I expalined that you can have feats which are added to the base class. Simple. Don't like feats then assign them to the class as a obligatory feat like Cleric turning undead.

I am not sure where you get this idea that thieves are meant to be the best climbers ever.... the PHB  (1e pg 27) says -
'Acsending and descending vertical surfaces is hte ability of the theif to climb up and down walls. It assumes that the surface is coarse and offers ledges and cracks for toe and handholds'
It doesn't turn thieves into spiderman.

Monks already get the vast majority of thieves' skills (including climbing) already so even the suggestion that the skills are just the domain of theives is already undermined (I will assume the AD&D assasin is just a theif subclass and won't use that as an additional example) .
By UA Barbarians can climb as well as well as thieves (of course they can also detect magic, track like a ranger and shoot fireballs out of their arse :) )

I agree that early D&D has the thief in a very narrow niche, but then early D&D was a very narrrow niche. As soon as you release D&D into the wild the thief expands massively by the time 2e comes along you have already allowed the rogue to spread their skills points in a customised fashion so that players can create the various different sorts of thieves they wanted to play. And the kits available to thieves show what a wide selection that was.

You have to work within the D&D design paradigms of class and level. At the same time you want to avoid class and rules bloat and the tyrany of the unique whilst allowing flexible customised charaterisations.
Using rogues to be the flagship of your skills system the place where PCs will get most familiarity with it then can choose whether they want to extend that as a play choice across the whole game or whether then keep that particular dial turned down to get an older school feel seems to be to be eminently sensible and elegant.

Quote from: jibbajibba;538302I think usually Multiclassing is an abomination and just falls into the optimiser's hands.
 
I want sepearte classes to feel distinct but at the same time but at the same time to allow access to other areas but at a cost.
1e & 2e xp levels meants that a multiclassed elf Fighter/Mu was 8/8 when the rest of the party were 9th level giving hte elf a huge benefit. Dual classing was complex and usually crap (although you could give a MU a level or two of fighter to abuse the system if you were clever about it - see my post on dual classing ages back if you want details)

OK side rant...I've never found multiclassing in older editions particularly unbalanced. I remember a couple of articles about this in Dragon back in the day which probably led to the whole 3E "fix" which made alot of the multiclass combinations suck badly.
 
The fighter/mage gets various limitations in 2E
*multiple ability dependency i.e. you need a high Int and Str, so you're not as good at either.
*armour limitations for the fighter/thief, unless you can find elven chain. The non-elves didn't even get that. Other combinations likewise had special limitations e.g. nothing pointy for cleric/?.
*less hit points than the fighter: 1.33 per wizard level + 2.6 per fighter level
*no weapon specialization
*no specialization in a school of magic
*probably no kit (OK, the racial kits were unbalanced; but they're optional).
L8 vs. L9 for wizard is also a significant difference; no 5th level spells or ability to make some magical items, IIRC. At higher levels the character gets further behind (the single-class character also gets a +2 bonus to their level limit, I think, as well as probably having a higher prime requisite).
 
Also as far as it being unbalanced goes, multiclassing is actually supposed to be of some benefit; its a racial ability (among other things compensating you for not having a soul, being a midget, or the movement rate of a rock).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;538319OK side rant...I've never found multiclassing in older editions particularly unbalanced. I remember a couple of articles about this in Dragon back in the day which probably led to the whole 3E "fix" which made alot of the multiclass combinations suck badly.
 
The fighter/mage gets various limitations in 2E
*multiple ability dependency i.e. you need a high Int and Str, so you're not as good at either.
*armour limitations for the fighter/thief, unless you can find elven chain. The non-elves didn't even get that. Other combinations likewise had special limitations e.g. nothing pointy for cleric/?.
*less hit points than the fighter: 1.33 per wizard level + 2.6 per fighter level
*no weapon specialization
*no specialization in a school of magic
*probably no kit (OK, the racial kits were unbalanced; but they're optional).
L8 vs. L9 for wizard is also a significant difference; no 5th level spells or ability to make some magical items, IIRC. At higher levels the character gets further behind (the single-class character also gets a +2 bonus to their level limit, I think, as well as probably having a higher prime requisite).
 
Also as far as it being unbalanced goes, multiclassing is actually supposed to be of some benefit; its a racial ability (among other things compensating you for not having a soul, being a midget, or the movement rate of a rock).

so on 2e Multi classing I am assuming you are usng your own rules as from the book -  

• The can specialise - the multiclass character can do everything a fighter can do
• A multi classed priest can use any weapons limited to his faith, plenty of faiths let you use swords
• less hit points than a fighter for sure but a lot more HP than a MU :)
• multi class wizards can totally use school specialisation, no limits on that although only elves can cast in armour and that is limited to elven chain
• armour restictions as a whole are not huge restictions if you have magic to help out thieves can wear armour but are then limited to detect noise and open locks

Quote from: jibbajibba;538324so on 2e Multi classing I am assuming you are usng your own rules as from the book -

• The can specialise - the multiclass character can do everything a fighter can do
• A multi classed priest can use any weapons limited to his faith, plenty of faiths let you use swords
• less hit points than a fighter for sure but a lot more HP than a MU :)
• multi class wizards can totally use school specialisation, no limits on that although only elves can cast in armour and that is limited to elven chain
• armour restictions as a whole are not huge restictions if you have magic to help out thieves can wear armour but are then limited to detect noise and open locks

On Weapon Specialization: "Multi-classed characters cannot use weapon specialization; it is available only to single-classed fighters". (2nd Ed. Player's Handbook, page 52):
 
On specializing: "Most specialist wizards must be single-classed; multi-classed characters cannot become specialists, except for gnomes, who seem to have more of a natural bent for the school of illusion" (2nd ed. PHB pg 31)
 
(also note illusionists get shafted with 3 oppositional schools - including Evocation and Abjuration - instead of the usual 2).
 
Specialty priests: Yes, a number of specialty priests can use swords; they typically get limitations in other areas to compensate e.g. less spheres of magic. Someone in a game I was in had a ranger/cleric of Sif for instance who could use a sword; looking at them now they get access to 7 spheres vs. the normal cleric's 12 spheres, and can't turn undead.
 
More hit points than the MU, I'll grant. For the 8/8 F/M vs. the M9  its 31.44, vs. 22.5.
 
On armour - I'm kind of entertained that by RAW a fighter/thief can't Read Languages while wearing platemail...I wouldn't enforce that, but I think losing access to Move Silently, Hide in shadows and backstab is a big deal.
 
On "armour restrictions are not a big deal if you have magic to help" - if by magic you mean e.g. Bracers of Armour or the Armor spell, then in the first instance if this is available the PCs probably also have access to magical armour which has an even better AC and improves their saving throws, while in the second case the spell still doesn't have a great AC (AC 6) and it also will helpfully melt halfway through combat after taking too much damage.
 
[Insert a #2 and a #13 here]

I think the identity crisis of the Rogue pretty clearly stems from the fact that it was a very logical class back when every class had very specific niche protection.  The rogue was the only guy who could do the things the rogue does.

As soon as 3e came along and added a general skill system that meant anyone could move silently, hide, pick locks, spot traps, etc., the Rogue started making less sense. The solution to that was to turn him into the guy with far more skill points, and/or into the guy who do special combat manoeuvres.  The problem with that is that the former doesn't really solve anything in terms of making the rogue unique and therefore class-worthy, and the latter breaks into the territory of the fighter; meaning that the rogue will always either be a worse combat option than fighters (and therefore a suboptimal class) or a better combat option than fighters (making fighters stupid).

This might be tricky to actually resolve, particularly without resorting to superpowers, which would also be stupid.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;538487On Weapon Specialization: "Multi-classed characters cannot use weapon specialization; it is available only to single-classed fighters". (2nd Ed. Player's Handbook, page 52):
 
On specializing: "Most specialist wizards must be single-classed; multi-classed characters cannot become specialists, except for gnomes, who seem to have more of a natural bent for the school of illusion" (2nd ed. PHB pg 31)
 
]

Fair enough I was reading page from page 45 on multiclassing with contradicts this . But then of course this is D&D :)

Warrior - A multi-class warrior can use all of his abilities without restriction. The Warrior abilities for the base for other character classes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;538536I think the identity crisis of the Rogue pretty clearly stems from the fact that it was a very logical class back when every class had very specific niche protection.  The rogue was the only guy who could do the things the rogue does.

As soon as 3e came along and added a general skill system that meant anyone could move silently, hide, pick locks, spot traps, etc., the Rogue started making less sense. The solution to that was to turn him into the guy with far more skill points, and/or into the guy who do special combat manoeuvres.  The problem with that is that the former doesn't really solve anything in terms of making the rogue unique and therefore class-worthy, and the latter breaks into the territory of the fighter; meaning that the rogue will always either be a worse combat option than fighters (and therefore a suboptimal class) or a better combat option than fighters (making fighters stupid).

This might be tricky to actually resolve, particularly without resorting to superpowers, which would also be stupid.

RPGPundit

But from the start of AD&D Monks could do everything apart from pick pockets and read languages.

I really think giving Thieves more skill points which they have to spend on thief skills whilst allowing some other subclasses access to some of those skills through a general skilsl system workd perfectly well.

A final point on theif super powers. I was thimking about this when looking through the other D&D classes. If effect what high level feats coudl you give thieves that have some sort of genre justification.
Its not easy...

There are a couple of mundane things you could add in like Ambidextrous or superb balance, but as I noted I woudl prefer feats to be scalable with level (although in a sense Ambidextrous is as the things it enables scale with level , like 2 weapon fighting or whatever).
Then I was thinking about fiction thief characters and what we could extract that had a supernatural feel without making them 'magic'

Alter Self - In GoT the assassins that Arya encounters and is now training to be can change their faces to disguise themeselves
Outrageous Luck - the rogue/thief character is often simply outrageously lucky allowing some sort of re-roll option mightbe a way of simulating that
Hide in Plain sight - beefing up the Hide in Shadows skill to allow thieves to literally melt from view.

I guess the idea would be to gift things that felt exceptional without requiring actual magic.

it is hard though as I wouldn't want my thieves gettign those sort of powers I much prefer them to be mundane

So, to return to the start of this thread, it seems that the Rogue's prime Class Ability is that only they can take a 10 on skill checks.