Why do we need thieves??

[Thomas Shey]

i've got to say, @Staffan, that by the time you've gotten down to that much wiggle in classes I don't really see the point in them (since the character end-result is going to be so widely varied anyway) but I'm not going to tell someone what works for them. I just have trouble picturing that any balance and function maintenance is being had that you couldn't just do with a build system (perhaps with some constraints).

 

[pemerton]

Now I'm trying to remember if there was any standard method of dealing with swimming at all prior to NWP and some of the specific outdoor related suppliments...

The AD&D DMG (p 55, in the section on "Waterborne Adventures") has rules for this; I don't think they're especially good:

Swimming will be impossible in any type of metal armor with the exception of magic armor. Any character wearing magic armor will be encumbered and the only stroke possible will be the dog paddle. It is possible to swim in leather and padded armor, but it is awkward and there is a 5% chance of drowning per hour. All heavy possessions must be discarded or the chance of drowning increases by 2% for every 5 pounds on the character's person other than his or her leather or padded armor. This includes weapons, purses filled with gold and/or gems, backpacks and hard boots. One unsheathed dagger may be carried by the adventurer between his or her teeth. Swimming during winds above 35 miles per hour will be almost impossible, and there is a 75% chance of drowning.
​

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The thief doesn't have to be the "skill monkey", or at least not be reduced to that.

If a Fighter can go toe-to-toe with Dragons and Giants four times his size, then a Thief should have similar extraordinary abilities. Hiding in Plain sight, disappearing into shadows to reappear somewhere else, sneaking behind a dragon, entering closed rooms, opening holes into magical force fields and what not. Stuff that is beyond what normal skill training does, even if it's based on it. Or, on the opposite end - there are things just being trained on the side as a Fighter or Wizard you can't accomplish.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I was too. "Backstab" was the original term, I believe.

And it was absolutely an expression of skills. Importantly, it was the only class that had skills rather than powers. (Hide in Shadows vs. Turn Undead) No one else had skills. If anyone else wanted to do things it was a 1 in 6 chance*, better if there were extenuating circumstances. These skills were also watered down in successive editions. Climb Sheer Surfaces became Climb Walls. Anyone could climb walls; the character had to remove all metal armor, be unencumbered, and had a bonus to their d6 roll if they had a rope. Thieves could freeclimb even with their backpack and gear. The other skills were similarly advantaged in theme.

And, as you note, as the class system transitioned to adding an initial engine-wide skill system, powers were added to the classes to strengthen their niche and archetype. So, in D&D there is more than a simple skill package to typify a "thief". The powers available might be unique to PC thieves, and NPCs only have the skill package.

I think which is why I disagree with the concept of "skill-monkey", especially in a class-based system. The Thief isn't a jack-of-trades character. They are the class that is supposed to be the best at stealth in an urban environment. I extend that to being the class most adept at urban environments: moving through, finding people, establishing networks, knowing who owes whom, &c. What I found to be an excellent JoT character is the Akashic from The Diamond Throne that Monte Cook initially published (now owned by someone else). They are the "skill-monkey" people want.

Sorry, this is only a tangent to the discussion - Diamond Throne is now owned by someone else? Anyone working with it and releasing new stuff?
I liked that setting and its class concepts.