Why do we need thieves??

[Bill Zebub]

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.

If the OP was making an argument about 1e that should have been declared. If they meant the thief archetype in general they should have explained what they were including/excluding in that definition.

That's why upthread I suggested the thread title should have said "Skill Monkey" instead of "Thief".

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the OP was making an argument about 1e that should have been declared. If they meant the thief archetype in general they should have explained what they were including/excluding in that definition.

That's why upthread I suggested the thread title should have said "Skill Monkey" instead of "Thief".

I suspect "skill monkey" is not what they're talking about, but you're not wrong that what exactly counts in the archetype is a pretty moving target.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I suspect "skill monkey" is not what they're talking about...

Agreed, but I think they were talking about a specific sub-type of the skill monkey, in which case the argument should (I think?) apply to all skill monkeys.

"Why do we need scholars?"

"Why do we need woodsmen?"

Etc...

 

[pemerton]

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,

A fighter is a specialist too, aren't they?

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.

The notion of combat abilities vs non-combat skills is a feature of D&D's PC build rules. It's a game convention, not a matter of fiction or even really genre.

 

[CreamCloud0]

A fighter is a specialist too, aren't they?

my point was the fighter, mage and thief are all specialists in their own separate areas, not that just the thief was a specialist.

The notion of combat abilities vs non-combat skills is a feature of D&D's PC build rules. It's a game convention, not a matter of fiction or even really genre.

it's more an archetype thing IMO, it's an extension of having the 'smart guy' who thinks their way through problems but is often less capable in a fight due to spending all their time studying.

 

[MacDhomnuill]

The simplest answer to this question is because games that don’t have skills and use class and level for everything have to have specialized classes to represent things that could’ve simply been represented by skills in. Class based games are driven by tropes (classes are tropes) the brave warrior, the pious priest, powerful mage and the sneaky thief versus skill based systems where you could have a wizard who could pick locks and was good with a knife pretty easily.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agreed, but I think they were talking about a specific sub-type of the skill monkey, in which case the argument should (I think?) apply to all skill monkeys.

"Why do we need scholars?"

"Why do we need woodsmen?"

Etc...

Well, some of that gets back to how you're structuring characters in your system. In a purely skill based system, or one with skills and special abilities bought seperately, the answer of course is "You don't." A lot of it turns on how, if you have them, special abilities are acquired in the system; if the system uses them and the only access method is baked in as class features or something similar, you may find it desirable to have things like that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A fighter is a specialist too, aren't they?

The notion of combat abilities vs non-combat skills is a feature of D&D's PC build rules. It's a game convention, not a matter of fiction or even really genre.

Its like my note that the combat capability in the Hero System is acquired being distinct from the way other kinds of skills are is an evolutionary artifact; it didn't have to be that way, as the redesign in Fuzion showed.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, some of that gets back to how you're structuring characters in your system. In a purely skill based system, or one with skills and special abilities bought seperately, the answer of course is "You don't." A lot of it turns on how, if you have them, special abilities are acquired in the system; if the system uses them and the only access method is baked in as class features or something similar, you may find it desirable to have things like that.

Agreed.

To really have this discussion at all would require something of the form of:

"Given (set of assumptions) do we need (type of character configuration)?"

The OP didn't give any assumptions (or assumed the assumptions...) and gave a specific yet undefined example of a configuration instead of the type of which it is an example.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agreed.

To really have this discussion at all would require something of the form of:

"Given (set of assumptions) do we need (type of character configuration)?"

The OP didn't give any assumptions (or assumed the assumptions...) and gave a specific yet undefined example of a configuration instead of the type of which it is an example.

Yes. I suspect its an artifact of them, essentially, looking at how things need to be in the system they're designing while being bluntly unwilling to share too much about that system. It turns a certain amount of what they post into a voice from the void.