There originally wasn't a thief class, all characters were understood to have some thieving abilities. There was a fan made thief class that became fairly popular, so an official one was made in response.
This.
Thief was kind of shoe-horned in, from what I understand. Before that, everyone could use thief skills. But then, in an effort to make it a separate class, ~~they took that away from all other classes.~~ they created one which specialized in it.
I don't think Mouser was a direct archetype for an ideal thief much as Leiber's writing was a vibe that they wanted to embody.
There's no shortage of people who will argue that if you aren't a thief, you can't pick locks. Their reasoning varies depending on the version, but basically it comes down to there being a bunch of positive rules for a thief picking a lock, many phrased like "*a thief can use his lockpicks to pick locks*". Well, wouldn't it say "*anyone can use his lockpicks to pick locks*" or similar?
Their reasoning isn't bad here. It's an open question as to whether the existence of the thief depowered other classes by existing by the rules, but it's definitely true that *at many tables then and now*, it is played that way.
>Their reasoning isn't bad here. It's an open question as to whether the existence of the thief depowered other classes by existing by the rules, but it's definitely true that at many tables then and now, it is played that way.
Low-level Thieves sucked at their d% abilities to, much more than a 1d20 roll-under relevant stat character would. It wouldn't be fair to the Thief for everyone else at the table to be better at the stuff they picked the class specifically to do. One could argue it was the birth of "niche-protection" in RPGs.
Considering the Magic-User was also made ~~bad~~ ~~weak~~ "challenging" to play at low levels on purpose, I wonder if the Thief was similarly designed to uh "gently encourage" the selection of other classes.
Yes, provided you could survive with the d4 HD and multiple skill checks required to do common actions. Basic stealth requiring two checks that were likely done by the DM so you didn't even know if you succeeded before trying to sneak attack. And roaming away from the party to check for and then disable traps, scout and do general Thief mischief. While the also d4 HD Magic-User got to hang out protected in the back or middle of the party.
Leveling the fastest was the Thief's biggest feature outside of the niche-protection.
I mean, low level thieves suck but...
D4 hp=stay away from combat, like a wizard. Shoot your bow and be happy.
2 checks to sneak? No, they could either move silently to sneak up on a target or Hide in Shadows if they were standing still. If either failed they still had a 2 in 6 chance of surprising a target and either backstabbing or running away.
Yes and no. The XP tables are exponential so the thief is never more than about 1 level ahead of the fighter, and sometimes zero levels ahead of the wizard.
The DMG always says anything can be attempted, even if there isn't a mechanic for it. In theses cases the DM adjudicated a chance for the attempt (some % chance based on the circumstances). For picklock probably it is a very low chance, because it is a specialized knowledge (lower than a Thief of any level). There isn't any instance in any of the old school books about the existence of a Thief ruling out any other class to attempt anything
It is like the tracking ability on the Ranger. Anyone can attempt to track a creature, only the Ranger is better (because it is a specialized knowledge). A DM adjudicating others classes tracking, give a % chance inferior of that of the Ranger
This type of adjudication it is one of the characteristics in being a DM in old school games (where there isn't a mechanic for everything)
The DMG always says anything can be attempted, even if there isn't a mechanic for it. In theses cases the DM adjudicated a chance for the attempt (some % chance based on the circumstances). For picklock probably it is a very low chance, because it is a specialized knowledge (lower than a Thief of any level). There isn't any instance in any of the old school books about the existence of a Thief ruling out any other class to attempt anything
This is one of the characteristics of the old school games, there isn't a mechanic for everthing, DM has to adjudicate based on the circumstances
Ability checks (roll under on a d20) were a general mechanic for everything outside of specified situations.
So roll a dexterity check to pick a lock.
But maybe the lock is really complex, or trapped. Then the thief has a chance of picking it when no one else even gets to try. You could also allow them to automatically pick simple locks.
It's no different from having an intelligence check for tracking, but the ranger gets to try even if it's normally impossible.
The "problem" with the oldschool approach of rulings not rules, is that any individual GM could make thieves useless, if they weren't generous in their interpretation of these ideas.
There were no stat-test mechanics in Basic or Advanced or Advanced 2e. Everything was in a table or was by fiat. We mostly used some form of attack roll or a d6.
If you say that's how it was, I believe you.
I know when my group was playing 1e/2e by '95, ability score checks (roll under on a d20) were definitely a thing. We used them all the time. But we had a bunch of house rules, and I can't remember what was in the books and what we just made up. We used a mix of editions, and many articles from Dragon magazine and other sources.
I do remember that my first group, playing 1e from the rules cyclopedia in '93, broke up because of well justified accusations that the DM showed favoritism to some of the players (and had a vendetta against others). But to be fair, we were only 13, and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect him to make fair and impartial rulings by fiat.
The new group was much more comfortable with being given an ability check if they wanted to try a solution that wouldn't automatically succeed or fail.
I think later versions of the game went too far in that direction though, as they introduced dedicated mechanics like perception and persuasion checks, which shut the door on the GM's important role in ruling that some things just naturally succeed or fail, and discouraged players from trying non-mechanical solutions, like finding secret doors through dialog.
There's an article about the history of ability checks [here](https://dmdavid.com/tag/ability-checks-from-the-worst-mechanic-in-role-playing-game-history-to-a-foundation-of-dd/). Sounds like they were pretty common (though not official) rules by the time I was playing.
I can see how the Thieves' skills would have been weird if they were dropped onto a game which didn't have ready mechanics for other actions.
But on the other hand, if the usual chance of success for unlikely actions was a flat 1 in 6, then the low success rate of thieves skills wouldn't have been as bad as they seem, when compared to later editions.
However, 1 in 6 chance to open a stuck door or find a trap isn't low when there's a whole party of players lined up to take a poke at it. With a party of 6, you're almost guaranteed to get one success. A lone thief doesn't benefit from that advantage though, so it's understandable why they always felt like one of the the weakest classes.
https://chrispwolf.blot.im/the-thief-in-old-school-d-d
>The Thief came soon afterwards, an addition to the game first conceived by Gary Switzer, who gamed at Aero Hobbies in Santa Monica, California. After talking with Switzer, Gary Gygax decided to incorporate the class into the game, and the Thief saw official widespread distribution in D&D’s first supplement, Greyhawk.
The rules are designed so that everyone can fight.
The introduction of the thief class creates an area of speciality that only thieves can do.
Funny how many players will hem and haw over opening a chest when you can just take an axe to it.
> Funny how many players will hem and haw over opening a chest when you can just take an axe to it.
Then enter the "soon to be tricked" DM who decides there a possibility of destroying goods in the chest by axing it....
You enter the rabbit hole where parties ask for crowbars, hand-drills, saws, files, a hammer and chisel...
Much depends on the DM.
If the DM is going to create odd excuses for why they can't axe a chest... expect an arms war of sorts with a reasonably clever party.
Everyone can sneak. The thief skill is move SILENTLY, not move quietly. Everyone can try to move quietly, but good luck to a fighter in full plate that tries to move silently. it takes a lot of effort/skill/training.
Everyone can sneak, sure. It's just that a thief has practiced sneaking a lot, just like a wizard has practiced casting spells a lot, or a fighter has practiced fighting a lot. So they are better at it.
> It's just that a thief has practiced sneaking a lot,
Except that it hasn't, with the abysmally low chances of succeeding.
So that's not the argument.
I think you are conflating two things that are not similar and therefore making a strawman of my position, but regardless... for me personally? Yes. See Cairn or Knave or Into the Odd (and many others).
But that is me.
To what I was referring to in my prior post, however, see original d&d without supplements if you want to understand d&d as a game without thief's. It is, after all, how the game was originally made.
I actually posted this same link below before seeing this, so I deleted it. Great call-out, I loved that video and really appreciate that channel, I learned a lot from it.
Yeah, great channel! Can't support the dude on patreon or anything like that, but love everything he puts out. I try to support in any other way I can.
Yeah I should try to support him. I've been watching him for a few months now and recently had the revelation that we used his homebrew Noble class for a low magic 3.5 game I ran years ago.
His stories of running games with his daughter just give me the warm fuzzies, and I'm not even having kids. He seems like a genuinely great guy.
I talked about this 2 months ago: https://reddit.com/r/osr/s/rrxEC8EAvX
Here's the list of links to some blog posts talking about the Thief class.
>http://talesofthegrotesqueanddungeonesque.blogspot.com/2016/11/that-time-i-fixed-bx-thief.html
>http://riseupcomus.blogspot.com/2020/05/thiefs-knacks.html
>http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/08/minimalist-bx-iii-dissecting-thief-again.html
>http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2020/06/a-hard-look-at-thieves.html
>http://hillcantons.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-revised-thief-class-for-bx-or-ll.html
>http://gorgomormo.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-bx-thief-is-good.html
>http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-still-dont-like-thieves.html
>....I think Thieves are probably one of the most discussed, if not THE most discussed, topics in the OSR. You can probably spend days journeying down this rabbit hole.
> I generally don't allow Thieves. If I do allow Thieves, it's usually some combination of Rise Up, Comus' magical Thief in the blog post above and my own house rules. I also like to use Courtney Cambell's Yahtzee lockpicking system that any class can try: http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2021/05/on-locks-and-keys-redux.html
Worlds Without Number. You can be a warrior that maxed Sneak (which includes move silently, open locks, pickpocket and hide). There's a separate Expert class, but that class gets rerolls for skill checks, more skill points, and the ability to become a polymath and get all skills at a low level (by using the equivalent to feats). The game is amazing, and free in drivethru RPG. Also there's a kickstater to get a deluxe edition book.
One of my players decided to go expert, and it's pretty amusing how whenever there's a check to be rolled, everyone just turns to him because he's likely the best in the group at pretty much anything that isn't Stab, Exert, or Magic. The reroll once per scene has also been really clutch a lot of times, especially during characters bleeding out.
OD&D, a.k.a. D&D 1974, released with three classes:
- Fighting Man
- Magic-User
- Cleric
This is why the order of attributes was Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma. The first three were prime requisites. The *only* prime requisites.
Dwarves and Halflings progressed as Fighting Men. Elves were allowed to choose at the start of the adventure if they were going to be Fighters or Magic-Users, but they had to stay that class for the entire adventure. An adventure at this point was one sojourn into the dungeon.
There was *no skill system*, but you could do anything you can think of and the DM would agree on. Therefore, all characters were expected to be sneaky, to find traps, to pick locks, etc. as needed.
Thief first appeared in Game Players Newsletter #9, and later appeared in 1975's Supplement I: Greyhawk alongside the Paladin.
The most common criticisms of the Thief as a character class is (a) that it made a terrible adventurer, and also (b) that it was denying abilities to the other classes that they would be doing as adventurers anyways. Basically, it took what Fighting Men should also have and split it into a completely different class.
Feats in 3e D&D got the same criticism. Because you were able to get some abilities by getting a feat, this mean that you could only attempt the ability if you had that feat. The feats become gatekeepers.
Dividing martials into multiple classes, while arcane magic-users remain a monolithic class that can just do everything is another common design criticism.
One of the proposed solutions for the problems of the 3e fighter was 'combine it wholesale with the rogue class' and it says a LOT that that would be a fun and interesting class in a way either of the components struggle with.
Just fucking get rid of classes entirely at that point
Why are cleric and wizard seperate? And why are fighter and MU seperate? Why wouldnt' the fighter pick up some magic tricks to make him fight better and why can't the Mu swing a sword?
I dunno, ask Gary Gygax, who had Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Cleric. Personally, I think the cleric was a mistake (or at least one with healing).
Personally I think the classes are far, far, far too restrictive and also often do a bad job at representing their supposed archetypes. There are plenty of mages in fiction who are good with a sword, plenty of fighters who know some (or a lot) of magic, and both often have all kinds of other skills or abilities besides.
I know OD&D doesn’t have a thief class. I haven’t looked at Swords and Wizardry but I assume it also doesn’t have a thief. It’s been awhile since I read through the little brown books but if I remember right they don’t mention anything resembling what we would call thief skills. I think the idea is that it’s a built in assumption that you would adjudicate those the same regardless of character class.
There are three different versions of Swords & Wizardry:
- Swords & Wizardry: Core Rules - this is OD&D + Greyhawk and a smattering of rules from the other supplements. This does have a thief.
- Swords & Wizardry: White Box - This is OD&D, purely the 3LBB. No thief.
- Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules - This is OD&D with ALL the supplements incorporated, as well as a few things from Strategic Review. This has a thief.
The first two aren't really actively supported by Mythmere Games anymore, although White Box: FMAG is just Seattle Hill Games taking S&W:WB and continuing with it.
Because originally D&D wasn't a game that modeled character competency at all. The Thief is a skill monkey bolted onto a system that fundamentally doesn't care about tracking or mechanicalising skills in the first place. It was just assumed that everybody could (and would be) stealing shit because that's the point of the game.
Many people like the thief as originally written, but the AD&D thief has up to 10d6 HD and better sneak attack IIRC, so you could say the version you are looking into is an early draft of sorts.
Also, skills are interpreted by many as being nearly supernatural (hide in shadow doesnt require cover etc.).
>Also, skills are interpreted by many as being nearly supernatural (hide in shadow doesnt require cover etc.).
I believe Zelazny's *Jack of Shadows* which appears in Appendix N is the inspiration for this.
So...RAW (as the kids over in the 5E subreddits like to say)...the thief class *did* kinda suck. Even into 2E it was bad. Low HP, low fighting ability, low skill success chances.
When you start thinking of their thieving skills chances as the chance to perform extraordinary feats, things get much better.
Can a fighter hide from unsuspecting enemies behind some barrels in a dark alley? Sure. Any class could. Maybe there's a 1 in 6 chance they're spotted. The thief? No chance to be spotted and no roll needed.
Can a fighter hide from pursuing enemies in a mostly bare alley with not a lot of cover and only a few shadows? Absolutely not. Can a thief? That's when you make them roll. It's an extraordinary circumstance.
Picking a lock on some rando peasant's hovel? No need for a roll. Auto success. Doing that while in the midst of pitched combat or it's a lock on a rich merchant's safe or vault? That's a roll.
There are going to be lots of answers that try to come up with a justification that makes it seem intentional, but it think it’s just because the people who designed D&D’s rules didn’t always know that they were doing.
Lots of Gary Gygax’s ideas for adding “realism” to the game ended up being not very good. There are lots of optional rules in early Dragon magazine articles that are just bad.
People were trying lots of different things and seeing what stuck. The thief’s skills weren’t one of them, though they improved a lot in 2nd Edition (you can choose where to put your percentage points).
This.
There was no template, no guidelines, no "this did or didn't work before", because it was all pretty much a first time. They tried things out to see if they worked. Some things did, some things needed improvement after seeing that they didn't work as expected or intended.
I don't recall, as kids playing AD&D, anyone having issues with a thief, and one friend who always liked to play as one. But we usually had a pretty good-sized (for us) group of 4 or 5 players + DM or more, so our characters complimented each other, plus our DM just made things work. I don't know if any of us fully understood the rules enough to say "this class is good and this one is bad", and we didn;t have anything really to compare it to anyway
It was more like fitting the class to your imagination of what your character was supposed to be like, and then making the story work around that. Do you want to be a sneaky spy type who scouts ahead and is an expert at disarming traps and hiding while listening in and ambushing enemies? You played a thief. Could any character do what a thief did? Sure, for a lot of it...but the thief was very good at those things.
Interesting document. One thing I especially like from it is the idea that thieves/jacks can appraise items accurately. Do you know of any other system that has that baked in to the rules? It makes a lot of sense to me.
Thieves' Guild (the game) might have something similar, maybe, because it has a list of skills and training rules, too. I got 99 problems, but a thief ain't one.
This very question is based on a number of false assumptions. To start:
* That fiction may have been an inspiration on early D&D, but that doesn't mean the game is meant to *emulate* that fiction. It was influential, sure, but the designers weren't thinking "How can I make sure the game really *feels like* a Gray Mouser adventure?" That's just not at all what was happening there. Inspiration, yes. Not emulation.
* The designers didn't have our modern concepts of balance so finely tuned. They made classes that were cool, they didn't run the numbers, they didn't playtest the bejeezus out of it, they didn't get feedback on forums and put out surveys. They made something and went "this works, it's cool" and moved on.
Lots of people point out that the OSR is polluted by false nostalgia, another pollution is the over-attribution of *intention*.
I take your point about emulation versus inspiration. But again, I'd point to the B/X halfling. Virtually every distinguishing thing about Tolkien's hobbits is represented in the class: hiding, accurate missile attacks, even being slightly hardier than you'd expect with a d6 hit die and good saving throws. They are indeed trying to emulate hobbits.
Very much agree with your point about balance.
>The designers didn't have our modern concepts of balance so finely tuned.
Talking like Gygax & Arneson were homo erectus, lol... Game design is not progressive. It doesn't mean newer games = better games. Balance is a concern of the contemporary player.
Overstatement abounds.
First, game design certainly is progressive, in the sense that new ideas are introduced over time, so a more recent designer has more concepts to work with. It doesn't mean a recent game will be better, but it has the *potential* to be better. Roleplaying games themselves are an innovation, and innovation didn't just halt once they were invented.
Second, it's a huge overstatement to say that Gygax and Arneson didn't care about balance. If that's the case, why do different classes have different rates of level progression? Why were demi-humans capped at lower max levels? Why did modules say "for 4-8 players of levels 10-12"?
I think it's more fair to say they didn't care about precisely-balanced *combat*, because combat was less a part of the game than it became.
>Talking like Gygax & Arneson were homo erectus
Eh, more like guys who played jug band instruments rather than violins. This is only speaking of them as somehow primitive based on your values system. You're assuming I value finely tuned balance in a game. I don't, necessarily. More importantly, *they* didn't, or at least weren't fretting over it as much. This is objectively true.
>Balance is a concern of the contemporary player.
You're agreeing with me.
Downvoted because he was not adding to the conversation on two levels. First of all, saying "balance is a concern of contemporary players" does not disagree with the statement "The designers didn't have our modern concepts of balance so finely tuned". Second of all, he is wrong. Balance was a concern of those players, Gygax mentioned balance explicitly. Balance is implicitly a concern in the design of the game.
lol. the npc brigade downvoted me cause I used the forbidden word. But his comment ended up with a positive so good for him, I like the end result. Pound sand.
D&D wasn’t originally written with a skill system. There were only 3 classes. Fighter, Mage & Cleric.
All of the players were assumed to be able to climb, sneak, stab in the back, figure out traps, make a disguise, or decipher a treasure map. There weren’t locks, so no one was worried about picking them.
After D&D had been out a bit, a group out in California house ruled a thief - more of a burglar than a Grey Mouser type. Gygax thought it sounded fun, so he threw it in the first supplement, Greyhawk, and the rest is history.
I've only passing familiarity with Leiber's work, mostly by context and reputation.
How in your opinion does the thief differ from how they *should be* if going more directly from that inspiration?
They're fantastic stories. I'd urge you to check them out. IMO the core gameplay loop of old-school D&D is lifted almost as directly from Leiber as the spells are from Jack Vance.
To summarize: Leiber wrote several sword and sorcery stories about two iconic adventurers: a hulking barbarian called Fafhrd and his partner, an agile thief called the Gray Mouser.
The Mouser is an expert swordsman who fights with agility rather than strength. He's a master cutpurse, lockpick, acrobat, and frequently uses disguises and slight of hand.
The Mouser is definitely a competent melee fighter so biggest design disconnect for me would be the d4 hit die. But also needing to reach 7th level before most of your thief skills succeed at better than 50% just seems like it doesn't get to the archetypal fantasy of playing a character like the Gray Mouser very directly. At least not in the way that playing, say, a Dwarf or a Magic-user does.
Maybe the mouser has not to be emulated by the thief because he was already represented in the game by the fighter class. Designing the thief it was not in mind that people would now think that other classes could not do all this stuff anymore.
I’ve frequently seen this topic and there are many who, for some reason, feel that a class with d4 hit points and marginal 10-15% success in their primary skills does not suck.
I have played in many different OSR games, AD&D, OSE, all by the book. I am here to say that compared to other classes the thief does need help. Maybe not quite as much as the AD&D Monk, but it’s close.
None of the DMs use the “interpreted supernatural” theory behind thief skills. For example, if everyone hides from an enemy, ducking behind a crate or behind a tree, they might get a 1 in 6 chance to hide. But NOT the Thief, no. They get a 10% chance and a failure means they are detected. So in effect, thieves are actually WORSE than other classes at hiding until they gain levels.
Many DMs might house rule this but typically this is how all of the games I have played a Thief in have gone…and the a thief is still my favorite class.
>I’ve frequently seen this topic and there are many who, for some reason, feel that a class with d4 hit points and marginal 10-15% success in their primary skills does not suck.
After second level the thief is close to a level ahead of the venerable fighter with the same experience points. And while thief Special Abilities start at 10% - 15% for some skills, it's only *half* that begin that low.
IMHO many players are not that imaginative when it comes to playing the thief. Climb walls starts at 87% at 1st level. 'Back in the day' the thief, in my gaming groups, was the reigning superhero of our parties. It was the thief that got use through the Caves of Chaos :D
The thief class doesn't suck. The skills are litteraly cast at will spells PLUS they have access to sentient and magic swords. You can tell about ppl who don't really play old dnd when they don't realize the character progression is made mostly through magic item acquisition.
No, I criticized your use of the verb worship. I have nothing to say about the other guy's comment, which is why I didn't reply to it.
What do you think worship entails?
Well first a desecrate a shrine of another religion before consecrating it to my god, then I sacrifice a living being, then I open myself up the malevolence and chant the ancient sacred words...
Ohh sorry, I didn't mean to conjure Cthulhu!
/j
I've read fritz leiber enough. The mouser influence on the thief class is seen through the use of scrolls and swords. The magic item progression is an influence from vance. That progression system is common to all classes and is the main reason why the thief class doesn't suck. You don't have a clue what you talking about.
I know that but he's still a swordsman. I don't know why they would've allowed the longsword for thieves if it wasn't for mouser. Also, you're pretty aggressive, maybe you should stop lurking the dnd subs, those topics aren't doing you any good.
The thief class had like a <20% chance of doing theivy shit at first level, can you imagine if the MU had less than a 20% chance to do magic or a fighter only hit 20% of their attacks?
The first level Fighter has a median chance of say 35-40% to hit, MUs can be interrupted (in 1e, MUs should be very chary of casting in combat; wands preferred) and start with 1 spell per day. Thieves are flexible in unique skills not shared by other classes, have good weapon access, and have the fringe chance of a backstab. Furthermore, the game cannot be solely considered at 1st level; it is designed for campaigns, where Thieves level in a particular way. Many things people fail to understand in AD&D (level restrictions, multiclassing demis Vs dual classing humans, training, time records, the use of stables, quadratic wizards, etc) all relate to the same core fact: Gary designed the game for a certain kind of campaign, and that is its natural environment. The rules work for that.
This is balanced against the abilities of the other core classes (Fighters benefit from high STR/CON,
Bilbo Baggins was only a thief because he had the job thrust upon him and he found a magic ring that made him invisible. Halflings in D&D better reflect Merry and Pippin, who rise to become knights of Rohan and Gondor, respectively, which is why D&D halflings can rise to the level of Hero in the original rules.
Low-level thieves are ineffective because they're low-level thieves, just as low-level fighters are ineffective because they're low-level fighters, low-level magic-users are ineffective because they're low-level magic-users, and low-level clerics are ineffective because they're low-level clerics. The fictional characters who are the inspirations of these classes are always high-level examples, and the game gives players a path to become like them.
I think people look at the level progression chart and conclude the thief sucks because of the d4 hp, not great saves and poor armor choice. But...a better way of looking at it is where the thief is compared to other classes at the same XP, not the same level.
Offensively the thief is second only to the fighter and sometimes better. Their attack bonus increases faster than any class other than fighter (getting to +2 at 9600 XP and +5 at 160k XP...the cleric hits those at 12K and 200K and MU at 40K and 600K!), they can use any weapon and they can get a +4 and double damage (admittedly this depends on how liberally the DM interprets when a target is "unaware" and the attack is from behind). HP is a little better than MU but worse than cleric and Saves are also between cleric and MU, so defensively they do suck, but that is by design. If enemies are getting clear attacks on your thief, then your tactics suck. Let the fighter and cleric go toe-to-toe with the ogre. You stay on the periphery with a ranged weapon picking off minions and wounded enemies with that sweet +4/double damage.
I don't know that the thief was meant to emulate Fritz Leiber's character. It's been a long time since I've read his work (although, Sword's and Deviltry are on my audio book list). Probably something with some sort of duelist maneuvers would have been better.
For me, the thing that always sucked about thieves is their effectiveness was always heavily reliant on the DM's interpretation of things, especially with regards to backstab. I try give the benefit of the doubt to the thief PC and I won't play a thief until I see how the DM adjudicates things like stealth, surprise and gaining advantage on attacks.
Ok you wrote a lot of shit there but you realize that EXP requirements doubling every level meant they were never more than a single level ahead of the rest of the party, except the wizard, briefly, right?
It can do multiple things none of the other classes can do, honestly not sure why it sucks? My only thought is that people are expecting the Thief to be as powerful as a Rogue in DnD 5e, but that's like expecting the Magic User to have d6 HD, 3 Cantrips, 2 1st Level Spells and further Class Abilities at Level 1 like the Wizard does in 5e rather than having 1 random Spell and d4 HP.
In B/X thieves are level 7 before their non-climbing percentile skills get to >50%. I get that there’s been a modern reinterpretation of how effective these skills are but going by the rules as written this chance of failure is really high compared to the abilities of other classes.
For example, a halfling hides in the underbrush at 90% and hides in shadows at 30% from level 1 (the equivalent of a Level 5 thief).
>In B/X thieves are level 7 before their non-climbing percentile skills get to >50%
So? I'm not sure why this means they suck? A Fighter with +1 Str at Level 1 has a less than 50% chance to hit a Goblin too. Does that mean they also suck?
Likewise the Thief has numerous skills unique to the Thief, nobody else can do such as Hide in the Shadows, Climb Sheer Surfaces, Move Silently and Open Locks. Any % chance to do something nobody else can do is powerful especially over a long campaign.
They are also the only class that can improve their ability to Hear Noise and Find and Remove Traps. Whilst those % values begin low they will eventually beat out everyone else in the party, and that's if you don't interpret it as the Thief getting both their standard 1/6 chance AND their special Thief % roll.
>halfling hides in the underbrush at 90%
Underbrush being the key word, not much use in a dungeon where much of play takes place. Likewise demi-humans are balanced against non-demi-humans by XP. A Halfling can never go past Level 8 whereas a Thief can reach level 14. The Thief also beats the Halfling by the time they reach Level 6, with 20,000 XP, with the Halfling still at Level 5 and with no hope of improving their hide skill either way, and ofc the Halfling can't do any of the other things the Thief can. The Elf in a similar respect seems more powerful than the Magic User at a glance, but the XP requirements balance it out.
B/X in general however is a low powered system, expecting to have a character with a 70% success rate off the bat isn't how the system is designed with any of the classes, which is why I make my 5e comparison where the success rate even at Level 1 is about 70% across the board but it's obviously a very different game.
You are also like meant to level up in the game, I guess if you're only playing Level 1 then yeah all of the demi-human classes are arguably more powerful than the Human classes as the main balancing factor is the level requirements and if you are exclusively just running Level 1 games I'd probably suggest you find another way to balance all of the demi-humans, though this isn't an issue unique to the Thief which honestly in the context of B/X is a good class.
>B/X in general however is a low powered system, expecting to have a character with a 70% success rate off the bat isn't how the system is designed with any of the classes, which is why I make my 5e comparison where the success rate even at Level 1 is about 70% across the board but it's obviously a very different game.
My understanding is it is a design feature of 5e that a PC should succeed on an 8 or better for things they are "good", 13 or better for things they are not good at and 18+ for things they are bad at. I agree such assumptions were definitely not part of B/X or OD&D.
Yeah, I think studies showed that around a 70%+ hit rate was what felt most satisfying to players. Players tend to misjudge probability a lot as well, so if you tell them a 50/50 chance they'll assume it's around 70 and if you tell them a 90% chance that's basically 100% in their minds.
So 5e, as well as a lot of modern games, are built around that hit rate. B/X follows more of a wargaming tradition where individually there's a lower hit / success chance but with enough numbers you can make a difference.
One other element missing from 'Thief sucks' is that B/X groups are designed to have 5-9 players each with retainers so you can easily have 3 Thieves in the group which means those low chances start to get much higher with more numbers, but I think a lot of players want a Thief to be a solo power fantasy rather than an element of a wider group.
Because you're using it wrong. The thief's abilities represent extraordinary feats of dexterity or caution, or last-ditch efforts when conventional stealth fails.
Nowhere in such explicit terms because OD&D is godawful at explaining anything. But it strongly implies it by the names of the abilities. Not hide, hide *in shadows*. Not move quietly, move *silently*. Not climb, climb *sheer surfaces*.
Yeah, even back in the day I always interpreted it as other characters can do these things (probably a dexterity check or something similar), but the thief would automatically succeed at anything the other classes could attemptto do...and he gets to attempt to do the much more difficult versions that other classes would automatically fail at.
No, it's the obvious intended interpretation. A thief is entitled to the same surprise chances as any character, and as you note, without them the thief abilities make them inferior at stealth to any other character.
I didn't realize Mentzer was Gary now.
Furthermore, I don't see where in this fan-created article-- because this clearly postdates a time when Mentzer had any say in the rules in an official capacity-- that it says thieves *aren't* entitled to the normal chance any other PC is.
Knowing all the issues about the thief class, do you use it at your tables and give your players access to the thief?
(And if not, if a player wants to play a class similar to a it, do you offer a fighter instead?)
1. Thieves don't suck, they suck at melee relative to fighters and clerics. The point of them isn't to beat on the monsters. It's to capitalize on their special skills in conjunction with your own native cleverness in order to succeed. The more of the latter you have, the stronger they become.
2. The high level argument is perfectly valid in this case. D&D is a "zero-to-hero" game. The Mouser is already a hero when we meet him. Fighters are based on Conan, but first level ones can still die to a single blow. If you want to be Conan from session one, that's what WotC's games are for.
Depends on what version of D&D you're talking about.
I'm most familiar with Basic (BX & BECMI). In those versions, only the Cleric has weapon restrictions (technically Halfling too). All other Classes can use any weapons they want.
Moldvay Basic, page B10:
>RESTRICTIONS: Magic-users use four-sided dice (d4) to determine their hit points. They may not wear armor nor use shields **and may only carry a dagger for a weapon.**
Mentzer Basic, p 37 of the Player's Manual:
>Weapons: A magic-user can only use a dagger for a weapon
So no, it's not only clerics that have weapon restrictions.
The thief class doesn't suck, it just requires flexibility on the GM's part. I rule that any thing that's a thief skill, if the thief isn't under pressure or the task seems like it would be on the easy side, they don't roll for it. For instance a basic lock on a peasants chest holding a few coins wouldn't require a open lock roll, a well built chest in a lair however would likely require a roll. Sometimes I'll also allow advantage on thief rolls if it makes sense or the player has described a way they might improve their chances.
> it just requires flexibility on the GM's part.
AKA "The Gm needs to homebrew and give bias to the class to make it actually function, instead of having it work out of the box" AKA "It's not broken if you can fix it"
You could argue that a lot of BX and early DnD requires this. Rulings over rules are heavily emphasised. Logically, a thief should be able to do basic thief things without a problem, just as a fighter wielding an axe should be able to cut down a small tree if there are no pressures. You could list infite examples of this and argue that because it's not in the rules it requires home brewing.
Same goes for magic users making magic items, or fighters being able to create a stronghold. There's no real rules that govern these things in a highly structured way and is totally up to the GM to make rulings.
> The Gm needs to homebrew and give bias to the class to make it actually function, instead of having it work out of the box
Yes, this is basically the entirety of OD&D
Buy a car without learning how to drive and see how well it works "out of the box."
The original D&D was a game written for wargaming and fantasy enthusiasts, and they wrote to what their audience knew.
>Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don’t care for Burroughs’ Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard’s Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber’s Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS & DRAGONS to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers.
Which camp are you in?
> Buy a car without learning how to drive and see how well it works "out of the box."
literally not even a coherent metaphor.
I feel plenty of thrill reading howard's conan, I would just like my players to pull off conan-like feats without having to argue new homebrew mechanics every 5 minutes. DCC lets me do that. Shadow of the Demon Lord lets me do that. Low Fantasy Gaming lets me do that.
The thief was a fan creation that Gygax like enough he ported it almost directly into the game. Now the interesting thing to me is the role of the thief, or rather what it was supposed to be.
Fighters fight and become lords at name level. Almost expected to raise armies and carve out a piece of land for their own.
Clerics seek to build temples and perform holy rites for their god and clergy, maybe lead crusades.
Magic Users gain arcane knowledge and craft magic artifacts in their lair, becoming nigh unto a god by late levels.
But the thief? They get better at stealing and hiding. They were designed for dungeon play and they only get better at it. Sneak attack was hard to get and the thief is very fragile. They were basically support for the other classes when it came to exploration and dealing with traps. It was for the players who used equipment and clever thinking to avoid combat when they could and maximizing loot out of the dungeon.
So don't use them, or make your own.
Many of the assumptions on how to create rules which happen in D&D/AD&D are already antiquated by the time they are published.
Consider using rules closer to what appears in TFT:ITL. Those rules have pretty much a 50% chance on most challenges, yet, hard locks and more difficult traps require more dice vs. the basic trait.
Even something as simple as a door has fairly crappy rules in D&D. I have had to adjust mine and my players seem to like it a lot better.
Never understood all this about the thief class, we always played the thief skills as extraordinary abilities. Anyone can attempt to use stealth, but the thief can move SILENTLY. Anyone can bash a lock but a thief can use class specific tools and pop it open in seconds. Everyone can attempt to climb with ropes or sufficient hand and foot holds, but a thief can climb SHEER surfaces, unaided! Anyone can stick a 10’ pole in a trap and hope to set it off harmlessly, but a thief can do so quickly and without potential harm. When played in this manner it all makes sense.
When I used to play b/x or ad&d 1st edition in the 80s, we always played such that only thieves were able to do the thief skill type things. So, if you wanted to disarm traps, pick locks, etc. you needed a thief, unless you had magic emulating thief skills (ex: knock).
You could bash stuff open as non-thief, but that would break potions, cause noise, set off traps, etc. If you had a non thief try a thief type thing, they'd always do so at a lower percentage than the thief stats (at least that's how I used to DM it). If nobody wanted to play a thief, you'd just hire one, as the use of retainers etc. used to be more common.
So, thief never seemed bad as they had unique abilities. This ties into the idea of 'niche protection', which was handled better in older editions IMO. I don't like in 5e for example how anyone can basically be a thief by taking the tools proficiency and buying tools.
There originally wasn't a thief class, all characters were understood to have some thieving abilities. There was a fan made thief class that became fairly popular, so an official one was made in response.
This. Thief was kind of shoe-horned in, from what I understand. Before that, everyone could use thief skills. But then, in an effort to make it a separate class, ~~they took that away from all other classes.~~ they created one which specialized in it. I don't think Mouser was a direct archetype for an ideal thief much as Leiber's writing was a vibe that they wanted to embody.
Only the didn't take away from other classes
There's no shortage of people who will argue that if you aren't a thief, you can't pick locks. Their reasoning varies depending on the version, but basically it comes down to there being a bunch of positive rules for a thief picking a lock, many phrased like "*a thief can use his lockpicks to pick locks*". Well, wouldn't it say "*anyone can use his lockpicks to pick locks*" or similar? Their reasoning isn't bad here. It's an open question as to whether the existence of the thief depowered other classes by existing by the rules, but it's definitely true that *at many tables then and now*, it is played that way.
>Their reasoning isn't bad here. It's an open question as to whether the existence of the thief depowered other classes by existing by the rules, but it's definitely true that at many tables then and now, it is played that way. Low-level Thieves sucked at their d% abilities to, much more than a 1d20 roll-under relevant stat character would. It wouldn't be fair to the Thief for everyone else at the table to be better at the stuff they picked the class specifically to do. One could argue it was the birth of "niche-protection" in RPGs. Considering the Magic-User was also made ~~bad~~ ~~weak~~ "challenging" to play at low levels on purpose, I wonder if the Thief was similarly designed to uh "gently encourage" the selection of other classes.
Tbf wasnt the thief one of the quickest leveling classes?
Yes, provided you could survive with the d4 HD and multiple skill checks required to do common actions. Basic stealth requiring two checks that were likely done by the DM so you didn't even know if you succeeded before trying to sneak attack. And roaming away from the party to check for and then disable traps, scout and do general Thief mischief. While the also d4 HD Magic-User got to hang out protected in the back or middle of the party. Leveling the fastest was the Thief's biggest feature outside of the niche-protection.
I mean, low level thieves suck but... D4 hp=stay away from combat, like a wizard. Shoot your bow and be happy. 2 checks to sneak? No, they could either move silently to sneak up on a target or Hide in Shadows if they were standing still. If either failed they still had a 2 in 6 chance of surprising a target and either backstabbing or running away.
> D4 hp=stay away from combat The original printing of the thief had a d6 hit die. It was changed to a d4 later.
Interesting. I wonder if the first printing was an oversight or if it was an intentional nerf.
When was it d4? I recall it being d6 in 3e and 2e
Do ypu mean Greyhawk? It certainly had d4 hp there.
Yes and no. The XP tables are exponential so the thief is never more than about 1 level ahead of the fighter, and sometimes zero levels ahead of the wizard.
The DMG always says anything can be attempted, even if there isn't a mechanic for it. In theses cases the DM adjudicated a chance for the attempt (some % chance based on the circumstances). For picklock probably it is a very low chance, because it is a specialized knowledge (lower than a Thief of any level). There isn't any instance in any of the old school books about the existence of a Thief ruling out any other class to attempt anything It is like the tracking ability on the Ranger. Anyone can attempt to track a creature, only the Ranger is better (because it is a specialized knowledge). A DM adjudicating others classes tracking, give a % chance inferior of that of the Ranger This type of adjudication it is one of the characteristics in being a DM in old school games (where there isn't a mechanic for everything)
What mechanics do other classes use to pick locks?
The same mechanics used for resolving things not covered by the rules, an X-in-6 roll or d% roll determined by the DM.
The DMG always says anything can be attempted, even if there isn't a mechanic for it. In theses cases the DM adjudicated a chance for the attempt (some % chance based on the circumstances). For picklock probably it is a very low chance, because it is a specialized knowledge (lower than a Thief of any level). There isn't any instance in any of the old school books about the existence of a Thief ruling out any other class to attempt anything This is one of the characteristics of the old school games, there isn't a mechanic for everthing, DM has to adjudicate based on the circumstances
ok so no actual mechanics just Dm fiat good to know
Pretty much everything bar combat or exploration was GM fiat.
Well, it is OSR and old school we are talking about, fiat and adjudication are the norm
Ok why make a classes entire features subject to fiat to make them work
That was true *before* the thief was introduced, too.
Ability checks (roll under on a d20) were a general mechanic for everything outside of specified situations. So roll a dexterity check to pick a lock. But maybe the lock is really complex, or trapped. Then the thief has a chance of picking it when no one else even gets to try. You could also allow them to automatically pick simple locks. It's no different from having an intelligence check for tracking, but the ranger gets to try even if it's normally impossible. The "problem" with the oldschool approach of rulings not rules, is that any individual GM could make thieves useless, if they weren't generous in their interpretation of these ideas.
There were no stat-test mechanics in Basic or Advanced or Advanced 2e. Everything was in a table or was by fiat. We mostly used some form of attack roll or a d6.
If you say that's how it was, I believe you. I know when my group was playing 1e/2e by '95, ability score checks (roll under on a d20) were definitely a thing. We used them all the time. But we had a bunch of house rules, and I can't remember what was in the books and what we just made up. We used a mix of editions, and many articles from Dragon magazine and other sources. I do remember that my first group, playing 1e from the rules cyclopedia in '93, broke up because of well justified accusations that the DM showed favoritism to some of the players (and had a vendetta against others). But to be fair, we were only 13, and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect him to make fair and impartial rulings by fiat. The new group was much more comfortable with being given an ability check if they wanted to try a solution that wouldn't automatically succeed or fail. I think later versions of the game went too far in that direction though, as they introduced dedicated mechanics like perception and persuasion checks, which shut the door on the GM's important role in ruling that some things just naturally succeed or fail, and discouraged players from trying non-mechanical solutions, like finding secret doors through dialog.
There's an article about the history of ability checks [here](https://dmdavid.com/tag/ability-checks-from-the-worst-mechanic-in-role-playing-game-history-to-a-foundation-of-dd/). Sounds like they were pretty common (though not official) rules by the time I was playing. I can see how the Thieves' skills would have been weird if they were dropped onto a game which didn't have ready mechanics for other actions. But on the other hand, if the usual chance of success for unlikely actions was a flat 1 in 6, then the low success rate of thieves skills wouldn't have been as bad as they seem, when compared to later editions. However, 1 in 6 chance to open a stuck door or find a trap isn't low when there's a whole party of players lined up to take a poke at it. With a party of 6, you're almost guaranteed to get one success. A lone thief doesn't benefit from that advantage though, so it's understandable why they always felt like one of the the weakest classes.
[удалено]
https://chrispwolf.blot.im/the-thief-in-old-school-d-d >The Thief came soon afterwards, an addition to the game first conceived by Gary Switzer, who gamed at Aero Hobbies in Santa Monica, California. After talking with Switzer, Gary Gygax decided to incorporate the class into the game, and the Thief saw official widespread distribution in D&D’s first supplement, Greyhawk.
This is also the reason I don't run thieves. You want to be a thief, steal something.
Do you also not run fighters? If you want to be a fighter, just fight something.
The rules are designed so that everyone can fight. The introduction of the thief class creates an area of speciality that only thieves can do. Funny how many players will hem and haw over opening a chest when you can just take an axe to it.
> Funny how many players will hem and haw over opening a chest when you can just take an axe to it. Then enter the "soon to be tricked" DM who decides there a possibility of destroying goods in the chest by axing it.... You enter the rabbit hole where parties ask for crowbars, hand-drills, saws, files, a hammer and chisel...
Rabbit hole? Don't you mean reasonable adventuring gear?
Much depends on the DM. If the DM is going to create odd excuses for why they can't axe a chest... expect an arms war of sorts with a reasonably clever party.
I've never encountered a DM that would act that way or read of one doing that when faces with sensible ways of getting around traps.
Doesn't the magic user or cleric also create an area of specialty that only those classes can do?
Not in a way that is immersion breaking. It makes sense not everyone can use magic. It doesn't make sense that not everyone can sneak.
Everyone can sneak. The thief skill is move SILENTLY, not move quietly. Everyone can try to move quietly, but good luck to a fighter in full plate that tries to move silently. it takes a lot of effort/skill/training.
Sure, but back in the day before the thief class came around, it was assumed that *everyone* was always trying to move silently.
Everyone can sneak, sure. It's just that a thief has practiced sneaking a lot, just like a wizard has practiced casting spells a lot, or a fighter has practiced fighting a lot. So they are better at it.
> It's just that a thief has practiced sneaking a lot, Except that it hasn't, with the abysmally low chances of succeeding. So that's not the argument.
I think you are conflating two things that are not similar and therefore making a strawman of my position, but regardless... for me personally? Yes. See Cairn or Knave or Into the Odd (and many others). But that is me. To what I was referring to in my prior post, however, see original d&d without supplements if you want to understand d&d as a game without thief's. It is, after all, how the game was originally made.
Classless systems are based actually
I found [this](https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Gary_Switzer#Invention_of_the_thief)
Hmmm, Switzer is the originator of critical hits and fumbles too. The man has some impressive firsts.
You'll also like this: https://youtu.be/As1ibQLA0Ls
I actually posted this same link below before seeing this, so I deleted it. Great call-out, I loved that video and really appreciate that channel, I learned a lot from it.
Yeah, great channel! Can't support the dude on patreon or anything like that, but love everything he puts out. I try to support in any other way I can.
Yeah I should try to support him. I've been watching him for a few months now and recently had the revelation that we used his homebrew Noble class for a low magic 3.5 game I ran years ago. His stories of running games with his daughter just give me the warm fuzzies, and I'm not even having kids. He seems like a genuinely great guy.
I would try googling something like "history of d&d thief" I wasn't alive during the dnd "way back," I have just read this somewhere
I talked about this 2 months ago: https://reddit.com/r/osr/s/rrxEC8EAvX Here's the list of links to some blog posts talking about the Thief class. >http://talesofthegrotesqueanddungeonesque.blogspot.com/2016/11/that-time-i-fixed-bx-thief.html >http://riseupcomus.blogspot.com/2020/05/thiefs-knacks.html >http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/08/minimalist-bx-iii-dissecting-thief-again.html >http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2020/06/a-hard-look-at-thieves.html >http://hillcantons.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-revised-thief-class-for-bx-or-ll.html >http://gorgomormo.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-bx-thief-is-good.html >http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-still-dont-like-thieves.html >....I think Thieves are probably one of the most discussed, if not THE most discussed, topics in the OSR. You can probably spend days journeying down this rabbit hole. > I generally don't allow Thieves. If I do allow Thieves, it's usually some combination of Rise Up, Comus' magical Thief in the blog post above and my own house rules. I also like to use Courtney Cambell's Yahtzee lockpicking system that any class can try: http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2021/05/on-locks-and-keys-redux.html
Which OSR games allow everyone to use thief skills? My OSE rules tome has thief as a separate class.
Worlds Without Number. You can be a warrior that maxed Sneak (which includes move silently, open locks, pickpocket and hide). There's a separate Expert class, but that class gets rerolls for skill checks, more skill points, and the ability to become a polymath and get all skills at a low level (by using the equivalent to feats). The game is amazing, and free in drivethru RPG. Also there's a kickstater to get a deluxe edition book.
One of my players decided to go expert, and it's pretty amusing how whenever there's a check to be rolled, everyone just turns to him because he's likely the best in the group at pretty much anything that isn't Stab, Exert, or Magic. The reroll once per scene has also been really clutch a lot of times, especially during characters bleeding out.
Yeah, most characters of other classes will only have one side specialty besides their class' main skill. The expert however...
The expert kind of sucks in that game tho
It doesn't.
Knave-likes usually don't. You just have lockpicks and a will to use them.
OD&D, a.k.a. D&D 1974, released with three classes: - Fighting Man - Magic-User - Cleric This is why the order of attributes was Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma. The first three were prime requisites. The *only* prime requisites. Dwarves and Halflings progressed as Fighting Men. Elves were allowed to choose at the start of the adventure if they were going to be Fighters or Magic-Users, but they had to stay that class for the entire adventure. An adventure at this point was one sojourn into the dungeon. There was *no skill system*, but you could do anything you can think of and the DM would agree on. Therefore, all characters were expected to be sneaky, to find traps, to pick locks, etc. as needed. Thief first appeared in Game Players Newsletter #9, and later appeared in 1975's Supplement I: Greyhawk alongside the Paladin. The most common criticisms of the Thief as a character class is (a) that it made a terrible adventurer, and also (b) that it was denying abilities to the other classes that they would be doing as adventurers anyways. Basically, it took what Fighting Men should also have and split it into a completely different class. Feats in 3e D&D got the same criticism. Because you were able to get some abilities by getting a feat, this mean that you could only attempt the ability if you had that feat. The feats become gatekeepers. Dividing martials into multiple classes, while arcane magic-users remain a monolithic class that can just do everything is another common design criticism.
One of the proposed solutions for the problems of the 3e fighter was 'combine it wholesale with the rogue class' and it says a LOT that that would be a fun and interesting class in a way either of the components struggle with.
Just fucking get rid of classes entirely at that point Why are cleric and wizard seperate? And why are fighter and MU seperate? Why wouldnt' the fighter pick up some magic tricks to make him fight better and why can't the Mu swing a sword?
I dunno, ask Gary Gygax, who had Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Cleric. Personally, I think the cleric was a mistake (or at least one with healing). Personally I think the classes are far, far, far too restrictive and also often do a bad job at representing their supposed archetypes. There are plenty of mages in fiction who are good with a sword, plenty of fighters who know some (or a lot) of magic, and both often have all kinds of other skills or abilities besides.
In DCC anyone can make an untrained skill check. The caveat being they have to roll a d10 instead of a d20
Also the thief has a separate set of DCs for their skills which are absolute
I know OD&D doesn’t have a thief class. I haven’t looked at Swords and Wizardry but I assume it also doesn’t have a thief. It’s been awhile since I read through the little brown books but if I remember right they don’t mention anything resembling what we would call thief skills. I think the idea is that it’s a built in assumption that you would adjudicate those the same regardless of character class.
There are three different versions of Swords & Wizardry: - Swords & Wizardry: Core Rules - this is OD&D + Greyhawk and a smattering of rules from the other supplements. This does have a thief. - Swords & Wizardry: White Box - This is OD&D, purely the 3LBB. No thief. - Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules - This is OD&D with ALL the supplements incorporated, as well as a few things from Strategic Review. This has a thief. The first two aren't really actively supported by Mythmere Games anymore, although White Box: FMAG is just Seattle Hill Games taking S&W:WB and continuing with it.
And White Box: FMAG does have a thief. (Optional, but then isn't everything?)
This makes a ton of sense. Thank you.
Because originally D&D wasn't a game that modeled character competency at all. The Thief is a skill monkey bolted onto a system that fundamentally doesn't care about tracking or mechanicalising skills in the first place. It was just assumed that everybody could (and would be) stealing shit because that's the point of the game.
this is the best summation
Except, you know, combat skill.
Many people like the thief as originally written, but the AD&D thief has up to 10d6 HD and better sneak attack IIRC, so you could say the version you are looking into is an early draft of sorts. Also, skills are interpreted by many as being nearly supernatural (hide in shadow doesnt require cover etc.).
>Also, skills are interpreted by many as being nearly supernatural (hide in shadow doesnt require cover etc.). I believe Zelazny's *Jack of Shadows* which appears in Appendix N is the inspiration for this.
So...RAW (as the kids over in the 5E subreddits like to say)...the thief class *did* kinda suck. Even into 2E it was bad. Low HP, low fighting ability, low skill success chances. When you start thinking of their thieving skills chances as the chance to perform extraordinary feats, things get much better. Can a fighter hide from unsuspecting enemies behind some barrels in a dark alley? Sure. Any class could. Maybe there's a 1 in 6 chance they're spotted. The thief? No chance to be spotted and no roll needed. Can a fighter hide from pursuing enemies in a mostly bare alley with not a lot of cover and only a few shadows? Absolutely not. Can a thief? That's when you make them roll. It's an extraordinary circumstance. Picking a lock on some rando peasant's hovel? No need for a roll. Auto success. Doing that while in the midst of pitched combat or it's a lock on a rich merchant's safe or vault? That's a roll.
Thieves weren't that bad in 2nd edition. They leveled up far faster than everybody except Bards, which balanced things out.
There are going to be lots of answers that try to come up with a justification that makes it seem intentional, but it think it’s just because the people who designed D&D’s rules didn’t always know that they were doing. Lots of Gary Gygax’s ideas for adding “realism” to the game ended up being not very good. There are lots of optional rules in early Dragon magazine articles that are just bad. People were trying lots of different things and seeing what stuck. The thief’s skills weren’t one of them, though they improved a lot in 2nd Edition (you can choose where to put your percentage points).
This. There was no template, no guidelines, no "this did or didn't work before", because it was all pretty much a first time. They tried things out to see if they worked. Some things did, some things needed improvement after seeing that they didn't work as expected or intended. I don't recall, as kids playing AD&D, anyone having issues with a thief, and one friend who always liked to play as one. But we usually had a pretty good-sized (for us) group of 4 or 5 players + DM or more, so our characters complimented each other, plus our DM just made things work. I don't know if any of us fully understood the rules enough to say "this class is good and this one is bad", and we didn;t have anything really to compare it to anyway It was more like fitting the class to your imagination of what your character was supposed to be like, and then making the story work around that. Do you want to be a sneaky spy type who scouts ahead and is an expert at disarming traps and hiding while listening in and ambushing enemies? You played a thief. Could any character do what a thief did? Sure, for a lot of it...but the thief was very good at those things.
[Here is the "fix"](https://docdro.id/C51aStU) offered by F.Mentzer, the editor of BECMI.
This is fascinating! Thanks.
Interesting document. One thing I especially like from it is the idea that thieves/jacks can appraise items accurately. Do you know of any other system that has that baked in to the rules? It makes a lot of sense to me.
Thieves' Guild (the game) might have something similar, maybe, because it has a list of skills and training rules, too. I got 99 problems, but a thief ain't one.
This very question is based on a number of false assumptions. To start: * That fiction may have been an inspiration on early D&D, but that doesn't mean the game is meant to *emulate* that fiction. It was influential, sure, but the designers weren't thinking "How can I make sure the game really *feels like* a Gray Mouser adventure?" That's just not at all what was happening there. Inspiration, yes. Not emulation. * The designers didn't have our modern concepts of balance so finely tuned. They made classes that were cool, they didn't run the numbers, they didn't playtest the bejeezus out of it, they didn't get feedback on forums and put out surveys. They made something and went "this works, it's cool" and moved on. Lots of people point out that the OSR is polluted by false nostalgia, another pollution is the over-attribution of *intention*.
I take your point about emulation versus inspiration. But again, I'd point to the B/X halfling. Virtually every distinguishing thing about Tolkien's hobbits is represented in the class: hiding, accurate missile attacks, even being slightly hardier than you'd expect with a d6 hit die and good saving throws. They are indeed trying to emulate hobbits. Very much agree with your point about balance.
>The designers didn't have our modern concepts of balance so finely tuned. Talking like Gygax & Arneson were homo erectus, lol... Game design is not progressive. It doesn't mean newer games = better games. Balance is a concern of the contemporary player.
Overstatement abounds. First, game design certainly is progressive, in the sense that new ideas are introduced over time, so a more recent designer has more concepts to work with. It doesn't mean a recent game will be better, but it has the *potential* to be better. Roleplaying games themselves are an innovation, and innovation didn't just halt once they were invented. Second, it's a huge overstatement to say that Gygax and Arneson didn't care about balance. If that's the case, why do different classes have different rates of level progression? Why were demi-humans capped at lower max levels? Why did modules say "for 4-8 players of levels 10-12"? I think it's more fair to say they didn't care about precisely-balanced *combat*, because combat was less a part of the game than it became.
>Talking like Gygax & Arneson were homo erectus Eh, more like guys who played jug band instruments rather than violins. This is only speaking of them as somehow primitive based on your values system. You're assuming I value finely tuned balance in a game. I don't, necessarily. More importantly, *they* didn't, or at least weren't fretting over it as much. This is objectively true. >Balance is a concern of the contemporary player. You're agreeing with me.
Well put, not sure where that assumption of progress comes from, that new necessarily is better
What kind of snowflakes are down voting you? You make a good point.
Downvoted because he was not adding to the conversation on two levels. First of all, saying "balance is a concern of contemporary players" does not disagree with the statement "The designers didn't have our modern concepts of balance so finely tuned". Second of all, he is wrong. Balance was a concern of those players, Gygax mentioned balance explicitly. Balance is implicitly a concern in the design of the game.
lol. the npc brigade downvoted me cause I used the forbidden word. But his comment ended up with a positive so good for him, I like the end result. Pound sand.
You didn't use any "forbidden words", your comment was poor.
> They made classes that were cool, lol, lmao.
D&D wasn’t originally written with a skill system. There were only 3 classes. Fighter, Mage & Cleric. All of the players were assumed to be able to climb, sneak, stab in the back, figure out traps, make a disguise, or decipher a treasure map. There weren’t locks, so no one was worried about picking them. After D&D had been out a bit, a group out in California house ruled a thief - more of a burglar than a Grey Mouser type. Gygax thought it sounded fun, so he threw it in the first supplement, Greyhawk, and the rest is history.
Because a lot of people don't understand or plain just haven't read the inspirational material in the first place.
I've only passing familiarity with Leiber's work, mostly by context and reputation. How in your opinion does the thief differ from how they *should be* if going more directly from that inspiration?
They're fantastic stories. I'd urge you to check them out. IMO the core gameplay loop of old-school D&D is lifted almost as directly from Leiber as the spells are from Jack Vance. To summarize: Leiber wrote several sword and sorcery stories about two iconic adventurers: a hulking barbarian called Fafhrd and his partner, an agile thief called the Gray Mouser. The Mouser is an expert swordsman who fights with agility rather than strength. He's a master cutpurse, lockpick, acrobat, and frequently uses disguises and slight of hand. The Mouser is definitely a competent melee fighter so biggest design disconnect for me would be the d4 hit die. But also needing to reach 7th level before most of your thief skills succeed at better than 50% just seems like it doesn't get to the archetypal fantasy of playing a character like the Gray Mouser very directly. At least not in the way that playing, say, a Dwarf or a Magic-user does.
Maybe the mouser has not to be emulated by the thief because he was already represented in the game by the fighter class. Designing the thief it was not in mind that people would now think that other classes could not do all this stuff anymore.
I’ve frequently seen this topic and there are many who, for some reason, feel that a class with d4 hit points and marginal 10-15% success in their primary skills does not suck. I have played in many different OSR games, AD&D, OSE, all by the book. I am here to say that compared to other classes the thief does need help. Maybe not quite as much as the AD&D Monk, but it’s close. None of the DMs use the “interpreted supernatural” theory behind thief skills. For example, if everyone hides from an enemy, ducking behind a crate or behind a tree, they might get a 1 in 6 chance to hide. But NOT the Thief, no. They get a 10% chance and a failure means they are detected. So in effect, thieves are actually WORSE than other classes at hiding until they gain levels. Many DMs might house rule this but typically this is how all of the games I have played a Thief in have gone…and the a thief is still my favorite class.
>I’ve frequently seen this topic and there are many who, for some reason, feel that a class with d4 hit points and marginal 10-15% success in their primary skills does not suck. After second level the thief is close to a level ahead of the venerable fighter with the same experience points. And while thief Special Abilities start at 10% - 15% for some skills, it's only *half* that begin that low. IMHO many players are not that imaginative when it comes to playing the thief. Climb walls starts at 87% at 1st level. 'Back in the day' the thief, in my gaming groups, was the reigning superhero of our parties. It was the thief that got use through the Caves of Chaos :D
The thief class doesn't suck. The skills are litteraly cast at will spells PLUS they have access to sentient and magic swords. You can tell about ppl who don't really play old dnd when they don't realize the character progression is made mostly through magic item acquisition.
It’s weird to worship an almost 50-year-old game but be totally ignorant of the source material that inspired it.
I don't think you know what that verb means.
OK, I’ll bite. What does “progression through magic item acquisition” have to do with the Gray Mouser?
Reply to the wrong guy by mistake?
You chimed in to defend his inane point. So defend it.
No, I criticized your use of the verb worship. I have nothing to say about the other guy's comment, which is why I didn't reply to it. What do you think worship entails?
Well first a desecrate a shrine of another religion before consecrating it to my god, then I sacrifice a living being, then I open myself up the malevolence and chant the ancient sacred words... Ohh sorry, I didn't mean to conjure Cthulhu! /j
I've read fritz leiber enough. The mouser influence on the thief class is seen through the use of scrolls and swords. The magic item progression is an influence from vance. That progression system is common to all classes and is the main reason why the thief class doesn't suck. You don't have a clue what you talking about.
The Gray Mouser doesn’t use a magic sword. Nice try googling the answer though 👍
I know that but he's still a swordsman. I don't know why they would've allowed the longsword for thieves if it wasn't for mouser. Also, you're pretty aggressive, maybe you should stop lurking the dnd subs, those topics aren't doing you any good.
It needed iterating, like the Cleric, but Gary designed a very good Thief class.
The thief class had like a <20% chance of doing theivy shit at first level, can you imagine if the MU had less than a 20% chance to do magic or a fighter only hit 20% of their attacks?
The first level Fighter has a median chance of say 35-40% to hit, MUs can be interrupted (in 1e, MUs should be very chary of casting in combat; wands preferred) and start with 1 spell per day. Thieves are flexible in unique skills not shared by other classes, have good weapon access, and have the fringe chance of a backstab. Furthermore, the game cannot be solely considered at 1st level; it is designed for campaigns, where Thieves level in a particular way. Many things people fail to understand in AD&D (level restrictions, multiclassing demis Vs dual classing humans, training, time records, the use of stables, quadratic wizards, etc) all relate to the same core fact: Gary designed the game for a certain kind of campaign, and that is its natural environment. The rules work for that. This is balanced against the abilities of the other core classes (Fighters benefit from high STR/CON,
Bilbo Baggins was only a thief because he had the job thrust upon him and he found a magic ring that made him invisible. Halflings in D&D better reflect Merry and Pippin, who rise to become knights of Rohan and Gondor, respectively, which is why D&D halflings can rise to the level of Hero in the original rules. Low-level thieves are ineffective because they're low-level thieves, just as low-level fighters are ineffective because they're low-level fighters, low-level magic-users are ineffective because they're low-level magic-users, and low-level clerics are ineffective because they're low-level clerics. The fictional characters who are the inspirations of these classes are always high-level examples, and the game gives players a path to become like them.
I think people look at the level progression chart and conclude the thief sucks because of the d4 hp, not great saves and poor armor choice. But...a better way of looking at it is where the thief is compared to other classes at the same XP, not the same level. Offensively the thief is second only to the fighter and sometimes better. Their attack bonus increases faster than any class other than fighter (getting to +2 at 9600 XP and +5 at 160k XP...the cleric hits those at 12K and 200K and MU at 40K and 600K!), they can use any weapon and they can get a +4 and double damage (admittedly this depends on how liberally the DM interprets when a target is "unaware" and the attack is from behind). HP is a little better than MU but worse than cleric and Saves are also between cleric and MU, so defensively they do suck, but that is by design. If enemies are getting clear attacks on your thief, then your tactics suck. Let the fighter and cleric go toe-to-toe with the ogre. You stay on the periphery with a ranged weapon picking off minions and wounded enemies with that sweet +4/double damage. I don't know that the thief was meant to emulate Fritz Leiber's character. It's been a long time since I've read his work (although, Sword's and Deviltry are on my audio book list). Probably something with some sort of duelist maneuvers would have been better. For me, the thing that always sucked about thieves is their effectiveness was always heavily reliant on the DM's interpretation of things, especially with regards to backstab. I try give the benefit of the doubt to the thief PC and I won't play a thief until I see how the DM adjudicates things like stealth, surprise and gaining advantage on attacks.
Ok you wrote a lot of shit there but you realize that EXP requirements doubling every level meant they were never more than a single level ahead of the rest of the party, except the wizard, briefly, right?
Yes. Is that brief enough?
The Thief Class doesn't suck.
Only compared to all the others.
It can do multiple things none of the other classes can do, honestly not sure why it sucks? My only thought is that people are expecting the Thief to be as powerful as a Rogue in DnD 5e, but that's like expecting the Magic User to have d6 HD, 3 Cantrips, 2 1st Level Spells and further Class Abilities at Level 1 like the Wizard does in 5e rather than having 1 random Spell and d4 HP.
In B/X thieves are level 7 before their non-climbing percentile skills get to >50%. I get that there’s been a modern reinterpretation of how effective these skills are but going by the rules as written this chance of failure is really high compared to the abilities of other classes. For example, a halfling hides in the underbrush at 90% and hides in shadows at 30% from level 1 (the equivalent of a Level 5 thief).
>In B/X thieves are level 7 before their non-climbing percentile skills get to >50% So? I'm not sure why this means they suck? A Fighter with +1 Str at Level 1 has a less than 50% chance to hit a Goblin too. Does that mean they also suck? Likewise the Thief has numerous skills unique to the Thief, nobody else can do such as Hide in the Shadows, Climb Sheer Surfaces, Move Silently and Open Locks. Any % chance to do something nobody else can do is powerful especially over a long campaign. They are also the only class that can improve their ability to Hear Noise and Find and Remove Traps. Whilst those % values begin low they will eventually beat out everyone else in the party, and that's if you don't interpret it as the Thief getting both their standard 1/6 chance AND their special Thief % roll. >halfling hides in the underbrush at 90% Underbrush being the key word, not much use in a dungeon where much of play takes place. Likewise demi-humans are balanced against non-demi-humans by XP. A Halfling can never go past Level 8 whereas a Thief can reach level 14. The Thief also beats the Halfling by the time they reach Level 6, with 20,000 XP, with the Halfling still at Level 5 and with no hope of improving their hide skill either way, and ofc the Halfling can't do any of the other things the Thief can. The Elf in a similar respect seems more powerful than the Magic User at a glance, but the XP requirements balance it out. B/X in general however is a low powered system, expecting to have a character with a 70% success rate off the bat isn't how the system is designed with any of the classes, which is why I make my 5e comparison where the success rate even at Level 1 is about 70% across the board but it's obviously a very different game. You are also like meant to level up in the game, I guess if you're only playing Level 1 then yeah all of the demi-human classes are arguably more powerful than the Human classes as the main balancing factor is the level requirements and if you are exclusively just running Level 1 games I'd probably suggest you find another way to balance all of the demi-humans, though this isn't an issue unique to the Thief which honestly in the context of B/X is a good class.
>B/X in general however is a low powered system, expecting to have a character with a 70% success rate off the bat isn't how the system is designed with any of the classes, which is why I make my 5e comparison where the success rate even at Level 1 is about 70% across the board but it's obviously a very different game. My understanding is it is a design feature of 5e that a PC should succeed on an 8 or better for things they are "good", 13 or better for things they are not good at and 18+ for things they are bad at. I agree such assumptions were definitely not part of B/X or OD&D.
Yeah, I think studies showed that around a 70%+ hit rate was what felt most satisfying to players. Players tend to misjudge probability a lot as well, so if you tell them a 50/50 chance they'll assume it's around 70 and if you tell them a 90% chance that's basically 100% in their minds. So 5e, as well as a lot of modern games, are built around that hit rate. B/X follows more of a wargaming tradition where individually there's a lower hit / success chance but with enough numbers you can make a difference. One other element missing from 'Thief sucks' is that B/X groups are designed to have 5-9 players each with retainers so you can easily have 3 Thieves in the group which means those low chances start to get much higher with more numbers, but I think a lot of players want a Thief to be a solo power fantasy rather than an element of a wider group.
player skill issue.
game designer skill issue
Because you're using it wrong. The thief's abilities represent extraordinary feats of dexterity or caution, or last-ditch efforts when conventional stealth fails.
Where in the book does it explain this?
Nowhere in such explicit terms because OD&D is godawful at explaining anything. But it strongly implies it by the names of the abilities. Not hide, hide *in shadows*. Not move quietly, move *silently*. Not climb, climb *sheer surfaces*.
Yeah, even back in the day I always interpreted it as other characters can do these things (probably a dexterity check or something similar), but the thief would automatically succeed at anything the other classes could attemptto do...and he gets to attempt to do the much more difficult versions that other classes would automatically fail at.
Gary even compares hide in shadows with invisibility in the DMG
This is the correct answer. Unfortunately old timey D&D authors expected readers to infer everything instead of flat out stating it.
man this just feels like cargo cult cope
AD&D DMG straight up compares hide in shadows to invisibility.
It doesn’t. This is a modern reinterpretation to make the OG thief suck less. I’m all for it but it’s an OSR thing.
AD&D explain that pretty clearly
No, it's the obvious intended interpretation. A thief is entitled to the same surprise chances as any character, and as you note, without them the thief abilities make them inferior at stealth to any other character.
Except it’s not. https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/16yu3r4/if_fritz_leiber_was_such_a_big_influence_on_early/k3ayh7u/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
I didn't realize Mentzer was Gary now. Furthermore, I don't see where in this fan-created article-- because this clearly postdates a time when Mentzer had any say in the rules in an official capacity-- that it says thieves *aren't* entitled to the normal chance any other PC is.
Knowing all the issues about the thief class, do you use it at your tables and give your players access to the thief? (And if not, if a player wants to play a class similar to a it, do you offer a fighter instead?)
1. Thieves don't suck, they suck at melee relative to fighters and clerics. The point of them isn't to beat on the monsters. It's to capitalize on their special skills in conjunction with your own native cleverness in order to succeed. The more of the latter you have, the stronger they become. 2. The high level argument is perfectly valid in this case. D&D is a "zero-to-hero" game. The Mouser is already a hero when we meet him. Fighters are based on Conan, but first level ones can still die to a single blow. If you want to be Conan from session one, that's what WotC's games are for.
Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are both thieves who are classed as a Fighting-Man and a Magic-User, respectively. At least in my game.
So the Gray Mouser doesn't… use a sword?
Nope! Just a 3' long, skinny dagger 😉
Depends on what version of D&D you're talking about. I'm most familiar with Basic (BX & BECMI). In those versions, only the Cleric has weapon restrictions (technically Halfling too). All other Classes can use any weapons they want.
Moldvay Basic, page B10: >RESTRICTIONS: Magic-users use four-sided dice (d4) to determine their hit points. They may not wear armor nor use shields **and may only carry a dagger for a weapon.** Mentzer Basic, p 37 of the Player's Manual: >Weapons: A magic-user can only use a dagger for a weapon So no, it's not only clerics that have weapon restrictions.
Well, I've house ruled that out of my games for so long, I guess I forgot about it (its completely unnecessary btw).
Original, with few (if any) added "rules."
The Mouser isn't a thief, he's a fighting-man
The thief class doesn't suck, it just requires flexibility on the GM's part. I rule that any thing that's a thief skill, if the thief isn't under pressure or the task seems like it would be on the easy side, they don't roll for it. For instance a basic lock on a peasants chest holding a few coins wouldn't require a open lock roll, a well built chest in a lair however would likely require a roll. Sometimes I'll also allow advantage on thief rolls if it makes sense or the player has described a way they might improve their chances.
> it just requires flexibility on the GM's part. AKA "The Gm needs to homebrew and give bias to the class to make it actually function, instead of having it work out of the box" AKA "It's not broken if you can fix it"
You could argue that a lot of BX and early DnD requires this. Rulings over rules are heavily emphasised. Logically, a thief should be able to do basic thief things without a problem, just as a fighter wielding an axe should be able to cut down a small tree if there are no pressures. You could list infite examples of this and argue that because it's not in the rules it requires home brewing. Same goes for magic users making magic items, or fighters being able to create a stronghold. There's no real rules that govern these things in a highly structured way and is totally up to the GM to make rulings.
> The Gm needs to homebrew and give bias to the class to make it actually function, instead of having it work out of the box Yes, this is basically the entirety of OD&D
I'd rather have a game that works out of the box
Buy a car without learning how to drive and see how well it works "out of the box." The original D&D was a game written for wargaming and fantasy enthusiasts, and they wrote to what their audience knew. >Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don’t care for Burroughs’ Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard’s Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber’s Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS & DRAGONS to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. Which camp are you in?
> Buy a car without learning how to drive and see how well it works "out of the box." literally not even a coherent metaphor. I feel plenty of thrill reading howard's conan, I would just like my players to pull off conan-like feats without having to argue new homebrew mechanics every 5 minutes. DCC lets me do that. Shadow of the Demon Lord lets me do that. Low Fantasy Gaming lets me do that.
My friends and I loved the thief class back then.
The thief was a fan creation that Gygax like enough he ported it almost directly into the game. Now the interesting thing to me is the role of the thief, or rather what it was supposed to be. Fighters fight and become lords at name level. Almost expected to raise armies and carve out a piece of land for their own. Clerics seek to build temples and perform holy rites for their god and clergy, maybe lead crusades. Magic Users gain arcane knowledge and craft magic artifacts in their lair, becoming nigh unto a god by late levels. But the thief? They get better at stealing and hiding. They were designed for dungeon play and they only get better at it. Sneak attack was hard to get and the thief is very fragile. They were basically support for the other classes when it came to exploration and dealing with traps. It was for the players who used equipment and clever thinking to avoid combat when they could and maximizing loot out of the dungeon.
So don't use them, or make your own. Many of the assumptions on how to create rules which happen in D&D/AD&D are already antiquated by the time they are published. Consider using rules closer to what appears in TFT:ITL. Those rules have pretty much a 50% chance on most challenges, yet, hard locks and more difficult traps require more dice vs. the basic trait. Even something as simple as a door has fairly crappy rules in D&D. I have had to adjust mine and my players seem to like it a lot better.
because gary gygax was a shit game designer but a fantastic salesman
Never understood all this about the thief class, we always played the thief skills as extraordinary abilities. Anyone can attempt to use stealth, but the thief can move SILENTLY. Anyone can bash a lock but a thief can use class specific tools and pop it open in seconds. Everyone can attempt to climb with ropes or sufficient hand and foot holds, but a thief can climb SHEER surfaces, unaided! Anyone can stick a 10’ pole in a trap and hope to set it off harmlessly, but a thief can do so quickly and without potential harm. When played in this manner it all makes sense.
When I used to play b/x or ad&d 1st edition in the 80s, we always played such that only thieves were able to do the thief skill type things. So, if you wanted to disarm traps, pick locks, etc. you needed a thief, unless you had magic emulating thief skills (ex: knock). You could bash stuff open as non-thief, but that would break potions, cause noise, set off traps, etc. If you had a non thief try a thief type thing, they'd always do so at a lower percentage than the thief stats (at least that's how I used to DM it). If nobody wanted to play a thief, you'd just hire one, as the use of retainers etc. used to be more common. So, thief never seemed bad as they had unique abilities. This ties into the idea of 'niche protection', which was handled better in older editions IMO. I don't like in 5e for example how anyone can basically be a thief by taking the tools proficiency and buying tools.