Quote from: Larsdangly;833364I always thought it would have been simplest if the Thief class was simply given a progressively increasing bonus at the standard d6 die rolls for surprise and spotting secret doors and traps, following exactly the same progression as their bonus to listen. You could pretty much do the same thing with opening doors and removing traps, just saying it follows the 'open doors' rules, but a thief gets a bonus for DX rather than the fighter's bonus for ST. The odds would be not so different, and it would cut out a whole sub system of rules.

Understand I present a moderate fantasy world. There is magic but nobody is a fantasy superhero.

With that in mind, the question for me when it came to adapting the Majestic Wilderlands to OD&D/Swords & Wizardry was that there were characters that were better at things other than praying, fighting, or casting spells.  I don't view thieves/rogues as supernaturally good, just better at non-combat tasks than fighters magic-users, and cleric. Hence Burglars have a bonus to stealth because of their class while the other classes only have their dex bonus to add to their stealth checks. But Stealth is stealth whether it is a burglar or a fighter or a cleric or a magic user.

If this is your view then the Majestic Wilderlands supplement will work well. If it is not, then you may still get some use out of it for ordinary check and use the default thief abilities to represent supernaturally good skills.


The ability system in part was designed to represent those characters. I choose a d20 roll high because that what you use to attack with and what you use to save with. So it made sense to resolve ability check with a d20 roll high. Since in most editions of D&D thief abilities went up and down in 5% increments it works out the same.

Quote from: Arminius;833374There are other problems with Thief skills and I don't think there are universal answers:

No but some approaches are more common than others.

Quote from: Arminius;833374--How to handle opposed tasks (stealth including hide, sneak, pick pockets; also listen at doors)

One common approach is to
1) Make the attempt. If you fail you don't get to do X.
2) Even if you succeed the target still rolls, if they succeed they detect you. If you fail #1, they don't have to roll they detect you trying to do X.

Obviously this is not perfect for folks as evidenced by degrees of success. However it not lacking sense as it is reasonable to consider each roll an independent task.

Another to have four degrees of success

Critical Success, Ordinary Success, Ordinary Failure, Critical failure. If you pick pockets and both succeed with an ordinary success then the attempt is successful but detected. Typically criticals in D&D are 5% or a nat 20/1.

Quote from: Arminius;833374--How to handle repeated attempts/attempts by multiple people (pick lock)

One common approach is that they succeed unless they roll a critical failure, it just take a lot of time and noise.

Another is that it, one attempt you get. If you don't pick the lock, it has defeated you.

Quote from: Arminius;833374--How to handle degree of success/failure (chiefly climb--what exactly does a failure mean?)

The general principle from back in the day failure is as if it was in real life. Miss a climb check you fall. If it a sheer wall then it means falling damage of 1d6 per 10'. If you had the sense to declare that you were using ropes then you would still fall but just dangle there until you recovered yourself and resume the climb.

What didn't generally happen is a lot of detail like whether pounding in a piston was a success or not. If you came up with a good plan in the view of the referee, it should generally succeed.

Quote from: Larsdangly;833364I always thought it would have been simplest if the Thief class was simply given a progressively increasing bonus at the standard d6 die rolls for surprise and spotting secret doors and traps, following exactly the same progression as their bonus to listen. You could pretty much do the same thing with opening doors and removing traps, just saying it follows the 'open doors' rules, but a thief gets a bonus for DX rather than the fighter's bonus for ST. The odds would be not so different, and it would cut out a whole sub system of rules.

Lamentations did something similar, though the specialist gets to choose where to specialize instead of automatically getting better.

The d6 for miscellaneous actions makes a lot of sense. Except for thief skills, it's basically how old school D&D works, from opening doors to surprise. Plus, using a different die helps to mentally separate non-combat actions from the combat and save subsystems. And the lower granularity fits because it's a basic principle that you generally want more granularity in the more critical areas (like combat or saves), and lower granularity in the more peripheral areas (like picking pockets).

I've used two other approaches, as well:

1. Thieves always succeed. If you have the skill on your character sheet, you can always open a lock or remove a trap. The roll doesn't determine whether you succeed or fail -- it just determines whether you succeed this round. There are no negative consequences to failing to make a roll, and you can always try again next round.

Which means Black Dougal didn't die. Instead, he gets to keep rolling, every round, until he makes the 10%.

This removes the whiff factor, but it does mean all thieves can eventually open any lock or remove any trap. Though high level thieves are a lot better at picking the lock on the escape hatch or stealing the wizard's ring, in the midst of combat or during another tense situation.

And most importantly, it means thief abilities are no longer a liability. The thief is never expected to risk their life, while the rest of the party is safe. Because thief abilities are always safe.

2. Thieves know whether they'll succeed. In other words, if your chance of removing a trap is 10%, you roll before you decide whether to try to remove it. If you succeed, great! One round, and the trap is neutralized. But if you fail, you know (for sure) that it's beyond your abilities.

Well, you know it's beyond that specific thief ability. If everyone can try to climb the wall (by making an ability check, or a save vs. paralyzation, or whatever), you can still try that. You just have no better (or worse) chance than any other class.

This allows thieves to periodically shine (when they make their roll), but never puts them at risk. After all, if you succeed on your roll to climb sheer surfaces, you succeeded. You just made the fighter look like the clumsy clod-footed oaf she really is. But if you failed your roll, you're in the same boat as everyone else. You have the same chance of success as the fighter, so why not let her try this time?

Quote from: nDervish;833317Six of one, half-dozen of the other.  The final odds are the same regardless of which roll you make first.

Quote from: Raven;833371Not if you follow the procedure properly and attempt thief skills first. If successful those percentages you listed (surprise/hear noise) never enter play.

If you have two independent rolls (anyone-being-sneaky roll and thief-extra-sneaky roll) the odds of at least one of them succeeding are exactly the same regardless of which order they're rolled in, or even if they're rolled simultaneously.  It makes absolutely no mathematical difference whatsoever which is rolled first.  2/3 chance to fail surprise * 80% chance to fail Move Silently = 80% chance to fail Move Silently * 2/3 chance to fail surprise.  You have a 53% chance of being heard either way.

Which is preferable to roll first is situational.  If the thief is solo, then rolling thief skills first is more streamlined, since a success means not having to make Hear Noise rolls for the monsters, not having to do a situational assessment for modifiers, etc.  If non-thieves are around, you need to do all that stuff anyhow for them, so it seems like it would be simpler to have everyone roll the same thing at the same time, then use the thief skills as a "second chance" if needed.  But, again, the final odds of success are the same either way, so it makes no mathematical difference which you do first.

Quote from: Pat;8333872. Thieves know whether they'll succeed. In other words, if your chance of removing a trap is 10%, you roll before you decide whether to try to remove it.

Interesting approach.  I haven't encountered that one before, but I think I like it.

Quote from: nDervish;833509absolutely no mathematical difference

Quoteodds of success are the same

Quoteno mathematical difference

Look man, my only intent was to point out (in response to the poster who mentioned fallback rolls) how Acks specifically integrates those skills into it's base sneak mechanics differently than how I imagine most people (including myself) have utilized them over the years. "How the math works out" is not something that concerns me overly much, nor is how someone else chooses to use those mechanics in their own game.

Here is how we handled surprise and sneaking in the original ACKS.

SURPRISE AND SNEAKING
Sometimes an encounter occurs when characters are attempting to sneak up on, or get past, monsters without being detected. The Judge can resolve these situations through the interplay of surprise rolls and hearing noises throws with varying risk depending on how alert the monsters are.
If the monsters are actively watching an area, any characters attempting to sneak through the area will be detected automatically. Most monsters cannot sustain this level of alertness for more than a turn and will lapse into passive watching (see below). However, constructs and undead are always considered actively alert.
If the monsters are passively watching an area, but aren't in a state of high alertness, the Judge should make a surprise roll when the characters attempt to sneak past or up on them. If the monsters are surprised (normally on a roll of 1-2 on 1d6), the characters can move for one round without being detected. If the opponents are ready, then the sneaking characters are detected.
If the monsters are distracted (e.g. by conversation with friends or a loud noise elsewhere) or otherwise not looking, the Judge should make proficiency throw to see if any of the monsters hear any noises (normally an 18+ on 1d20). If all of the monsters fail this throw, then the sneaking characters can move for one round without being detected. If at least one monster succeeds on this throw, it hears something which gets its attention. But that doesn't mean the sneaking characters automatically got caught. The Judge should now make a surprise roll, as described above.
Under normal circumstances a passive monster can be snuck up on 33% of the time (2 in 6), while a distracted monster can be snuck up on 90% of the time (because it has a 15% chance of hearing something and a 66% chance of detecting the characters if it hears something). If the monster has the Alertness proficiency, it will be surprised only on a 1 in 6, and will gain a +4 to proficiency throws to hear nose. The Alertness proficiency therefore reduces the chance of sneaking up on a passively watching monster down to 16% (1 in 6), and of sneaking up on a distracted monster to 75% (because it has a 30% chance of hearing something and an 84% chance of detecting the characters if it hears something).
If the monsters are watching an area that is dimly lit or otherwise offers some concealment, a thief (or similar class) may attempt to hide in shadows. If the thief is successful, the monsters don't see the thief – they are effectively distracted, as above. The thief will be detected only if the monsters hear him make noise. If the thief successfully moves silently, he cannot be heard. Thus a thief sneaking through a dimly lit area can get past past virtually any monster if he successfully moves silently and hides in shadows.
Monsters can also sneak up on, or past, characters using similar mechanics. Characters would need to make surprise rolls and/or hear noise throws to detect the monsters.
****
And here are updated rules for thief abilities that will be appearing in an upcoming ACKS supplement called Heroic Companion:

ENCUMBRANCE AND THIEVERY
Thieves, and other classes which use thief skills, benefit from being light on their feet. If the character's encumbrance is 5 stones or less, he gains a +2 bonus on proficiency throws to climb walls, hide in shadows, and move silently. If the character's encumbrance is 2 stones or less, the bonus is increased to +4. The bonuses do not apply to hijinks.

REVISED THIEF SKILLS
Open Locks: Each attempt to pick a lock requires 10 minutes. A thief may try again if he fails to pick a lock. However, if a thief rolls a natural 1 while attempting to pick a lock, he has broken his thieves' tools.

Find Traps: Each attempt to find a trap requires 10 minutes per 10 square feet searched. If the thief fails a proficiency throw to Find Traps by 4 or less, he suspects a trap exists (if there actually is one), but does not know its exact nature. A thief may continue to attempt to find traps as long as desired. However, if a thief rolls a natural 1 while attempting to find a trap, he has fumbled the search. If a trap exists, he sets it off. If no trap exists, he believes one does, but he thinks he does not know its exact nature.

Remove Traps: A thief may only remove a trap he has found, not one he just suspects to exist. Each attempt to disarm a trap requires 10 minutes. He may try again if he fails to disarm a trap. However, if a thief rolls a natural 1 while attempting to disarm a trap, he has set off the trap.

Pick Pockets: A thief can try to suddenly grab an item without regard to being noticed – doing so grants a +4 bonus to the proficiency throw, but the intended victim automatically notices regardless of whether it succeeds or not. The item may not be an item in the target's hand (that is a disarm special maneuver).
****
I think the rules above combine to make thieves quite effective and fun, even at first level.

Quote from: nDervish;833509Interesting approach.  I haven't encountered that one before, but I think I like it.

Thanks. I was getting frustrated with the way the mere existence of their abilities single the thief out for death, in a way completely unlike the unique features of any other class. But then I realized that removing the chance of failure removed that trap built into their abilities, which led to option #1. But while I'm okay with assuming thieves are highly competent professionals, I don't necessarily want them to be Leverage-level infallible. Which led to the second realization -- they don't have to be infallible, they just have to be sure.

The thief's slight edge means they're always picked for the dangerous solo activities. But if their abilities are separated out and treated as a small chance of automatic success (with no chance of failure), there's no reason to single them out for (unfair) special treatment anymore. They either solve the problem automatically, or they have the same chance as everyone else.

I like my rogues to be extremely good at the thing they're supposed to do, but not particularly good at the things other people are supposed to do.   One of the things that pissed me off immensely about 3e is that a combination of various rules set up a situation where often (like, anytime-they-can-flank often, which is almost always if a player group has half a brain) the Rogue was better at fighting in melee combat than the fighter.
That should never happen anytime that an opponent actually knows the rogue is there.

Of course, pretty much all of 3e could be described as "What's the Point of Fighters Even Existing?: the RPG".

Quote from: RPGPundit;834228I like my rogues to be extremely good at the thing they're supposed to do, but not particularly good at the things other people are supposed to do.   One of the things that pissed me off immensely about 3e is that a combination of various rules set up a situation where often (like, anytime-they-can-flank often, which is almost always if a player group has half a brain) the Rogue was better at fighting in melee combat than the fighter.
That should never happen anytime that an opponent actually knows the rogue is there.

Of course, pretty much all of 3e could be described as "What's the Point of Fighters Even Existing?: the RPG".

This is something that has bugged the shit out of me for 3E, 4E and 5E. For some reason, it is thought to be necessary that every class has an effectively equal set of options to dish out and avoid damage in combat, just under different guises (at will spells, backstabs, etc.). This principle feeds the notion that the game is just about combat (thus all characters must be engineered to have equal power in combat), and that the only way anyone can be satisfied with their character is to have him or her be equal to everyone else in combat. I find it all incredibly twee and boring and completely inconsistent with the whole notion of D&D game play and the meaning of character classes. I would say this more than anything has kept me boxed into the OSR genre of games for some time.

Quote from: Larsdangly;834274This is something that has bugged the shit out of me for 3E, 4E and 5E. For some reason, it is thought to be necessary that every class has an effectively equal set of options to dish out and avoid damage in combat, just under different guises (at will spells, backstabs, etc.). This principle feeds the notion that the game is just about combat (thus all characters must be engineered to have equal power in combat), and that the only way anyone can be satisfied with their character is to have him or her be equal to everyone else in combat. I find it all incredibly twee and boring and completely inconsistent with the whole notion of D&D game play and the meaning of character classes. I would say this more than anything has kept me boxed into the OSR genre of games for some time.

Yes, there seems to be a double standard in modern rpgs that every archetype must be a decent performer in combat, but classes that are combat focused don't need to be competent at anything else.

Why is it ok if the fighter can't do much else besides hit things, but not ok if the scrawny rogue can't crank out consistent damage like nobody's business?

Mages need to have all the cool utility magic yet also need to pew pew heavy crossbow bolts of fire out of their ass at will or they don't seem "magical" enough.

Clerics need to support and heal but not at the cost of not continuing to crank out damage constantly so we will make up healing resources as a bullshit extra action so they can keep fighting.


When everyone is a fighter then the fighter class might as well stay home.

I suspect the best way to break that log jam (other than just playing the perfectly good 35 year old games on our shelves) is to strip the concept of classes back to Chainmail or OD&D: unless you are a magic user, you are all in the same boat, and your ability to do various things depends on your ideas, stats and equipment, not your class.

It's a way. Not sure it is the best way. Skill based systems manage fine. Again, take a look at the hybrid approach of Talislanta, which has some extremely non-combat archetypes.

I think really the key here is not to turn combat into the central game activity. In original D&D it wasn't heavily detailed.

Quote from: Larsdangly;834274This is something that has bugged the shit out of me for 3E, 4E and 5E.

I think this came from the great length of time combats took at most tables in 3.x and 4e: 40 minutes to an hour seemed to the the low end of average combat length for even a simple encounter from what I can tell. When a single combat takes that long, being ineffective in combat just leads to a bored player. When simple combats took 5 or 10 minutes like they often did (and still do) in TSR editions, playing a character class that wasn't too effective in combat did not really suffer from this problem -- outside of a (realatively) few groups who had houseruled detailed and time-consuming combat rules into their game.

Quote from: RandallS;834376I think this came from the great length of time combats took at most tables in 3.x and 4e: 40 minutes to an hour seemed to the the low end of average combat length for even a simple encounter from what I can tell. When a single combat takes that long, being ineffective in combat just leads to a bored player. When simple combats took 5 or 10 minutes like they often did (and still do) in TSR editions, playing a character class that wasn't too effective in combat did not really suffer from this problem -- outside of a (realatively) few groups who had houseruled detailed and time-consuming combat rules into their game.

This is two sides of the same worthless coin: combat is slow because of the cruft-filled complexity of all the abilities; all the abilities seem important because you spend all your time in combat.

When third edition first came out, a lot of people looked at the rogue's +Xd6 sneak attack bonus, and went "wow, that's a lot! Fighters suck."

But that's only a first impression. In actual play, the 3.X fighter consistently cranks out more damage than the rogue. To start with, rogues have a crappy attack bonus and therefore miss a lot and have less attacks, their key ability doesn't add anything to damage (while Strength does, for fighters), they're desperately short on feats (which are needed to become an effective whirling dervish), and a fair number of monsters are immune to sneak attacks. On top of that, they also have terrible saves (even worse than the fighter's), crappy AC, and poor hit points -- so if they stand around in combat making full attacks, they die. Rogues get an occasional big sexy damage total, but on average fighters did a lot more damage.

That's not to say there weren't a ton of problems with the 3.X fighter, but the rogue wasn't one of them.