Why do we need thieves??

[Jahydin]

On a similar note... these two wouldn't be the same class in D&D either!

 

[CreamCloud0]

yes, a fighter or mage could use skills, but in the same way that a fighter of thief could learn to use magic or a thief or mage could become strong combatants, they could do that but they wouldn't be as good as the other class, the point is they're specialists, a greater portion of their kit is dedicated to excelling in their areas of expertise,

 

[Thomas Shey]

"Yes, but..."

When writing my bespoke version it was my intent at first to have Rogues be the "Everyman" class. They were a jack-of-trades class; survival was not through skill of arms, a Patron's favor, or knowledge of the arcane, but through grit and luck. The knew things, had contacts, and if you wanted a cat burglar or an assassin you picked Rogue and chose accordingly.

That class was awful. It was "muddy", not having a central theme or concept to lean into unlike the other classes. After thinking about it, I rewrote it to have the core of "urban stealth". The class doesn't have to be focused on crime necessarily. You could lean into the social aspects of it, or more into it's knowledge of mechanisms. But having that theme made it, and any other class, into a package of themed abilities that uses a skill system to interact with the environment.

That's also a statement that each class should have equivalent access to skills, and not lean on that aspect when you have a class driven system.

That's kind of my point, though. You have to almost actively patch things like class features onto a class for thieves as soon as the class system has an otherwise generally accessible skill system (note I'm using thief, not rogue quite carefully). That's because the core concept doesn't need anything other kinds of characters can't find useful from time to time, and there's nothing in that core concept that really demands anything but skills. Other now-traditional rogue abilities like back stab bonuses are add-ons that are not intrinsic to the concept, and its notable they recognized this problem by walling off the better quality trap disarming to rogues alone late in the 3e period, because there was otherwise no reason a wizard or bard couldn't take up that task as long as they were willing to invest in the skill points.

(And yes you can make this argument for other classes too, but they have to have their abilities handled in a skill-like way in the first place which is far from universal).

 

[Thomas Shey]

This was exactly my reasoning for taking them out. I do have a replacement but it covers many roles, not just thief. I just read a comment above that calls what they came up with muddy, and basically not focused enough. Im my circles at least, it is one of the most played professions and is received quite well. But that could merely be a design aspect rather than a definitive if it will work or not.

Well, my own feeling is that if you are baking roles into your game system you're either doing so to do niche protection, or you're probably making your character construction system narrower than it necessarily needs to be anyway.

 

[Thomas Shey]

yes, a fighter or mage could use skills, but in the same way that a fighter of thief could learn to use magic or a thief or mage could become strong combatants, they could do that but they wouldn't be as good as the other class, the point is they're specialists, a greater portion of their kit is dedicated to excelling in their areas of expertise,

The problem is once you've got skill separation, you don't necessarily need the whole package of thief skills, and a high-skill class can invest in the ones you do. Maybe all you need is the stealth or the trap handling.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The problem is once you've got skill separation, you don't necessarily need the whole package of thief skills, and a high-skill class can invest in the ones you do. Maybe all you need is the stealth or the trap handling.

although i've been referring to the class as the thief i'm more referring to them as their role as that 'high-skill class' you're mentioning,

 

[Thomas Shey]

although i've been referring to the class as the thief i'm more referring to them as their role as that 'high-skill class' you're mentioning,

Well, you can set up your class system so it chokes off much skill access to everyone but the skill monkey, but that usually ends up creating its own problems (the difficulty with getting enough skill points for a 3e era fighter to be able to climb, jump and ride competently being the poster boy for this).

 

[MGibster]

I had a good argument in favor of thieves but someone nicked it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Well, you can set up your class system so it chokes off much skill access to everyone but the skill monkey, but that usually ends up creating its own problems (the difficulty with getting enough skill points for a 3e era fighter to be able to climb, jump and ride competently being the poster boy for this).

i'm not saying other classes shouldn't have competent skill access, it sounds like the 3e fighter was underfunded in it's skill access, i'm just saying that the role of the 'thief' class has traditionally often been the one to excel in both competency and breadth in their access of a system's noncombat skill mechanics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

i'm not saying other classes shouldn't have competent skill access, it sounds like the 3e fighter was underfunded in it's skill access, i'm just saying that the role of the 'thief' class has traditionally often been the one to excel in both competency and breadth in their access of a system's noncombat skill mechanics.

I can see an argument for a general purpose skill monkey in a class system where most other classes are focused on special abilities and the like, its just that neither "thief" nor "rogue" seems to necessarily describe those, and "thief" at least could fairly describe a character with a more modest skill reserve who happens to focus on some of the thievish sorts of skills.