The Lost D&D Part 3 - Dude, Where's my Thief?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- #0e #dungeonsanddragons #OldSchool #roleplayinggames #DnD
Many may (or may not) be surprised to learn that there is no thief in Original 1974 Dungeons and Dragons. Let's talk about it and how it affects the game.
Get Wight-Box on my Website here: thebasicexpert...
Get Wight-Box on DTRPG here: www.drivethrur...
Support my Channle on SubscribeStar: www.subscribes...
Support my Channel on my Guilded server here: www.guilded.gg...
Correction: I said there was a spell to unlock locks. This is false. I meant the detect traps spell for Clerics.
Knock, a level 2 spell in Vol 1 Men & Magic, is a spell that sounds to me like it would unlock locks in the etc clause of it's description: Knock: A spell which opens secret doors, held portals, doors locked by magic, barred or otherwise secured gates, etc. Range: 6".
@@Sichuanbeef Yes! That's what I was thinking of! Whew!
@@TheBasicExpert Glad to be of service sir
Hey man, i got my paperback of Macuahuitl and Wightbox. Im very excited for my Hardback version of Macuahuitl. I really enjoy 0e, and you content. Thanks for speaking about it, and keep up the good work
Thank you for your kind words.
I will say that, much like the acrobat, the Thief is best suited for City-Crawls.
They can be used for Dungeon Delves, but they shine in Lankmahr type campaigns
I'm thinking of making an Apocalyptic D&D game, based on 0e, and i would give thief skills to all classes (some of them) and make a sub class of fighter, that has all the thief stuff
I'm with you. Having played AD&D since 1980, I used to think the Thief was indispensable. As I read through various 0DD clones and your Wight Box, I can see how it isn't really necessary.
I completely agree that from an OD&D game point of view the Thief isn’t really necessary. Doesn’t mean it isn’t fun, but it isn’t necessary. I do prefer the class to be included in the game I think because of the main Appendix N influences on me when I started playing in 1977. It was The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings that influenced me, it was the Conan stories and the Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser stories, and in both of these “thievery” is important to the adventures, and in F&GM the thief class itself is vital, even if it’s just for NPCs or enemies of the PCs. So I agree, the class isn’t necessary and it is possible to use the existing rules in many ways to come up with a task resolution method for “thievery” activities like sneaking as you proposed using the surprise mechanic to do. Where it does fall short for me though is that unlike fighting and spell casting and turning undead, those mechanisms do not allow for PCs to improve as they gain levels. For example, using the surprise mechanic to represent stealth is great, I have done the same thing with non-thieves, but a 1st level and a 10th level PC will have the same chance of surprising an enemy, so they get no better at stealth. If you are like me and want a Conan flavor in your OD&D game, not improving at thief things but improving at fighting or being able to cast more powerful spells as the PC increases in level just doesn’t sit quite right. I think if I had been more influenced by the Lord of the Rings, I would probably be fine with it.
That said, a minor tweak you can make to your existing use of surprise for stealth rule to get more of a “backstab” feel is to simply allow those who surprise the other side to do maximum damage on an attack if a “1” was rolled for surprise. On a “2” they get the normal one move and one attack without the other side able to act. On a “1” they get the one move and one attack without the other side able to act, but if they hit they automatically do maximum damage.
Great video! Keep it up! I am really enjoying this deep dive into OD&D and I just got your Wight Box rules and they are great!
Yeah I love thieves. They are cool and fun. But yeah, not required. A fun addition.
I personally love the Thief class. Gygax and Arneson were playing with the thief for some time before OD&D was first published. Several of the original playtesters, including Michael Mornard have stated that all the material in Greyhawk was already being used or playtested before the release of the box set. It's just that there wasn't room for everything, so the LBBs focus on the basic system and everything else was saved for a supplement. But Gygax's original writeup for the thief was published in The Great Plains Game Players Newsletter #9, prior to the publication of Greyhawk. So really the Thief was there in the beginning.
Something else to point out is OD&D states that pretty much any sort of character should be allowed. D&D volume 1: Men and Magic said:
Other characters - There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.
@@ChuckBarchuk the thief class was made after the fact from a wargame group in California. At Berkley I believe. At least from what I read.
There is a lot of stuff in the OG books that might surprise people, I have the old books and still find stuff.
All your comments are fair , but the one thing I would say is that ( I think ) the game needs to "serve" the desires of different "types" of players if it is to survive and thrive.
I started playing on the White Box Set in 1977 , and while my own desired game style is
very old school ( if it must be defined for the purposes of context ) , I think the Thief Class
serves a very specific style of player that the other Character Classes do not.
For this reason , I keep it ( at least a reflection of it ) in a Class I call "Scoundrel" , while I have dispensed with the Cleric Class out of a desire to not include Christian ethos within my imagined game worlds.
I realize that these choices have game - mechanical implications , but I am able to work around these effectively using other means.
Interesting views and perspectives. Thanks for the videos.
Removing the thief opens up the game a lot and I'd actually prefer if it was not part of the D&D canon. I'm actually thinking of leaving it out if or when I'm starting up my next B/X campaign.
TBE take your time, we'll be here.😊
Great video. I like learning about the old editions & you're a great resource for that!
I find this RPG archeology interesting, even if it isn't really my thing.
cool vid bud, im an old schooler from 1981, just back into the hobby in 2020, created my own flavour of DND and am now just watching content people for inspiration and creative contacts. Keep 'em Rollin'
There may not be critical hits in 0e, but you can technically still do stealth kills, even without the Thief.
When a PC attempts a stealth kill, a surprise check for the NPC can be made. If the NPC is not surprised, then the combat order starts with the PC winning initiative. If the NPC is surprised, then perhaps the NPC makes a Death Save if it's of the same or lower hit die than the PC, or the PC simply gets a free hit.
This idea may need some tweaking, but I hope you get the idea.
To me the main difference between OD&D and later versions is OD&D assumed your DM could apply good judgment and commom sense and properly arbitrate when players came up with maneuvers and schemes that weren't explicitly covered by the rules.
Howdy Stranger
I think a the thief is more like a "Magic-User", firstly the thief literally can "Hide in Shadows" this is magic or something close that.
Classes in general are silly to me, if I want to be a tank mage, a healing swordsman (not paladin), or all utility alchemist that just helps the party, I want to play the game that way without cobbling together 2 or more classes/getting useless skills before I get the skill/attribute I want.
Well the beauty of 0e is that it is light enough where it needs to be to play that kind of game with just the Fighting-Man, Cleric, and Magic-User.