I really like Thieves. Really-really.

I'm writing an 0e homage. The classes of antiquity are all here. I have placed the thief, paladin, assassin, the monk & some others in an appendix, along with the gnome and two other species. I did so because I want these other choices to be strictly optional.  I would ideally see players pick from the four races and from the three classes to make the first PC in the first campaign using this rule set. Because tradition or something.

But I really, really like me a Thief.

The Thief allows for multiclassing among Dwarfs and Halflings. That's an important flavor element; probably as important as keeping the Thief out of the original lineup, all things being equal.

Opinion question: would it be sacrelige to present the Thief up-front with the original three?  Put me some arguments for and/or against letting the Thief live in the front of the book instead of the back where he is now.

I seem to remember somewhere or another that a version of the Thief was being used as house rules prior to the Release of Greyhawk. Besides that though, it seems like, at least from what I gather that most folks were using Greyhawk as soon as it came out. So I guess the question becomes are you doing an homage the original rules on release day, or the spirit of them?

My 2 cents personally would be that you are the one doing the work on this so include what you want how you want. I don't think it would be sacrilege.

I wouldn't call it sacrilege, no. I too like the thief/rogue class, they can be fun to play and have lots of uses.

But you have to give the "party" or the main heroic characters a reason to want such a guy in the group. What does he offer that the others don't? How useful is he? Muscles and weapons, spell slinging, healing power: that stuff is obvious and always needed. But thief skills? Make the group want the guy around. This may necessitate some adjustment from the GM but it can be simple stuff. Treasure located in secret places only a thief can find. More locked doors and chests. Give a high level thief the ability to assess the value of items (that rug in the princes room maybe be the most valuable thing there, the painting on the wall is from a rare master artist and he knows just the guy would be willing to pay 30,000 GP for it. Awkward to carry out but worth it.) Put in more traps for the thief to defuse. Make available a few "friends in low places" that can provide useful info or other help.

He can be a solid member of the group if you let him. This he's an equal to the other three classes and deserves to be in the front of the book.

Just my two cents.

I love thieves. My 0e games are better without them. My players and I have tremendously enjoyed our human-only 0e games with only Fighting Men, Magic Users and Clerics.

It's an interesting dynamic and brings a freshness to Old School D&D that has been a blast.

Whenever I get a new players, they ask "where's the thieves?" and I answer, "you are all a bunch of thieves!" and during play, they really love solving the situations with the 3 classes instead.

For me and our crew, it gets really interesting.

In my OD&D game, I use only the core three classes. I have also been using things akin to 5E backgrounds for quite a while.

So in addition to class, each player can choose a background such as assassin, soldier, thief, ranger, scholar, athlete, or healer. This allows for a bit of flexibility as all character abilities are not tied strictly to class.

All characters can attempt to be stealthy and have a reasonable chance to succeed with proper precautions, but someone with thief background is naturally better at it.

IMHO thief as originally written wasn't strong enough to be worthy of its own character class.

Its YOUR game. Put the thief wherever you want.

That's a really interesting take, how two players have games where not having a thief makes for more interesting choices.

I'm still leaning towards adding him in at the beginning in order to give Dwarfs and Halflings something to multiclass to.

BUT

If you go with a Men-only game (I've done this for a pirate adventure game to good effect) then the multiclassing is moot.

I don't want to give away the cool way elves multiclass though.

Ah, decisions

Maybe I write it both ways. One way is standard (fewer options) and then another way is for expanded play (add in Demi-men and the others and the other classes.)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;775117So in addition to class, each player can choose a background such as assassin, soldier, thief, ranger, scholar, athlete, or healer. This allows for a bit of flexibility as all character abilities are not tied strictly to class.

Very interesting. How do you express this mechanically?

I like Thieves, though I do think they're a hair weak in Grey Hawk & AD&D.  Give them skills but do Dex + points spent percent.  Or if you want d20 rolls only do proficiency bonus.  The percentages on a low level thief are pointless.

I have a thief version that I like. Very simple and flavorful with room for specialization.

I think I shall put them in the beginning of the book as a standard class. Four races; four classes; each kind of Demi-Man gets to multiclass in the original way. Men get one class but can switch to a new class if they give up their old one permanently.

Quote from: Spinachcat;775995Very interesting. How do you express this mechanically?

With a simple bonus to ability checks when performing activities related to their area of expertise.

There is some overlap. An assassin has some of the same skills as the thief but each has unique skills.

The ranger has some of the stealth skills of the thief but only in outdoor settings, and has tracking and survival skills.

In addition to these background skills, each character gets to roll to see if any secondary skills are known. These can be craft, professional, or performance skills.

All of this is plenty to make customized characters with only three classes.

I've been playing OD&D since the days before thieves, but I think that a "core four" (fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief) is a better game than one without thieves.

When I did my SW WhiteBox rules I wanted to put thieves in but was convinced to make it more "pure" and leave them out. To me, that's the biggest flaw in my rules set and I wish I had put them in anyway.

Go for it!

Oh! Wow! Well your rules and your product are very well liked. So listening to your advice can't be bad.

Also: confirmation bias. I had decided subsequent to posting the thread that I want Thieves in the front.

Paladin, Assassin, Monk and Druid in the back. Thieves deserve to ride in front!

Quote from: Scott Anderson;779938Oh! Wow! Well your rules and your product are very well liked. So listening to your advice can't be bad.

Well, I don't think I have any special insight -- just lots of years of playing and I know what my players like. If you can find what your players like, then you know what to put into your campaign.

Quote from: finarvyn;779841When I did my SW WhiteBox rules I wanted to put thieves in but was convinced to make it more "pure" and leave them out. To me, that's the biggest flaw in my rules set and I wish I had put them in anyway.

I consider the lack of thieves in S&W:WB to be one of the biggest perks of your rule set.

It's not about "purity", which is just forum wank bullshit. The lack of thieves is about the Magic User, Cleric and Fighting Man acting as the trinity of classes to solve issues of burglary and larceny without a class devoted to it.

Also, its GREAT for DMs. Building campaigns around the concept of a world were "nobody / everybody" is a thief makes for interesting design choices. After playing D&D for decades using the Big 4 or Big 4 + Subclasses, its really exciting change that enlivened my game for me and my players.

AKA, traps aren't about rolling dice, they are more about puzzles and I've found myself spending more time on creating cool complex traps based on PCs interacting with the traps, instead of the thief rolling dice.

Quote from: Spinachcat;780865I consider the lack of thieves in S&W:WB to be one of the biggest perks of your rule set.

It's not about "purity", which is just forum wank bullshit. The lack of thieves is about the Magic User, Cleric and Fighting Man acting as the trinity of classes to solve issues of burglary and larceny without a class devoted to it.

Also, its GREAT for DMs. Building campaigns around the concept of a world were "nobody / everybody" is a thief makes for interesting design choices. After playing D&D for decades using the Big 4 or Big 4 + Subclasses, its really exciting change that enlivened my game for me and my players.

AKA, traps aren't about rolling dice, they are more about puzzles and I've found myself spending more time on creating cool complex traps based on PCs interacting with the traps, instead of the thief rolling dice.

IMHO anything that encourages players to actively do more during play instead of just making checks is a good thing.