Issue #69 of Dragon (January 1983) is another one about whose articles I have very strong memories. The strength of my memories is bolstered, no doubt, by the issue's remarkable cover by Clyde Caldwell. Caldwell's an artist about whom my feelings are generally mixed, but I've nevertheless got a fondness for this particular piece, which, in some ways, encapsulates the vibe of the dying days of D&D's Golden Age. Consequently, I'll be returning to this issue several times in the coming weeks.
This week, though, I want to look at Gary Gygax's "From the Sorceror's [sic] Scroll" column, in which he provides full details on the thief-acrobat "split class" that he first mentioned in a previous column. A split class is a specialization path for an existing class, in this case the thief. Provided he has the appropriate ability scores requirements (STR 15, DEX 16), a thief can, upon attaining 6th level, choose to devote himself to acrobatics as an outgrowth of his thievery – in effect, becoming a cat burglar or second story man in criminal parlance.
At the time of this article's publication, this was a comparatively unique concept, one that Gygax claims "has not been expressed before" and for which there is "nothing similar" in AD&D. I'm not entirely sure this is true. As I mentioned previously, the thief-acrobat reminds me a bit of the original concept for the paladin class, as found in Supplement I to OD&D. Likewise, the AD&D version of the bard, in which a character must first attain levels in fighter and thief before becoming a bard, is in the same ballpark in my opinion. Even so, the precise arrangement Gygax presents for the thief-acrobat isn't one we'd seen before.
I liked the idea of the thief-acrobat more in principle than in fact and my friends held similar views. Only one of them ever chose to pursue this split class and the player soon grew bored of playing him. That was probably the biggest problem with the thief-acrobat: it was very specialized and thus of limited utility. This is the kind of class that I could see thriving in, say, an urban, all thief campaign, where each character needs to distinguish himself from his fellow thieves. In a more traditional dungeon-based campaign, I think the thief-acrobat hold much less or appeal – or at least that's how my friends and I viewed it.
When it comes to the question of designing character classes, there are a couple of common approaches, neither of which is without its problems. Dungeons & Dragons began with only a few broad, archetypal classes, like the cleric, fighting man, and magic-user, but soon added many more, each one devoted to a narrower but nevertheless real archetype. AD&D opted for a larger list of available classes, while the D&D line kept to something closer to the original, narrower list. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages and I can easily defend them both.
Had Gygax remained at the helm of AD&D, we would certainly have seen more classes added to its roster, some of which, like the thief-acrobat, would have been quite narrow in their utility. That's not necessarily a problem, but it can add a lot of unnecessary complexity to the game, not to mention diluting the game's flavor. On the other hand, a goodly selection of classes can, if presented properly, increase the game's flavor, with each one revealing more about its explicit or implied setting and the sorts of activities characters are expected to undertake within it.
Whether the thief-acrobat succeeds in doing any of these things is an open question, hence my own ambivalence toward it. Even so, this article sticks in my mind, because, like others written by Gygax at the time, it offered a sneak peek into his evolving vision of AD&D. It was a really interesting time to be a fan of the game and I'm glad to have been around for it.
A thief-acrobat could have significant utility in tournament play, which I recall James noting he isn't keen on. It presents a very specialized skill stack useful for a specific type of dungeon, say Ghost Tower of Inverness. But yes, as a campaign character, a player can be left feeling all tricked up and nothing to do.
ReplyDeleteThe thief-acrobat later appeared, of course, in the official (if optional) rulebook Unearthed Arcana released in 1985, along with a cavalier class (with paladins shifting from a sub-class of fighter to a sub-class of cavalier), and a barbarian sub-class of fighter based on the version presented by Gygax in Dragon Magazine #63. Two issues after presenting the barbarian, Gygax had used the Sorcerer's Scroll space to muse about his thinking on new character classes, including a mystic sub-class of cleric focused on divination, a cavalier sub-class of fighter, a savant sub-class of magic-user focused on understanding "arcane subjects", a mountebank sub-class of thief focused on legerdemain, an acrobat specialization for the thief class, and a jester class, though only only the cavalier and thief-acrobat made it into Unearthed Arcana. Still later, in Dragon Magazine #103, appearing the month after his ouster from the company in October 1985, Gygax described his intentions for AD&D 2nd edition and expressed his continued interest in adding savant, mystic, and jester sub-classes (along with converting bards to a proper class, of which jester would be a sub-class, while jettisoning monks and assassins).
ReplyDeleteWith the arguable exception of the barbarian, I don't think any of these new classes/sub-classes improved the game, being unnecessary, already possible to represent fairly well within existing classes/sub-classes, and not archetypal.
Coming on the heels of James' previous post, your rundown of these ideas for AD&D makes me think: why not just switch to GURPS, then? ;)
DeleteIn light of Unearthed Arcana and the various other hints Gygax gave us in Dragon Magazine, I have to reluctantly conclude that Gygax's Second Edition....would not have been very good. I suspect it would have simply added to, or reconfigured, the complexity of 1st edition without really addressing any of the flaws. Second edition as published was not a complete overhaul, but it did reflect some conscious thinking about what worked and what didn't work. Gygax might have been unable to revise his work dispassionately. That said, the 1st Edition had a certain gonzo charm that was mostly lacking in 2nd edition.
DeleteAgree with El Draque: Gygax seemed to be interested in adding *more* of everything: more races, classes, subclasses, spells, powers, monsters, treasures, and artifacts, and power creep, when what the 2nd edition really needed was some streamlining, clarification, and rationalization. I'd further posit that some of the cooler settings, such as Spelljammers and Planescape, would have been much more difficult to implement under Gygax's rules and regime.
DeleteAgreed, I'm glad we have the 2e we got than a 2e that followed the path laid out by Unearthed Arcana. No cavalier, comliness, drow, etc.
DeleteSure 2e eventually got bloated and wonky but the 89 PHB was a breath of fresh air after the late 1e content.
In regard to El Draque's comment about a 2nd edition Gygax game not being very good. We'll never know, but he might have moved a lot of things into this sort of split class. Cleaning up the base classes and created Prestige classes out of most. You want to be a Paladin, Ranger, or Cavlier, start as a fighter and select at x-level. I can see a lot of advantages to such a system as it really could simplify the lowest levels for newbies before dumping lots of options on them.
ReplyDeleteI came into the game at the tail end of the golden age, and until the silver age mid-80s, I can't remember more than one person playing a dual-class character, and he gave it up as too much trouble for the rewards. Interestingly, during my little brother's heyday in the game from the mid-80s thru the mid-90s, almost everyone in his core group played at least one dual-class character, with thief-bard being one guy's go-to mix. ---Jim Hodges
ReplyDeleteClasses are tools to solve game problems. Whether specialized or universally generic problems.
ReplyDeletePeople have tons of tools - sometimes ones that are gimmicky or superfluous... but you could need some of those for specific tasks / flavor.
What's best about the older era is that people were using genuine creative imagination to give options for players imagination to explore. It's not about having the perfect streamlined software/game as the goal.
Diana alone is a reason why there should always be a way to create this archetype. She was the best kid in the bunch.
ReplyDeleteOn Split Class
ReplyDeleteWizardry the video game had these in 1981so we were familiar with the concept from playing this game that you could graduate to a specialized class.
Gygax showcased the thief-acrobat class quite successfully in his Gord the Rogue novels and short stories* and they also notably featured a cavalier, mountebank, druid/ranger, and Heirophant Druids too (although the latter only in the background). _WG6 Isle of the Ape_ was a missed opportunity to make Rakehell Chert a thief-acrobat instead of a standard thief, and to make Reynard a higher-level Heirophant druid. C’est la vie.
ReplyDeleteTrent Smith’s implementation of Gary’s unpublished classes (including the mystic and the savant) in his _Heroic Legendarium_ book is excellent, and well-worth picking up: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/publisher/16955/Storm-Fetish-Productions
* Summarized nicely by Krista Siren at https://greyhawkonline.com/gordmain/
Allan.
PS: my favorite article in Dragon #69 is REM’s “Charting the Classes” analysis, which I’ve used to help build pregen PCs based on XP totals over the years.
ATGj
Joe Bloch at BRW Games also worked up versions of the unpublished classes that Gary Gygax talked about, putting them in his Adventures Dark and Deep, which is an attempt at what Gygax's 2nd edition might have looked like. He used various resources, such as Gygax's later versions of the class types in his later games such as Dangerous Journeys. He also published the classes and other information written up specifically for 1st edition in his Book of Lost Lore. https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/369447/book-of-lost-lore
DeleteAs a kid fan of the Gord books, I loved the concept of the Thief-Acrobat. But the fiddliness and narrow specialization of its abilities sabotages it in practice. The fact that you also compromise your competence at core Thief functions of general utility in regular adventuring (at a level when you're just starting to get moderately reliable at them!) meant the class was almost entirely useless.
ReplyDeleteThe OSE Advanced Acrobat class is a much better take. But of course, it was made with the benefits of hindsight.
Neither the regular thief nor the thief-acrobat were individually overpowered, and I see no reason you couldn't just add them together. Just add the new skills, and allow progression with the original.
ReplyDelete