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.