TheRPGSite

There is so much excellent game material being published for the OSR these days! I'm particularly encouraged that the system situation has more or less stabilized into roughly a half dozen most commonly used ones, and most of the creative energy is now going into really awesome settings, adventures, supplements, etc.

I'm on a bit of an OSR walkabout these days, and generally like to play using my original B/X or 1E books. But, like most D&D players, I generally end up fiddling with the rules set and eventually get irritated. So, I'm wondering whether there is something nicely produced out there that covers my main gripes.

I would appreciate knowing what others interested in this style of games have to say regarding which of the OSR style systems best fit the following criteria:

- Genuinely compatible with most or all pre-3E and modern OSR materials (i.e., it is D&D, not a separate game inspired by D&D). For example, DCC is awesome, but really doesn't fit this criterion.

- Thief abilities start at first level at a level of competency more similar to other things in the game (e.g., the ~50:50 odds of most people's attacks in combat).

- There is some sort of central task resolution rule or rules, so it is obvious how you are supposed to resolve things other than combat or class-specific abilities.

- Your stats significantly impact your abilities.

Obviously, I could draw up my own house rules like this (and in fact have several heart breakers on my hard drive that more or less do this sort of thing). But it would be nice if there was something published that does the same stuff, so it is easier for other players to join my groups.

Thanks!

Sounds like you want better/simpler designed D&D rules. But you want them to have an OSR feel to them.

I'm a fan of Castles and Crusades; I wonder if the 'White Box' version of that game would be a simple but 'tidied up' rules set for OSR games? I own the hard backs, but they have a scope and complexity more like 1E.

The way I see it, the hard part is reconciling your first and second requirements. Games that are truly compatible (at least in the sense that they're very similar to) original editions will have shitty thieves at low levels (because in those original editions low-level thieves were shit); while games that have decent thieves at low leves are necessarily a bit removed from the original games in that aspect.

One game that I really like in particular (and have lots of experience with) is Gabor Lux's free Sword & Magic. Unfortunately, the full rules are only in Hungarian, but there's a pretty good abridged version in English here (http://fomalhaut.lfg.hu/2011/01/17/sword-and-magic/), and I imagine Google translate would probably get across the important parts of the rest, like detailed spell descriptions or monsters.

In respect to your points:

- Compatibility. Ruleswise, it's essentially a very boiled-down version of the basic d20 system. Some conversion would be needed, but only for trivial things: ascending AC instead of descending, three saving throw categories instead of five; that's probably it.

- Thieves. Starting PCs are assumed to be 3rd level. At this point, using a thief skill would mean rolling 1d20 + app. 4-6 (depending on attribute modifiers) against a target number of 12 for normal, or 18 for hard tasks, which is roughly in the range you want. At higher levels, succeeding at a normal task would be close to trivial (but with a small chance of failure), while hard ones would become about as difficult as normal ones were when you were starting out.

- Resolution. A simple skill system. There's a list of skills (incl. thief abilities), and you pick a certain number of them at character creation. If you have a skill, you roll 1d20 + your level + attribute mod.; if you don't have it, you roll 1d20 + attribute mod. Difficulty number is typically 12 or 18.

- Stats. Modifiers are on the -3 to +3 range, anything outside the 9-11 range gets some sort of mod.. Attribute generation is 4d6 drop low, so you can expect frequent +1s and +2s have a rather decent chance of appearing.

I like Blood and Treasure (without the 'feats' optional rule) for my Old School gaming when I'm not using TSR D&D.
http://matt-landofnod.blogspot.ca/p/blood-treasure.html
Note that there is a lighter version of the rules called "Bloody Basic" which I haven't played.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- Genuinely compatible with most or all pre-3E and modern OSR materials (i.e., it is D&D, not a separate game inspired by D&D). For example, DCC is awesome, but really doesn't fit this criterion.

We've run a number of D&D modules using B&T without hassle.

Quote- Thief abilities start at first level at a level of competency more similar to other things in the game (e.g., the ~50:50 odds of most people's attacks in combat).

A thief with a 16 DEX has an 11 on a d20 to succeed at a thiefy skill. Oh, and my B&T Monk does all kinds of cool martial arts stuff, even at lowish levels.

Quote- There is some sort of central task resolution rule or rules, so it is obvious how you are supposed to resolve things other than combat or class-specific abilities.

B&T extends the saving throw mechanic for all sorts of non-combat checks.

Quote- Your stats significantly impact your abilities.

Sure, moreso than TSR D&D I'd say.

Sounds like you want 5e, tbh.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- Your stats significantly impact your abilities.

Microlite74 Extended covers all but this one -- it as compromise 3LBB/greyhawk stat bonuses +2 to -2. Microlite81 Extended has the standard B/X style stat mod range +3 to -3. Both use ascending AC but explain how to cover covert descending. Both are free.

I saw a last-minute game where a Pathfinder fan (Who didn't own Dungeon Crawl Classics) ran a DCC module with PF. No problems.

IMHO, there really isn't much fundamental difference between the various iterations of D&D (Except maybe 4th, the true mutant on the family tree, but even that uses basically the same stat range and core d20 mechanic). A veteran DM can eyeball rules and convert on the fly in his head.

The C&C Collectors Box is good if you can find it.  My favorite version of the game.

their quickstart rules can be used as well, you'd just need to extrapolate the other levels.

Have you looked at ACKS at all?

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- Genuinely compatible with most or all pre-3E and modern OSR materials (i.e., it is D&D, not a separate game inspired by D&D). For example, DCC is awesome, but really doesn't fit this criterion.

There's conversion notes the back for 3.x, but otherwise it's a spin on the Moldvay Expert Set.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- Thief abilities start at first level at a level of competency more similar to other things in the game (e.g., the ~50:50 odds of most people's attacks in combat).

This it doesn't do out of the box - they start pretty poor at 1st level. But there are plenty of people's hacks for a different thief ability progression.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- There is some sort of central task resolution rule or rules, so it is obvious how you are supposed to resolve things other than combat or class-specific abilities.

Proficiencies (which despite the name are nothing like AD&D2e's Non-weapon Proficiencies). Generally they bring tasks to a roll of 8+/11+/14+/18+ which might be modified by an ability score.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- Your stats significantly impact your abilities.

That they do, in Expert Set style, you have unified ability score modifiers (as in no special Strength scores or varying modifiers) where 9-12 is average.

Yeah, my only initial hang up with ACKS was everything's d20, roll high.  After I finally internalized 2d6 and everything.  :)  But you can't say it's not standardized.

Even the author of ACKS took a swing at beefing up thieves, here (http://autarch.co/forums/general-discussion/flat-thief-abilities).  I think the first take really was a legacy element.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- Thief abilities start at first level at a level of competency more similar to other things in the game (e.g., the ~50:50 odds of most people's attacks in combat).

Keep in mind that OS thief abilities were above and beyond what any character is capable of. Thieves were even a bit better because of their light non-metallic armor. Being stealthy is something all characters can do when properly geared for it.

The thief abilities were a chance above and beyond the regular chances, and also represented a chance perform feats that regular characters couldn't.  So while a fighter could possibly move very quietly, a thief had a chance to move silently. Any capable adventurer could climb, but a thief had a chance to climb sheer surfaces without gear.

So really, if you treat all adventurers as bumbling idiots unable to climb, and always stomping around making maximum noise and treat the thief abilities as the ONLY chance at doing things that everyone should be able to do to some degree then yes, thieves will really suck. Stop doing that and the old thief isn't so bad.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- There is some sort of central task resolution rule or rules, so it is obvious how you are supposed to resolve things other than combat or class-specific abilities.

This is not old school in the slightest. Having instructions for doing everything as if you were assembling a piece of furniture is new school through and through. The old school DM looks at the situation, comes up with odds, decides if a roll is needed, then goes with it. There is no play by rote formula in old school.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- Your stats significantly impact your abilities.

It is possible to do this without needing to use bloated stat modifiers. When an ability check is called for, rolling the stat or under on a d20 will mean that the actual stat is meaningful, not just the modifier. Using the B/X modifiers for example, a 9-12 stat is a zero modifier but a character with a 9 has a base 45% chance to pass an ability check while a character with a 12 has a 60% chance. That is a pretty significant difference.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;832999Sounds like you want 5e, tbh.

I thought the same.

I'm not sure what 'compatibility' means when people say it anymore, though.  Surely it doesn't mean "make no changes".  At the very least maybe it means "flip AC if necessary".  All these games we're talking about are pretty damn compatible, it's not like you're trying to run a PS2 disc using your dishwasher.  If you know the engine you're using, and you're reasonably comfortable with the engine of the old adventure, you can likely do 95% of your conversion on the fly.

That said, if you go with 5e, you will want to make a pass to tweak hp totals in an older adventure.  5e PCs can put out some damage.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;833025So really, if you treat all adventurers as bumbling idiots unable to climb, and always stomping around making maximum noise and treat the thief abilities as the ONLY chance at doing things that everyone should be able to do to some degree then yes, thieves will really suck. Stop doing that and the old thief isn't so bad.

Bullshit.

"Hey, we need someone to scout ahead. It's insanely dangerous, because if you're detected you're going to be fighting monsters that would be a danger to the entire party -- but you'll be all by yourself."

"Hey, we need someone to check the chest for traps, while the rest of us stand back a safe distance. It's insanely dangerous, because your saves are crap so all poisons are pretty much guaranteed death."

"Hey, we need someone to climb that wall, and lower down a rope so everyone else can clamber up safely. It's insanely dangerous because falls do a shitload of damage and you don't have a lot of hit points."

So who's going to be picked for scouting or trap duty or wall climbing? The fighter, who has no applicable abilities? Hell no. It's always the thief because the thief is ever so slightly better than everyone else.

While the find/remove traps problem doesn't show up in every old school edition, the others do.

Sure, it's a dungeon. Things are dangerous. Fighters take risks, magic-users take risks, clerics take risks. But everyone else takes shared risks. If the cleric fails to turn undead, everyone in the party has to face the undead. But only the thief is expected to take insanely dangerous risks by themselves.

Having thief abilities on your character sheet doesn't let you show up the rest of the party with your awesomeness. No, it's roughly equivalent to having...

Quote from: Gygax, paraphrasedRoll 1d4 every session. If you roll 1, you die. No, nobody else has to make that roll. Just you. Because you're a thief, and old school D&D hates you. Yes, even more than halflings.

... on your character sheet.

Castles & Crusades sounds like the best bet for the OP. I love Swords & Wizardry, but if I had a group looking for what the OP describes, I would absolutely run C&C.

I have played a C&C Human Thief and it was great fun at low levels, definitely a superior experience than playing AD&D Thieves at low levels.

In my OD&D, I use S&W and I dropped thieves and went humanocentric, so you have Fighters, Clerics and Mages only which has tremendously reinvigorated OD&D play for me and my players.  It's not a world without thieves, but instead its a world full of rogues of every stripe.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992OSR style systems best fit the following criteria:

- Genuinely compatible with most or all pre-3E and modern OSR materials (i.e., it is D&D, not a separate game inspired by D&D). For example, DCC is awesome, but really doesn't fit this criterion.

- Thief abilities start at first level at a level of competency more similar to other things in the game (e.g., the ~50:50 odds of most people's attacks in combat).

- There is some sort of central task resolution rule or rules, so it is obvious how you are supposed to resolve things other than combat or class-specific abilities.

- Your stats significantly impact your abilities.

I will shamelessly suggest my own game. See link below. At least, it fits your requirements.

Quote from: VectorSigma;833026That said, if you go with 5e, you will want to make a pass to tweak hp totals in an older adventure.  5e PCs can put out some damage.

Just double the hp, add attribute bonus to damage (usually +1 to +5, default to +2), double attacks or damage dice if high level, and you're pretty well sorted.

I solved the Thief issue by treating their %s as akin to 1e Magic Resistance - "this is your chance vs an 11th level threat, +/- 5% per level above or below". So that's eg +50% to sneak up on typical 1 hd critters. Suddenly Thief becomes a pretty cool class. The Thief IMC is awesome - admittedly she has nearly died twice so far, where no one else has come close. :D

Quote from: S'mon;833054I solved the Thief issue by treating their %s as akin to 1e Magic Resistance - "this is your chance vs an 11th level threat, +/- 5% per level above or below". So that's eg +50% to sneak up on typical 1 hd critters. Suddenly Thief becomes a pretty cool class. The Thief IMC is awesome - admittedly she has nearly died twice so far, where no one else has come close. :D

I've often wondered if the Thief's high saves versus various magical effects weren't a direct influence from the Fafhrd & Grey Mouser stories; even though he was a low-level magic user himself (statted as a 3rd? level magic-user? I think), Grey Mouser was extremely cynical about magic and tended to disbelieve just about everything supernatural he saw.  Indeed I recall a story where the two miscreants intended to re-enter Lankhmar and were almost immediately set on by various foes including a magic-user wielding a death spell which Mouser turned back on him by using a copper wire to ground himself and channel the energy right back, evoking an idea that Mouser knew it was "merely" lightning...

The best suggestion I've seen here is Fantastic Heroes and Witchery, which is more complex than what I had in mind, but definitely covers all the bases I suggested, and much of the extra details are really very creative and fun. It is sort of like DCC re-caste as something within the D&D fold.

It also provides a nice illustration that the grognard purist arguments about what does and doesn't constitute an 'old school' style game are generally a lot of bullshit. It is not heresy to clearly state what sort of die roll is appropriate when someone tries to hide or jump or whatever. FH&W is a decidedly OSR game, and generally works within a uniform approach to dice rolling mechanics.

Earthdawn. Every roll is made on the Step Table (dice pool list) & 4th edition cleaned up the resolution mechanics very nicely (no more chart lookups for resolving success levels). All stats are generated on a 3-18+ scale, and then converted to a Step # which makes up the base of all skill/talent/spell rolls vs Physical/ Mystic/ Social Defense ratings (also calculated from the 3-18 stats).

Best of all, here's a First Circle Thief in the 4th edition rules -IMO, the best expression of an OSR thief out there (f you count "can summon telekinetic lock picks" as 1st level as every Discipline in Earthdawn uses magic):

Half-Magic: Thieves may use half-magic to build or bypass security measures intended to prevent theft, and to recognize different types of locking mechanisms.
Free Talent: Danger Sense (free, rank = level, spidey sense, roll vs trap initiative as a last second *oh shit* dodge, also works on ambushes and environmental hazards)
Durability: +5 Unc, +6 Death per level
Karma: Spend an action dice on any Charisma based test when the adept is attempting to deceive a target.
Discipline Talents:
Thread Weaving (Thief Weaving, everyone gets this to bind to magical items)
Awareness (includes search for traps chance as a Theif special ability)
Lock Picking
Picking Pockets
Stealthy Stride
Talent Options (choose 1 per level): [Initiate pool] Avoid Blow, Climbing, First Impression, Great Leap, Melee Weapons, Missile Weapons, Sprint, Surprise Strike, Taunt, Throwing Weapons

(Thieves get the Disarm Traps talent at second circle, but can roll raw Dex+HalfMagic [1/2 Circle] until then. Also, talents are all magic - allows karma action dice, but then you choose a few skills. So if you don't take a weapon style as a talent, you probably have it as a skill.)

Also, I do think that Thief skills are supposed to be extraordinary/fallback/emergency options. Everyone can sneak (you use the listen/surprise on x in 6 rules), but the thief has a chance of moving silently (bypassing the listen/surprise rolls). OR something like that, I found the original material doesn't present this part well (so various people have their interpretations).

Quote from: Larsdangly;832996I'm a fan of Castles and Crusades; I wonder if the 'White Box' version of that game would be a simple but 'tidied up' rules set for OSR games? I own the hard backs, but they have a scope and complexity more like 1E.

I don't really own White Box but I immediately thought of C&C when I read your OP, as it seems to tick all the boxes.

What's C&C not doing for you? Is it the 1e-like level of complexity (I actually feel it's much less complex) or is there something else?

Maybe Jason Vey's Spellcraft & Swordplay (http://www.elflair.com/products.html) is what you're looking for. It hews closer to B/X than 1e and uses a unified mechanic -- 2d6 roll-high, patterned after Chainmail combat.

C&C is my jam; I am just sort of tired of having a stack of hard backs at the table whenever I game. That said, my post does sort of read like a wistful plea for a game I already own...

Delving Deeper is intended to be a close clone of OD&D pre-Greyhawk  It uses standard attack rolls and saves, but takes some scattered references in the LBBs and distills them into a universal method for skill rolls: everything succeeds on a 1 or 2 and 6, unless you think it should be harder (halve the odds to 1 in 6) or easier (double to 4 in 6). It then adds a Thief class that uses the 4 in 6 odds for all thief skills, which is better than 50-50.

What it doesn't do is use high ability modifiers. It uses the old max modifier of +/-1. To fix this for your needs, either substitute a later ability score table, or double the odds of success on skill rolls (4 in 6) for those with high relevant ability scores, halve them (1 in 6) for low scores.

Quote from: Telarus;833087Also, I do think that Thief skills are supposed to be extraordinary/fallback/emergency options. Everyone can sneak (you use the listen/surprise on x in 6 rules), but the thief has a chance of moving silently (bypassing the listen/surprise rolls). OR something like that, I found the original material doesn't present this part well (so various people have their interpretations).

While I don't have the original versions handy to check their presentations, ACKS lays it out in this way pretty clearly:  First check for surprise.  Then, if the monster isn't surprised, but it is distracted, check to see if it hears you.

Quote from: ACKS, p.99Under 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).

Thief skills are only checked as a last resort if that initial 33% or 90% chance goes against you.

Quote from: nDervish;833140Thief skills are only checked as a last resort if that initial 33% or 90% chance goes against you.

I've read this interpretation but never thought it sounded like a very good 'read': Two separate rolls that use different mechanics and are described in different parts of the rules and don't actually refer to each other. I love my original D&D books, but this is the sort of hot mess that makes me prefer playing a more clearly written re-working at the table.

I like how Lamentations of the Flame Princess handles thief skills, and I folded that pretty seamlessly into ACKs.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- Your stats significantly impact your abilities.

How significantly do you want?. I like the LofFP / ACKs combintation as attribute bonuses, when compared to level, are significant at 1st level, minor at 3-4th, and not important at 9th.

Anything along the lines of B/X, or greater, impact of stats is good for me. I think characters feel most varied and interesting when every point on the attribute scale has some practical consequence.

Acks doesn't portray Move Silently and Hide in Shadows as fallback skills for when regular sneaking fails; instead a thief can use them straightaway to bypass the regular sneak rules.

*A successful Hide in Shadows (in dim conditions or with concealment) means even a monster watching an area can't see you (instead it counts as distracted, which means it only gets a Hear Noise roll).

*If you successfully make your Move Silently, you make no sound and they don't get to attempt the Hear Noise roll.

IIRC the sneaking section on pages 97-99 was added to the book as a result of a thread on Autarch's forums which brought up the same issue Larsdangly mentioned ( the various sneak mechanics being scattered throughout the book and failing to refer to one another).

Rather than start a new thread, I'll ask here.
Is there a 5e slipcase with all three books?

It is perhaps ironic that highest level of OSR purity would be to omit the Thief class completely ... thus necessitating the introduction of a more general, universal set of mechanics for handling the sorts of things thieves do. I actually suspect the best version of D&D would be one that treats PC's just as in Chainmail: either you are a hero (fighter, thief, ranger, paladin, etc.) or a magician (wizard, cleric, etc.).

I wouldn't go that far, but defining a standard list of adventuring skills that everybody defaults to would be a good direction to go. I think that's in LotFP. The BRP list of skills (most iterations/variants of BRP) would also be a good place to start. Possibly Talislanta 2e-3e, which is similar to D&D in many ways but makes the relationship between class (archetype) and skill more fluid, while having an explicit rule for untrained skill use.

Quote from: Larsdangly;833216It is perhaps ironic that highest level of OSR purity would be to omit the Thief class completely ... thus necessitating the introduction of a more general, universal set of mechanics for handling the sorts of things thieves do.

FOR ME, my favorite OSR moment when I understood why Swords & Wizardry: White Box did not have Thief class and it clicked so wonderfully for me.

For years now my OD&D game has had 3 classes - Cleric, Fighter, Mage - and it has done my gaming so much good. It has been so much fun at the table for the players to work around the idea that they are as much rogue as they want to be.

That said, I love to play Thieves in other RPGs and other D&D editions, but for my OD&D play, the "loss" of the Thief has only been a tremendous gain.

 

Quote from: Larsdangly;833216I actually suspect the best version of D&D would be one that treats PC's just as in Chainmail: either you are a hero (fighter, thief, ranger, paladin, etc.) or a magician (wizard, cleric, etc.).

That's Tunnels & Trolls! You are a Warrior or a Wizard and it works great.

So, when you play OD&D without the Thief class, what do you do when someone says they tip toe past a guard or try to jimmy a lock?

I rather like the way sneaky stuff is handled in Searchers of the Unknown. The way you determine if you hit is to try to roll equal to or under your level + your opponent's AC, using a d20. So if you're 1st level and your opponent is AC 5, you need to roll 6- to hit.

The twist is that if you want to try something acrobatic or stealthy or anything along those lines (there are no thieves), you have to roll equal to or under your level + your own AC.

Since SotU uses descending AC, that means plate you makes hard to hit, but poor at sneaking around. And it explains why barbarians wear clunky armor on the battlefield, but go oiled and barechested when they're trying to sneak into a temple and steal the gems out of giant idol's eye sockets.

Quote from: Pat;833259I rather like the way sneaky stuff is handled in Searchers of the Unknown. The way you determine if you hit is to try to roll equal to or under your level + your opponent's AC, using a d20. So if you're 1st level and your opponent is AC 5, you need to roll 6- to hit.

The twist is that if you want to try something acrobatic or stealthy or anything along those lines (there are no thieves), you have to roll equal to or under your level + your own AC.

Since SotU uses descending AC, that means plate you makes hard to hit, but poor at sneaking around. And it explains why barbarians wear clunky armor on the battlefield, but go oiled and barechested when they're trying to sneak into a temple and steal the gems out of giant idol's eye sockets.

Interesting. That's a great system, particularly if you are running a super-light game (little or no classes, stats, special abilities, etc.). I can imagine this as a little tweak on Chainmail that would let you run it more or less as a standard roleplaying game.

Quote from: Larsdangly;833248So, when you play OD&D without the Thief class, what do you do when someone says they tip toe past a guard or try to jimmy a lock?

Same as in AD&D when a non-Thief tries to tiptoe past guard or jimmy lock.

In my case - I would typically give a chance equal to Surprise chance to tiptoe past guard (a Thief of course would get this in addition to MS%), while a non-Thief would have no chance to pick a regular lock, it's not something most PCs would have any idea how to do.

Quote from: Larsdangly;833248So, when you play OD&D without the Thief class, what do you do when someone says they tip toe past a guard or try to jimmy a lock?

Surprise roll and Open Doors roll, respectively.

Most of the thief abilities could be covered by surprise. You could let characters who opt for training in lock picking use an Open Doors roll without physical force. If you base Open Doors on Strength normally (I don't,) you  could substitute Dex for those with training. I assume anyone who buys thieves picks during character creation has lockpick training.

Quote from: Larsdangly;833172Two separate rolls that use different mechanics and are described in different parts of the rules and don't actually refer to each other.

ACKS explicitly refers to thief skills in the paragraph following the one I quoted from previously.  I just edited it aggressively because I didn't want to be quoting multiple full paragraphs.

Quote from: Raven;833199Acks doesn't portray Move Silently and Hide in Shadows as fallback skills for when regular sneaking fails; instead a thief can use them straightaway to bypass the regular sneak rules.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other.  The final odds are the same regardless of which roll you make first.  The main point is that, if you're a Thief with 15% Move Silently, that does not mean that you have an 85% chance of monsters hearing you.  But I do agree with Larsdangly that it would be better (and more transparent) if this were combined into a single roll that thieves have a better chance on rather than a "anyone trying to be quiet" roll and a separate "additional chance for thieves to be quiet" roll.

Another system to mention here is Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea.  ASSH changes all thief skills from percentile to d12 rolls (with a +1 on the roll for 16+ in an appropriate stat). Since we're talking here mostly about Hide and Move Silently, both of those start at a 5/12 chance (6/12 (50/50) with 16+ Dex).

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- Genuinely compatible with most or all pre-3E and modern OSR materials (i.e., it is D&D, not a separate game inspired by D&D). For example, DCC is awesome, but really doesn't fit this criterion.

You might want to give my Majestic Wilderlands (http://www.batintheattic.com/majesticwilderlands.php) combined with Swords & Wizardry Core Rules (http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/ebookfinal9.pdf) a try.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- Thief abilities start at first level at a level of competency more similar to other things in the game (e.g., the ~50:50 odds of most people's attacks in combat).

In MW I use an ability system. In general I recommend setting the base chance at a 15 or better. Characters start out at a +1 or +2 in a ability. For example Fighters and Athletics. To that they add their attribute modifiers which can range from +0 to +3. Assuming of course we are talking an ability 12 or higher. I don't use the +1 for every 2 points of attributes, I use +1 for every three point of attributes starting at 12.

So a burglar, will have probably have a +2 from dex, +2 from his class so will need a 11 or better to pick an average lock.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- There is some sort of central task resolution rule or rules, so it is obvious how you are supposed to resolve things other than combat or class-specific abilities.

Again I have a ability system. I don't call it a skill system because any character can attempt any task just some are better at certain task than others. For example a fighter can pick locks, a burglar can do research, a magic user can try to bend bars. But a fighter is best at Athletic, a burglar at opening locks, a magic user at doing research. It all based on a d20 roll high. It not detailed or complicated from the feedback I got people seem to "get it" and were able to use it.

Quote from: Larsdangly;832992- Your stats significantly impact your abilities.

I use +1 per 3 point of attribute starting at 12. More than bog standard OD&D/Swords & Wizardry, less than d20.

Quote from: Larsdangly;833248So, when you play OD&D without the Thief class, what do you do when someone says they tip toe past a guard or try to jimmy a lock?

There are several ways

1) You, the referee, know how the lock is laid out and the players have to figure it out based on describing how they examine it and you describing what they fine.

2) Roll a d20 equal to or under an attribute, probably dex in this case. Keeping in mind that 1st level means the character is a VETERAN warrior/magic-user/cleric.

3) Multiply the attribute by 5 and rolling percentile dice under that number.

4) Or you think 1st level are incompetents or intensely dislike roll play and have the characters roll percentage dice equal or under their attribute. For example a 17 dex means the player has a 17% chance of success. Variants include adding the character level or five time the character level.

Theses are some of the methods I know about how people dealt with it back in the day. For the most part the thief class and then slightly later Runequest steered everybody into thinking that skill systems were the way to go.

I 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.

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

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

QuoteThe main point is that, if you're a Thief with 15% Move Silently, that does not mean that you have an 85% chance of monsters hearing you.

Truth and looking back it sucks how long I treated it as exactly that. Learning the actual intent behind stealth/surprise was one of those great revelations for me, right alongside the effect morale and reaction rolls (aka all the rules I ignored in my youth) had on the game.

Well, yes, but D&D wasn't engineered to begin with.

Rob's approach makes eminent sense and is I think somewhat similar to Tal and LotFP (if I remember correctly). In fact isn't this pretty much how 5e works--you get a base chance plus ability modifier, but you only get your proficiency bonus (which increases by level) on stuff you're trained in?

There are other problems with Thief skills and I don't think there are universal answers:

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

--How to handle repeated attempts/attempts by multiple people (pick lock)

--How to handle degree of success/failure (chiefly climb--what exactly does a failure mean?)

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.

I think 5e went a good ways to repairing the uselessness of fighters.  It certainly seemed to me like rogues are way less "i'll sneak attack you while you're looking me in the face" kind of combat-monsters.

Quote from: Larsdangly;833216It is perhaps ironic that highest level of OSR purity would be to omit the Thief class completely ... thus necessitating the introduction of a more general, universal set of mechanics for handling the sorts of things thieves do. I actually suspect the best version of D&D would be one that treats PC's just as in Chainmail: either you are a hero (fighter, thief, ranger, paladin, etc.) or a magician (wizard, cleric, etc.).

That does present an interesting question. Are there any OSR games that clone just the LBB's, without any of the material from Greyhawk, Blackmoor, etc.? Even to the point of using the Chainmail combat rules?

Joe / GG

Quote from: RPGPundit;834818I think 5e went a good ways to repairing the uselessness of fighters.  It certainly seemed to me like rogues are way less "i'll sneak attack you while you're looking me in the face" kind of combat-monsters.

Fighters are certainly a good class in 5E but rogues can still sneak attack while in plain view.

To gain advantage the rogue must be hidden. To gain sneak attack all the rogue needs is for an ally to be adjacent to the target, not even flanking is required. The rogue can stand next to his fighter buddy and sneak attack once per round while his enemy just watches him do it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;834336Yes, 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.

Yes. It's a good idea, up to a point, to give everyone access to some abilities that help them in fight - but not when said abilities are out of range for the fighter. Really, a fighter who can't learn extremely damaging attacks using the enemy's moment of weakness is not what I'd call "competent".
And at some point, you're an equally good fighter and better out of combat if you take something other than a fighter.

Quote from: Larsdangly;834339I 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.

Funny, last I mentioned that idea on another forum, I was told I obviously don't want a class system at all...:D
Admittedly, I'm fine with non-class systems. If I'm going to have a class, I want it to be for something defining to the characters - not what twirls of a blade are available, but something deeper.
Like, for example, the class being answer to this question:
Do you rely on forces outside human comprehension to attack your enemies on a spiritual battleground where they're incompetent and everything is possible?
Or do you rely on your own skill, guile and the resolve in your heart to avoid battles when you can, get the drop when you can't, and outlast even an enemy who managed to get the drop on you?
That's what I'd count as defining. That's also what's worth using a class mechanic for.
If it's just to determine chance to hit, a skill based system like Runequest or Traveller would do just fine.

Quote from: Arminius;834353It'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.

Yeah, Talislanta has a very fun approach with its archetypes. The only issue is, if you take a non-combatant archetype and the GM is forcing the group into combats, you really wish the combatants would be able to deal with enemies faster. Even worse, if someone else has taken a combat-ready archetype, the player is likely to push for a combat solution.

Granted, the supposed non-combatants still can contribute. But overall, it works better when you don't mix the "types" of archetypes, IME. YMMV of course, I don't claim having extensive experience with the game, but the same happens in most games anyway, D&D included.

Joe, you are describing the aspirations of spellcraft & swordplay. Don't know how it worked out.

These lists might be of interest:

http://taxidermicowlbear.weebly.com/dd-retroclones.html

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=24995

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?665226-A-Master-List-of-D-amp-D-Retro-Clones

Quote from: RPGPundit;834818I think 5e went a good ways to repairing the uselessness of fighters.  It certainly seemed to me like rogues are way less "i'll sneak attack you while you're looking me in the face" kind of combat-monsters.

Fighters "useless"? You must play a whole different way than I ever have.

Anyway, I always thought a decent GM would ensure there are no useless classes. And a crummy GM will still blow it no matter what revisions are made to the rules set.

Quote from: Greyhawk Grognard;834835That does present an interesting question. Are there any OSR games that clone just the LBB's, without any of the material from Greyhawk, Blackmoor, etc.? Even to the point of using the Chainmail combat rules?

Joe / GG

Not exactly what you're looking for, but pretty much the best clone I've seen thus far: http://ironfalcon.basicfantasy.org

Quote from: Matt;834926Fighters "useless"? You must play a whole different way than I ever have.

Fighters are the best class in D&D. A fighter can become king, a M-U can become...a fighter's alchemist. That's what we call REAL ULTIMATE POWER ;)

Quote from: Matt;834926Fighters "useless"? You must play a whole different way than I ever have.

Fighters were rubbish in 3e. They were fine in 4e though.

Quote from: Matt;834926Fighters "useless"? You must play a whole different way than I ever have.

"Useless" is an exaggeration, but in 3.x a Fighter is worse at everything than a Cleric after the first few levels.  Fighters get more feats and a higher BAB, while Clerics get spells that can emulate all of those things or render them irrelevant.  That's before adding in rules that allow Clerics to use daily uses of Turn Undead to make buff spells last all day.

QuoteAnyway, I always thought a decent GM would ensure there are no useless classes. And a crummy GM will still blow it no matter what revisions are made to the rules set.

Even if that's true, a good rules set makes it easier for a GM to make everyone useful, and a bad rules set makes it harder.

Quote from: Brad;834932Fighters are the best class in D&D. A fighter can become king, a M-U can become...a fighter's alchemist. That's what we call REAL ULTIMATE POWER ;)

I'd bet theRPGPundit is talking about 3+, where this is actually true:).

Quote from: Brad;834930Not exactly what you're looking for, but pretty much the best clone I've seen thus far: http://ironfalcon.basicfantasy.org

My complimentary copies should be coming in soon:)  Haven't read it yet, but looking forward to it.

Quote from: S'mon;834981Fighters were rubbish in 3e. They were fine in 4e though.

I wouldn't know as I have played neither, but in any case I bet the correct answer is "The way I played fighters and my DM GMed fighters was rubbish..."

Don't blame a system for player/DM incompetence.

Quote from: Ddogwood;834993"Useless" is an exaggeration, but in 3.x a Fighter is worse at everything than a Cleric after the first few levels.  Fighters get more feats and a higher BAB, while Clerics get spells that can emulate all of those things or render them irrelevant.  That's before adding in rules that allow Clerics to use daily uses of Turn Undead to make buff spells last all day.



Even if that's true, a good rules set makes it easier for a GM to make everyone useful, and a bad rules set makes it harder.

Again, you assume everyone plays your way where clerics are important and powerful due to undead and constant healing and other tropes of your play style.   That's fine if you lack imagination or inspiration to see beyond "My guy can kill lots of monsters! He's so badass!"

Quote from: Matt;835427I wouldn't know as I have played neither, but in any case I bet the correct answer is "The way I played fighters and my DM GMed fighters was rubbish..."

Don't blame a system for player/DM incompetence.

No, 3e Fighters were objectively terrible, as anyone who has actually played could tell you. Bad in combat, worthless skills, bad saves. In 3.5 they were just about ok up to 4th level.

To me, games like Lamentations and DCC show off just how generally badly handled fighters are throughout D&D; but 3e was a particular low point in my opinion (and taking into account I'm not even considering 4e, which just isn't even D&D to me).

And yet I have never been to a D&D game, any edition, as a player or as the DM, in which someone wasn't playing a Fighter.

Quote from: The Butcher;835623And yet I have never been to a D&D game, any edition, as a player or as the DM, in which someone wasn't playing a Fighter.

When I GM'd high level 3e, by about 16th level we were getting all-Wizard parties.

Quote from: Matt;835427I wouldn't know as I have played neither, but in any case I bet the correct answer is "The way I played fighters and my DM GMed fighters was rubbish..."

Don't blame a system for player/DM incompetence.

And you would have lost that bet;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;835616To me, games like Lamentations and DCC show off just how generally badly handled fighters are throughout D&D; but 3e was a particular low point in my opinion (and taking into account I'm not even considering 4e, which just isn't even D&D to me).

What's the problem with DCC fighters in your opinion?

Quote from: The Butcher;835623And yet I have never been to a D&D game, any edition, as a player or as the DM, in which someone wasn't playing a Fighter.

We fighter fans are resilient:D!

I think Pundit has no problem with fighters in DCC. Rather he is saying that DCC shows, via contrast, how badly fighters are handled in other D&D versions.

Quote from: S'mon;835576No, 3e Fighters were objectively terrible, as anyone who has actually played could tell you. Bad in combat, worthless skills, bad saves. In 3.5 they were just about ok up to 4th level.

Unfortunately and absolutely true. A fighter in a game with no mage or cleric or druid could probably do well, but I witnessed this first hand in campaigns where it was neither intended nor desired that the fighter be mitigated...it was just a poor class choice in 3rd edition.

Quote from: Arminius;835692I think Pundit has no problem with fighters in DCC. Rather he is saying that DCC shows, via contrast, how badly fighters are handled in other D&D versions.

I'd agree with that.
If that's the case, I've just misunderstood his point, while agreeing with what he actually means:).

Quote from: camazotz;835702Unfortunately and absolutely true. A fighter in a game with no mage or cleric or druid could probably do well, but I witnessed this first hand in campaigns where it was neither intended nor desired that the  fighter be mitigated...it was just a poor class choice in 3rd edition.

Seen the same, and I must add it wasn't the GM's fault, either;).

If survival to the high levels is basically a given then magic user or cleric is a better class than fighter.

If the game is as hard on characters as classic D&D then fighter becomes a more viable option.

Once the game turned into a vehicle for telling stories and all the characters were fairly assured of survival (at least by the expectations set in the rules) there was no longer a trade off between classes that had a flatter power curve such as fighter, and classes that started off very weak and less likely to survive but were really powerful at higher levels.

Over time, magic users got more and more powerful at lower levels while still maintaining their superpowers at higher levels. Eventually there was no longer a tradeoff to worry about. Experience points required became the same for all classes, more spell slots became available at lower levels, and the magic user was just as likely to survive as any other class. At that point, the drawbacks to being a magic user were largely gone while all of the advantages remained.

Add on the rules changes that made spell interruption difficult if not impossible because the world would come to a fucking end if someone had something they planned to do on their precious turn spoiled.

Under these circumstances, everyone playing a wizard makes perfect sense.

Quote from: RPGPundit;835616To me, games like Lamentations and DCC show off just how generally badly handled fighters are throughout D&D; but 3e was a particular low point in my opinion (and taking into account I'm not even considering 4e, which just isn't even D&D to me).

A, O, and BX fighters were pretty good. Their ability to be combat effective for the duration makes up for the wizards limited ammo, but auto-hitting high damage and/or area hitting spells.

I played the fragile magic user quite a bit and without the fighter types taking the brunt of the conflict then I was DOA usually very quickly even at higher levels. The appallingly bad AC combines with fragile HP was the main factor.

As for OSR stuff, the question might be. How many attacks a round are the fighters getting? That was one thing we adjusted in BX. Was to have the fighters start getting extra attacks alot earlier than level 15. But still capping at 4. +1 per 5 levels gained, so 2 at level 5, 3 at level 10, 4 at level 15.

One aspect which I never explored, but which I've seen mentioned, is magic items. Allegedly with a "typical" distribution of loot, fighters would maintain parity or better. Of course this leaves out what happens when you start having magic shops, or if the DM skews the amount or distribution of goodies.

Personally Brad's got an interesting angle. Not only for class balance but also demihumans, etc. That is, give social benefits/negatives. Only problem is enforcing them and not in a manner that makes the "socially disadvantaged" less fun. An obvious approach for fighters would be to give them a relative charisma bonus for the purpose of dealing with henchmen and hirelings.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;835795If survival to the high levels is basically a given then magic user or cleric is a better class than fighter.

AFAICT, the Encounter level system considers it a fair challenge if you expend some resources and maybe have to take a few decisions, but no PCs die. And you're expected to have most fights at the fair level challenge:).
Make of that what you wish;).

Quote from: Exploderwizard;835795If survival to the high levels is basically a given then magic user or cleric is a better class than fighter.

It doesn't require survival, if PCs don't start at 1st level. The usual 3e+ thing is the Fighters die (a lot) and the player gets to bring in a Wizard of similar level instead.

Quote from: S'mon;835835It doesn't require survival, if PCs don't start at 1st level. The usual 3e+ thing is the Fighters die (a lot) and the player gets to bring in a Wizard of similar level instead.

Oh yeah, if you can start at a higher level then the choice is even more of a no-brainer.

Quote from: Arminius;835813One aspect which I never explored, but which I've seen mentioned, is magic items. Allegedly with a "typical" distribution of loot, fighters would maintain parity or better. Of course this leaves out what happens when you start having magic shops, or if the DM skews the amount or distribution of goodies.

Or if you use treasure tables which have a decent chance to generate any kind of weapon with any type of bonuses.  I've heard the same allegations you mention and my understanding is that the reason behind is that, in early D&D editions, the substantial majority of magic weapons (including all the best ones) were swords, so only fighters could use them.  This indirectly prevented clerics from being as good as fighters in straight-up combat, since the fighter would have a +5 Defender sword, while a +2 mace is as good as the cleric could get.

The more recent trend of making +5 Vorpal Staves, because it's unfair if the fighter gets better magic weapons than the magic user, pretty much cuts that dynamic off at the knees.

Quote from: nDervish;835890The more recent trend of making +5 Vorpal Staves, because it's unfair if the fighter gets better magic weapons than the magic user, pretty much cuts that dynamic off at the knees.

What you call a "recent" trend also includes all classes being able to use all weapons:).
I think it's a good trend, personally. Why the cleric of a war god would be unable to use a sword would otherwise remain beyond me;).

If i remember correctly I think Crypt and Things fits most of the OP requests (muche better than it's ancestor S&W). Thieves are quite competent and comabat oriented, there's an unified Saving Throw and task resolution system (ability bonus are granted to task resolution checks at GM discretion). The attribute bonus is up to +3 on a d20, if I recall correctly. I don't know if it's enough for the OP tastes.

Another interesting option is the system shared by must sinenomine games, expecially spears of the dawn. The ability bonus is just up to +2, but since skill tests are resolved on 2d6 it has more weight.

Quote from: AsenRG;835689What's the problem with DCC fighters in your opinion?

You misunderstood me.  DCC fighters are AWESOME.

Quote from: RPGPundit;836258You misunderstood me.  DCC fighters are AWESOME.

I agree on DCC Warriors, BTW. Sorry for the misunderstanding:).

In fact, I'd also agree with your point that DCC is one of those games that show how the combat specialists have been treated poorly by many other game systems;).

Quote from: AsenRG;836467I agree on DCC Warriors, BTW. Sorry for the misunderstanding:).

In fact, I'd also agree with your point that DCC is one of those games that show how the combat specialists have been treated poorly by many other game systems;).

Yes. It completely changed my ideas of how to handle fighters (along with LotFP, another system that does right by the fighter class).

Quote from: RPGPundit;836882Yes. It completely changed my ideas of how to handle fighters (along with LotFP, another system that does right by the fighter class).

It is a different approach, I think. LotFP gives the fighters more power, because fighting is what they should be best at, but not really more versatility than other classes that want to improvise in combat.
But yeah, both of them ensure that in a fight, you want a fighter on your side, as you should.

Yeah, well, the LotFP fighter was my favorite D&D fighter class ever, until I read DCC. Now the DCC fighter is.

Maybe I haven't read the Mighty Deeds of Arms rules right, but as far as I can tell it's mostly about giving players "permission" for their characters to do stuff other than standing around and hitting their foes with a sword.

Which good players have always done and still do just fine with a little GM adjudication in just about any game. And in any version of D&D, Fighters, by dint of having better to-hit chances, are more likely to succeed than most other classes.

Am I missing something?

Quote from: The Butcher;837464Maybe I haven't read the Mighty Deeds of Arms rules right, but as far as I can tell it's mostly about giving players "permission" for their characters to do stuff other than standing around and hitting their foes with a sword.

Which good players have always done and still do just fine with a little GM adjudication in just about any game. And in any version of D&D, Fighters, by dint of having better to-hit chances, are more likely to succeed than most other classes.

Am I missing something?

Mighty deeds aren't super-impressive if your fighter is level 1 or 2.  But at higher levels, it becomes really impressive.

A fighter can do a mighty deed EVERY TIME, if they can think of something to attempt. Unlike other rules (or for other classes in DCC), doing a Mighty Deed/special-maneuver doesn't take away their chance to score a regular hit, it is done IN ADDITION to the regular attack (they have to hit in order to have the mighty deed take effect, though).  

So a high level fighter; say a lv.6 fighter for example, could in a single round do two attacks (one at a d20, the other a d16) with a mighty deed on top of that (if he gets a 3 or higher on the d8 deed die), and with the deed die adding to his to-hit and damage scores.

Even if the mighty deed is just to, say, make a precise shot at an opponent, that can mean that a fighter with +1 strength bonus wielding a longsword could end up hitting twice, getting the deed, and rolling their d8 damage, plus strength bonus, plus the  number on the deed die, plus any extra damage from the deed itself, plus another d8+1str+deed-die in damage every round.
And since they critical on a natural 18-20 there's a good chance of scoring a critical, and higher-level fighter criticals are BRUTAL.

While the wizards are also very very competent with magic, in my DCC campaign we've seen from "Sandy the Bikini-Chainmail Barbarian" that a higher-level fighter is just a killing machine.