Why do we need thieves??

[Bill Zebub]

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,

Doesn't that 100% depend on the design of the game, though? Specifically, what actions are defined such that anybody can use them, and which are defined such that you need to explicitly have that ability? Because really those are arbitrary decisions. Or, at least, there's a spectrum of "probability of success without training" with no demarcation between two distinct categories.

EDIT: Your point is still valid, in that however the designer decides to create the two categories, there is an argument to be made for a skill monkey. So maybe what I'm really saying is that the OP's title for the thread should have been: "Why do we need skill monkeys?" Because skill monkey = thief is true only for some games.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think this whole topic is very system dependant (obviously). Even if we keep our analysis to games within the OSR not every game has a thief. That said, almost all of them do have a skill-based class which is defined in part by opposition to the combat-based class and the magic-based class(es). It works well for that kind of game, whether you call them thieves or snot stacks.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Doesn't that 100% depend on the design of the game, though? Specifically, what actions are defined such that anybody can use them, and which are defined such that you need to explicitly have that ability? Because really those are arbitrary decisions. Or, at least, there's a spectrum of "probability of success without training" with no demarcation between two distinct categories.

EDIT: Your point is still valid, in that however the designer decides to create the two categories, there is an argument to be made for a skill monkey. So maybe what I'm really saying is that the OP's title for the thread should have been: "Why do we need skill monkeys?" Because skill monkey = thief is true only for some games.

I suspect their point is the dedicated class/role called "thief" is largely a D&D artifact that, to the degree its elsewhere is because of the shadow D&D casts, you don't have to have a dedicated mechanical hook for that to have that ground covered. I'd argue the only reason D&D even had one there was OD&D didn't when it first came up have the mechanical scaffolding to provide good support for that in other ways, having no skill system at all as we'd recognize it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think this whole topic is very system dependant (obviously). Even if we keep our analysis to games within the OSR not every game has a thief. That said, almost all of them do have a skill-based class which is defined in part by opposition to the combat-based class and the magic-based class(es). It works well for that kind of game, whether you call them thieves or snot stacks.

The oddity of the thief as it originally was created was it was the first skill oriented class, but was only going to really be good for that or something really close to it. Unlike some later things such as the True20 Expert, you couldn't build an outdoorsman or a scholar with it.

 

[Fenris-77]

The oddity of the thief as it originally was created was it was the first skill oriented class, but was only going to really be good for that or something really close to it. Unlike some later things such as the True20 Expert, you couldn't build an outdoorsman or a scholar with it.

Well yeah, the whole design space has evolved. I don't see why the earliest ideas about what a 'thief', or whatever, could be should have any significant impact on how games and classes are designed now.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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).

Well, no. Every skill could be useful.

There are two kinds of characters- those that interact with the world physically, and those who don't. Depending on your game that could be wizards, mad scientists, psykers, ship engineers, force users, what have you. In a skill based game, like Traveller, where you learned your skills primarily determines contacts and whether or not you start with a ship. There I can certainly agree that being a thief is mostly just a label post skill selection. Sure, a D&D wizard could invest their feats and skills into being a thief. They would be a poor wizard and a passible thief rather than an excellent wizard or thief, however. That's an aspect of D&D, let alone class systems.

Looking at the bolded section, I think I see the issue. You don't perceive what the thief does beyond the skills. The 3e skill system was a horrible kludge to bring skills into D&D to allow for a new scheme of level and class advancement. It was a good effort but, IMO, a poor result. Still, D&D is a class system, not a skill based one. If you think of thieves or rogues as "skill-monkeys" then I can see your point more easily. But, thieves are the class that is the sneakiest, most deft, and excellent at bypassing obstacles. If you don't see a need for that archetype, then fine. I think you may have been mislead by how designers used mechanics to represent the archetype.

And what do you mean "now-traditional rogue abilities"? The rogue class was an outgrowth of the thief. It was renamed because of marketing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well yeah, the whole design space has evolved. I don't see why the earliest ideas about what a 'thief', or whatever, could be should have any significant impact on how games and classes are designed now.

Yet they clearly do in a lot of places. Ask why the D&D magic system has propagated so many places.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, no. Every skill could be useful.

There are two kinds of characters- those that interact with the world physically, and those who don't. Depending on your game that could be wizards, mad scientists, psykers, ship engineers, force users, what have you. In a skill based game, like Traveller, where you learned your skills primarily determines contacts and whether or not you start with a ship. There I can certainly agree that being a thief is mostly just a label post skill selection. Sure, a D&D wizard could invest their feats and skills into being a thief. They would be a poor wizard and a passible thief rather than an excellent wizard or thief, however. That's an aspect of D&D, let alone class systems.

Looking at the bolded section, I think I see the issue. You don't perceive what the thief does beyond the skills. The 3e skill system was a horrible kludge to bring skills into D&D to allow for a new scheme of level and class advancement. It was a good effort but, IMO, a poor result. Still, D&D is a class system, not a skill based one. If you think of thieves or rogues as "skill-monkeys" then I can see your point more easily. But, thieves are the class that is the sneakiest, most deft, and excellent at bypassing obstacles. If you don't see a need for that archetype, then fine. I think you may have been mislead by how designers used mechanics to represent the archetype.

And what do you mean "now-traditional rogue abilities"? The rogue class was an outgrowth of the thief. It was renamed because of marketing.

Except I was around when the thief came into existance, and other that whatever they called secret strike back then, it was nothing but skills. Seriously. There was nothing else distinct about it, and it was, when if first arrived, unique in that way.

Basically, I don't see your characterization of them as anything but a high end expression of skills in that area. And that was absolutely the way they worked initially, to the degree they worked at all.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I suspect their point is the dedicated class/role called "thief" is largely a D&D artifact that, to the degree its elsewhere is because of the shadow D&D casts, you don't have to have a dedicated mechanical hook for that to have that ground covered.

I guess I would need more specificity of what "that ground" entails to judge whether or not it's different from fighting and spellcasting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I guess I would need more specificity of what "that ground" entails to judge whether or not it's different from fighting and spellcasting.

Well, the problem is that the class originally called "Thief" has changed in both name and function over time in D&D multiple times, and who some third party used as their inspiration has changed with it. The farther you go back, the less distinct "Thief" was other than in having certain skills. As far as I recall the very original one's only distinct class feature (it had its own advancement tables and such like everyone else, but like most of them sometimes the reasons for the choices there were obscure) was its back/surprise strike capability, and you can argue that was there to make up for its particularly poor combat capability otherwise and to take advantage of it being the only class that might be able to do that with any reliability at all.

But most of the other things that probably modern D&D players associate with the class didn't exist then. A lot of them, far as I know, came in with 3e when they figured out just having skills wasn't a distinct enough element anymore since everyone could, and a couple classes weren't even going to have that many less.