I understand that Rogue is a broader description, but Thief just has so much more flavor to it. Besides, that's how I learned the game.
Having started playing AD&D, leaving the game and then coming back with 2nd edition, I was rather miffed that they changed the name of the Thief class to Rogue. They even left all the tables and descriptions with the term 'thief' in them but just changed the class name!
Personally, I find myself in favour of the name Rogue instead of Thief. IMHO the word Thief doesn't accurately describe the abilities of this class.
EDIT the rest, because it didn't have much to do with the original post, and might have been considered edition bashing by some.
R.A.
In 2e a thief is still a thief, they just put it as a sub class under rogue, with the bard. They did the same with druid, making it a priest subclass. This was a mistake in my opinion, but I digress. A thief can specialize more or less in certain skills, but their skills are exclusive to their profession.
In 3e, the rogue class has the potential to emulate many of the features of the old thief class, but it's all optional, making him a very different beast. You can have a rogue who's an expert backstabber but can't pick a lock at all. Or you can have an expert troubleshooter who is as slow and un-nimble as the tank.
So, in 1e a "rogue" is a thief who's lying
In 2e a "rogue" is either a thief or a bard.
In 3e a rogue is a skillful character, that's about all you can say.
In 1e the abilities of a thief were set, and therefore the title appropriate. Every thief had the same burglary training. In fact it made more sense to think of a thief character as a member of some sort of elite organization, since they had training a run of the mill robber probably didn't have.
In 2e a thief is still a thief, they just put it as a sub class under rogue, with the bard. They did the same with druid, making it a priest subclass. This was a mistake in my opinion, but I digress. A thief can specialize more or less in certain skills, but their skills are exclusive to their profession.
In 3e, the rogue class has the potential to emulate many of the features of the old thief class, but it's all optional, making him a very different beast. You can have a rogue who's an expert backstabber but can't pick a lock at all. Or you can have an expert troubleshooter who is as slow and un-nimble as the tank.
So, in 1e a "rogue" is a thief who's lying
In 2e a "rogue" is either a thief or a bard.
In 3e a rogue is a skillful character, that's about all you can say.
^^^^ is what my original post was trying to say, but put in a more intelligent and less inflamatory way. Thanks.
R.A.
It's "Thief" and notions otherwise are stupid politically correct frippery churned up by post AD&D "Standards & Practices" nonsense.
Sooooo angry...
However, I would agree that the best answer was from Elendur. The only gripe that I have with this is that there were times while playing 1st edition that I had characters that never used Pick Pocket because I really didn't think that it provided the right flavor for the character I had in mind. But, as I said, this is a really minor gripe by me and I still fall back to the original answer that Elendur did a good job defining the situation.
The funny thing is, "rogue" carries just as bad connotations. It's just that people today tend not be be familiar with the word outside of D&D, and so aren't aware of those connotations.
The best argument I've heard for using "thief" rather than "rogue" is that if you misspell "thief" you at least get "theif". But if you misspell "rogue" you get "rouge". :D
Of course, you're not old school unless you say Fighting Man ;)
For the 1ed grogs out there, under 2ed classes belong to groups to denote professions with very similar traits, as opposed to being subclasses of others. The groups go like so:
Warrior Group:
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin
Priest Group:
Cleric
Druid
Specialty Priest
Rogue Group:
Thief
Bard
Wizard Group:
Mage
Specialist
Now, about ye olde school... While "Magic-User" and "Fighting Man" certainly have a nostalgic value, "Wizard" and "Warrior" have a lot more flavor, IMHO.
Anyways, regarding the question, I stick to thief as the class' name.
It goes well with "Slashy O'Bashhack," "Band-Aid Jones," and "He Who Casts the Spells that Makes the Peoples Fall Down."
Well let's face it the original class names weren't that great. I think 'fighter' is about the worst name for a martial class I can think of.
The idea behind the names of the original three classes (cleric, fighting-man, and magic-user) was to not tie them to any culture/setting with names like "priest", "knight", "samurai", "witch". That way, you can use them to recreate any culture/setting. Of course, the magic system placed some limitations of its own, and "fighting-man" at least suggests a sexist society.
But yeah, I'd prefer "warrior" to "fighter".
But...and this is a big but...I heartily dislike the idea of the Thief as an adevnturing companion, and always have. ... I only really like "good" characters as part of an adventuring group.
To that end, the biggest single change I've made to my campaign is to add a third class to the Rogue group, that of Adventurer. This guy is an unskilled wannabe, who hasn't the skill or patience to learn one of the more noble group attributes (Warrior, Priest, Wizard) but just wants to get out and explore the world rather than till the fields or tend the forge. I don't see why he has to be a pickpocket or burglar to do that.
In my seemingly never ending task to take the Kits from the many "Complete Books" I've found it quite easy to split "real" Thieves - cutpurses, urchins, fences, smugglers and the like from the Adventurer class which includes the obvious adventurer kit as well as things like the investigator and swashcbuckler.
EDIT the rest, because it didn't have much to do with the original post, and might have been considered edition bashing by some. R.A.
Yeah, yeah, I feel the same way.
Re: Warhead's comments.
As I recall, in AD&D you held your nose and allowed a Thief into the party as the lesser of two evils. Made it interesting to play the Thief.
Does the party thief usually take a semi-adversarial role and steal from the party any chance he gets? I only played a campaign one time with that type of relationship and it made it quite interesting. With AD&D and 2 ed. we usually needed people to play multiple PCs and lost a lot of that flavor.
Oh, and cerebus? Up yours.
Oh, SNAP!!! You done told me!
Still angry, I see...
ps: And those who have been able to do this, my thanks in advance and keep up the good work.
But...and this is a big but...I heartily dislike the idea of the Thief as an adevnturing companion, and always have. ... I only really like "good" characters as part of an adventuring group.
I say - if a bunch of elves and dwarves can accept a "burglar" as a companion and friend, whose to say a thief can't be trustworthy and loyal, too?
The grey mouser, Cugel and Bilbo springs to mind.
I say - if a bunch of elves and dwarves can accept a "burglar" as a companion and friend, whose to say a thief can't be trustworthy and loyal, too?
Come on, Bilbo was no guild-thief like the Burglar or Cat Burglar of the 2E kits, for example. Bilbo was simply light on his feet, clever with riddles and had an eye for a trinket...hardly the type to plan a midnight attack on a noble's house to shimmy up the wall, pick the window lock, sneak in without waking the household and leave through the front door with the family silver...just to get rich. That's a Burglar.
And no, there's no reason why such a character couldn't be part of an adventuring group, and gain the trust of his companions, but what happens next time someone plays a thief in that game? Would get a bit repetitive, no?
Come on, Bilbo was no guild-thief like the Burglar or Cat Burglar of the 2E kits, for example. Bilbo was simply light on his feet, clever with riddles and had an eye for a trinket...hardly the type to plan a midnight attack on a noble's house to shimmy up the wall, pick the window lock, sneak in without waking the household and leave through the front door with the family silver...just to get rich. That's a Burglar.
And no, there's no reason why such a character couldn't be part of an adventuring group, and gain the trust of his companions, but what happens next time someone plays a thief in that game? Would get a bit repetitive, no?
Those were kits, exactly because they were a specific type of thief. Not because they were the standard that every thief defaults to. The hallmarks of the thief was always stealth and avoidance, which Bilbo fullfills quite well.
As for the second part, why on earth would a thief character rob his friends ? Even assuming he doesnt like them, why would he alienate his only proven protection and allies ?
The hard fact is that the name of the class and it's assiciated abilities are in no way the ultimate cannon in how you should roleplay your character.
The fact your thief has a pick-pockets ability does not mean he has to use them. In fact, under 2ed it doesn't even mean you have to spend a single skill point in developing that ability beyond it's base score at 1st level. Without that skill getting better, it is extremey easy to argue the "thief" is actually someone with a scouting background, not a burglar. Open Locks? Maybe he spent a summer working with the local blacksmith or clockwork maker and has some understanding of the mechanism. Maybe he could had even trained those skills on his own after hearing tales of adventurers in long dungeons as a kid and hoped to become one someday. In this light, thieves can even be Lawful Good and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. (You heard me. This is something I never have and never will agree on with Gary)
Also, the fact your class is called a "thief" does NOT mean everyone in the campaign will see him as such. "Oh, look. There goes a thief. His sheet says so, so he must be bad news". How do you know for sure it's not a fighter. "Oh, but he has a lower Thac0 progression", you may say, but... your damn character doesn't know what a blasted Thac0 is! Without a reason to think otherwise, your fighter may think his fighter companion is just a beggining warrior or maybe ranger-type, due to the hiding and possible tracking or scouting skills.
By the same token, it doesn't matter if your character is an enchanter, the locals may well think it's a necromancer and a paladin will most likely be a "holy knight" or a "knight of [deity]" to the everage villager.
If you think the name of a class or even an alignment is the end-all, be-all of how you HAVE to play a character, then go for it. I much prefer roleplaying.
Whether this relaxing of class archetypes is a good thing is a matter of taste.
To me its both good and dangerous. You have to be careful you don't flush all the good D&D flavor down the tubes in the interest of 'flexibility'.
The fact your thief has a pick-pockets ability does not mean he has to use them.
Sure. And your fighter need not ever engage in combat, and your wizard need not ever cast spells.
Thieves have plenty.
My AD&D party's thief havent picked any pockets in the last three adventures. used plenty of the stealth and climbing abilities though
Wizards dont have any other abilities.
They have the ability to flail madly with a dagger and smell funny. Both important abilities.
How about - a wizard need not cast odd-leveled spells.
Change your example to "A wizard need not cast protection spells", and you have a working comparison.
Nah, that would be more appropriately sidled with "A thief need not pick rusty locks."
Fact remains that a "thief" knows how to pick locks.
A rogue, or so it would seem, doesn't nescesarily do so.
See, it goes back to how defining your class is to your character. The earlier you go back, the more defining your class is. In 1e you can't not know how to pick pockets if you are a thief. Constrast that with 3e, where you could have a rogue that could be useless in every thief skill.
Whether this relaxing of class archetypes is a good thing is a matter of taste.
To me its both good and dangerous. You have to be careful you don't flush all the good D&D flavor down the tubes in the interest of 'flexibility'.
You nailed it right here. Power or 'flexibility' is a double edged sword. Somewhere beteen AD&D and 3e the Thief became a Rogue. He's now a jack of all trades type that can be tailored to suit your tastes. While you can recreate the thief, it's no longer a packaged deal. While there are nice things about it, it also lacks flavor and it's up to the player to add it.
Another example of how tighly bound to profession a 1e thief is : thieves' cant. All thieves know this secret language. Why? Because they all got the same training. Same way all druids speak a secret language. Same way all paladins have a strict chivalric code.
I presume you are referring to AD&D 1st edition here ?
Classic D&D does not have a thief's cant.
But yes, the thief, as any other class, is an archetype.
). So perhaps "thief" isn't the greatest term to use.But Rogue just out and out sucks. You might as well call your character Fruity McWimpmeister, Wearer of the Frilly Pink Smock.
Personally, I prefer the term "Ninja". Medieval Europe HAD Ninjas you know. I realize history makes no mention of their existence and popular opinion would scoff at the idea that Ninjas roamed the castle-studded countryside assassinating at their whim, but then again they were Ninjas. They were supposed to go unnoticed. THAT'S how good they were!!1!ONE!1!
The Black Death?? Perpetrated by Ninjas!
The Crusades?? Set up by Ninjas! :fight!:
The Inquisition?? Really an attempt to find all the Ninjas (side note: it didn't work
). And really....what game, movie or book wouldn't be improved with the addition of a few Ninjas? Right? Right!
Yeah, I know.
As for the second part, why on earth would a thief character rob his friends ? Even assuming he doesnt like them, why would he alienate his only proven protection and allies ?
That's really my point though...surely something like "Scout" would have been less contentious.
As for me, I've managed to have a Lawfull Good thief with no conflict in alignment or abilities and that is how I like it.
Hiryu--Are you talking AD&D (1st edition)? Unless you're playing a house rule, the PHB states thieves are neutral or evil and lawful or chaotic, most tending to be evil. That's why I have a hard time with a lawful good thief--it's just not in the archetype. In 2e or 3e you could get away with it as the restrictions were loosened up.
Of course, you can change it as you find appropriate.
Classic D&D of course, doesnt have good/evil
That said, I prefer thief to rogue because thief--which describes what a person does--seems more appropriate for a D&D class than a general descriptive term like rogue. Even if it isn't an entirely accurate way to describe what all members of the class do.
Besides, it seems to me that if you don't like the negative connotations of thief that scout would be a much better choice than rogue, which has negative connotations as well.
Regarding the point about theives' cant, perhaps the assumption was that you pick it up where you learn your skills (kinda like how you pick up an alignment language), even if you don't become a member of a guild. Or maybe it's just a reflection that the game was tailored to meet the needs of Gary's Greyhawk campaign. Does anyone know of any details that might verify this?
We only keep class-based alignment restrictions for certain classes:
Paladins must be of any lawful alignment. (LG, LN or LE for antipaladins)
Druids must be of any neutral, non-chaotic alignment. (LN, NG, TN or NE)
Clerics and Shamans must be of one of the alignments allowed by it's deity.
As you can see, all alignment restrictions we kept are for cleric types only or those that may earn cleric spells, and these are kept only to mantain divine spellcasters in check. And no, Rangers don't get spells at my table, and yes, it means I can accept good necromancers–who are usually scholars of undead lore, anatomy, unnatural and non-clerical healing (such as regeneration) and other related fields of study. (in other words, the fact you are a Criminologist doesn't make you a criminal)
About the Thief's Cant, I only allow a character to have it if they purchase it as an aditional language. There is no reason all thieves should know it, since there should be no requirement of them belonging to a guild or having contact with one. Now, the Alignment Languages... hell, even Gary has said they were a bad idea.
Im starting a B/X D&D campaign next weekend, and Im pondering using them, just for the heck of it
Nobody called themself a "Fighting Man" or a "Magic-User" because that seems quite silly. A regular ordinary Fighter could call himself a Palidan (though won't be a "True" Palidan".
I like Rogue because it's a good general name, Then we can call them thiefs whenever we feel like it.
Regarding the point about theives' cant, perhaps the assumption was that you pick it up where you learn your skills (kinda like how you pick up an alignment language), even if you don't become a member of a guild. Or maybe it's just a reflection that the game was tailored to meet the needs of Gary's Greyhawk campaign. Does anyone know of any details that might verify this?
Regarding Thieves' Cant...as a Londoner I'm passably familiar with Cockney rhyming slang, which is a real-life example of just such a cant. While I don't live on the right side of the city, nor am I a Cockney by birth...but it's still a well known slang language developed using English words to confuse any passing lawmakers who might overhear some nefarious discussion.
Sometimes I slip up and say 'old school' or 'classic' D&D, which for me means 1e. I played basic and 2e, but neither really grabbed me the way 1e did. So assume I'm talking about 1e by default.
Alignment restrictions fall into the same category as class restrictions to me. Relax them at your peril. I personally really like the alignment system and think it is one of the defining features of D&D, along with the class system. I find I'm in the minority though, even amongst old schoolers.
Everyone knows a rogue is a skunk haired, Marvel hottie, with a southern drawl, really tight green and yellow spandex, and an affinity for cajun bad boys.
As a 25 year veteran of D&D, I say the class has only improved over the years. I never much cared for the universal skill progression system of 1e.
I don't know why you are talking about thieves cant as if it was some type of language. Everyone knows that it is actually the motto for this painfully underpowered class. "Can someone do this?" "Fighters can, clerics can, magic-users can, thieves cant."
The only thing I didn't like about 2e was the change in racial level restrictions. The only thing appeallling about the 1e thief was that it was the only class demi-humans could make unlimited advancement in.
You know, to this day, I have yet to meet anyone that plays with alignment languages
Im starting a B/X D&D campaign next weekend, and Im pondering using them, just for the heck of it
Yeah, never bothered to use them myself.
However, they kinda (and I mean kinda) can make a bit of sense if your campaign world has everyone split into one of three three factions in a cosmic struggle: Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. Each side develops its own language to discuss things. (However, the idea that someone who changes alignment learns a new language and forgets the old one is too weird.) This seems to be the assumption in the original 1974 rules. For example, here's something it says about gargoyles:
They are hostile and generally (75%) attack with no provocation regardless of the fact that they may be attacking other Chaotic creatures.
So what if the creatures they attack are Chaotic? Why can't creatures that are Chaotic fight each other? It makes sense if you assume they're on the same side of some sort of struggle.
Still don't make too much sense, but it's not completely crazy. Alignment languages should have been dropped for 1e, though. "I speak Chaotic Good, and I have no idea what these Neutral Good and Chaotic Neutral people are saying."
I'd ignore the good / evil part for alignment languages though, propably
There were still good and evil alignments, but good and evil were not objective states in this campaign, while Law and Chaos were.
Of interest, in classic D&D (Moldvay at least), Protection from evil is anyone of a different alignment
Sounds like a fun idea to try.
Yup. And thieves, rogues, and scouts can be on either side of the struggle.
That may not seem like a big deal, but I'm trying to bring the thread back on topic. :D
I generally insist on using the term magic-user.
Of course, you're not old school unless you say Fighting Man ;)
I call them mages. I don't like calling them wizards, and mage rolls off the tongue better for me than magic-user.
I generally have characters and NPC's use the term wizard (amongst other, less kind ones), but I like magic-user as out of game speak
I once played a 2E Specialty Priest who was called Stabn the Thief because he had been framed for a crime, and as a punishment he had to introduce himself that way. It really confused the other players, especially when they wanted me to pick a lock. ;)
The fact your thief has a pick-pockets ability does not mean he has to use them. ... It is extremey easy to argue the "thief" is actually someone with a scouting background, not a burglar. ... Maybe he could had even trained those skills on his own after hearing tales of adventurers in long dungeons as a kid and hoped to become one someday. In this light, thieves can even be Lawful Good and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
I couldn't agree more, and this is exactly why I don't like the title Thief, and prefer Rogue. Thief implies the character will steal things. Rogue does not.
Also, the fact your class is called a "thief" does NOT mean everyone in the campaign will see him as such. "Oh, look. There goes a thief. His sheet says so, so he must be bad news". How do you know for sure it's not a fighter. "Oh, but he has a lower Thac0 progression", you may say, but... your damn character doesn't know what a blasted Thac0 is! Without a reason to think otherwise, your fighter may think his fighter companion is just a beggining warrior or maybe ranger-type, due to the hiding and possible tracking or scouting skills.
It's a running joke in our group, that anyone referred to as a "lightly armored fighter" must be a thief.
But...and this is a big but...I heartily dislike the idea of the Thief as an adevnturing companion, and always have. ... I only really like "good" characters as part of an adventuring group.
To that end, the biggest single change I've made to my campaign is to add a third class to the Rogue group, that of Adventurer. ...
I've found it quite easy to split "real" Thieves - cutpurses, urchins, fences, smugglers and the like from the Adventurer class which includes the obvious adventurer kit as well as things like the investigator and swashcbuckler.
Well said Warhead! This is very much how my campaigns run as well. There are numerous Rogue kits which create characters who have no interest in STEALING things from anyone. In fact, I think some of my favorite and most versatile characters are Rogues (I have a Shadow Walker, for example, who is a Rogue of the Realms kit, and is Good aligned). Rogues have a great deal of essential skills for the Adventurer, and there's no need for them to be shady underworld thieves or robbers.
As for the second part, why on earth would a thief character rob his friends ? Even assuming he doesnt like them, why would he alienate his only proven protection and allies ?
Ever heard the term: There's no honor among theives? Sure, it might sound like a seriously bad idea. But what about the cleptomaniac, who can't help himself? Or the insufferably selfish? Even foolhardy! Nobody trusts a Thief. But a Rogue, now that's a different story!
The fact your thief has a pick-pockets ability does not mean he has to use them.
Along this same line, think of all the ways Pick Pockets can be used that don't require the character to be stealing gold from his companions' pockets!
We compiled this list for our group direct from source materials (though I don't recall from wence it came):
The ability to pick pockets extends far beyond reaching into a victim's coat pocket and removing its contents. It has many other applications, as listed below.
Undo/Redo - untie, unstring, unclasp, unbuckle, unbutton, etc.
Palm/Place - holding the hand naturally while looking empty, but actually containing some items: cards, a dagger, a scroll, silverware, coins (up to 10 +2/L), gems (up to 5 +1/L), etc.
Lift/Drop - removing small items from others' pockets, sleeves, girdles, packst, etc., without the victim noticing
Strip/Garb - remove any accessible item from a sleeping person (sword, boots, hat, etc.) without waking the victim
Sleight of Hand - transfer an item from one hand to another, make the item seem alive, make it vanish and reappear, cause it to appear behind another's ear, etc.
Adjust Items - make subtle adjustments without being noticed (slip a peg from hole 1 to hole 2 in a game, etc.)
Exchange - reach into a pile of coins and remove more than placing, or drop in a gold and remove a platinum
Slit - cutting through straps or cutting holes in bags, garments, purses, pouches, etc., without being noticed
Success/Failure/Detection
Roll equal to or below Pick Pockets score to succeed.
Detection is determined by subtracting three times the victim's level from 100. If the roll is equal to or above this number, the attempt is detected.