Why do we need thieves??

[CreamCloud0]

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.

i think you may be seeing this backwards ridcully, they are not being 'reduced' to being a skill monkey, being a skillmonkey is a fundamentally more versatile wheelhouse than being a thief, as well as the fact that in a number of systems where the game isn't focused on dungeoncrawling and facing monsters the like 'thieves' can be an overly niche archetype, what being 'a skillmonkey' ie: thief is filling one third of the triad of fundamental ability types: power, skill and magic(or whatever other comparable stand-in it may get like tech or psychics), hiding in plain sight, sneaking behind the dragon, entering closed rooms, these are all just skill based actions, potentially, opening a hole in a force field may even also potentially be considered a skillful action.

 

[1QD]

ummm warriors are either paid killers or people who train to kill because they decided killing people is a good way to make money, or they just like killing. Being skillful doesn't change the fact they murder people, in d&d usually for cash or loot.

I am sorry that your scope of warrior is soo ... small and thusly tied to DnD's limited interpretation and expression. I might, if possible, attempt to expand your concept of what a warrior is. I will first take MMA, and note very quickly that in counter to warriors being only there for murder, and make the distinction that combat is not always murder.

I certainly see MMA fighters, (hrmph it's in the name) as warriors. To this end, yes they earn money for, here it is again, combat. Instead of lethal weapons they use natural weapons, which still have the potential to kill, but that really isn't the point is it? They get in a ring and fight. Now let's put your average guy into the ring. Now according to you, no special training or moves are required by the farmer what so ever. Surely there will be no difference in skill or relative ability to defeat one another.....

And here, in a real life example, is where your argument shows its divine limitations. There is most certainly a training requirement, a unique set of skills that will allow the MMA fighter to over come his average guy rival. And it will happen nearly every single time. This also rings true if each combatant has a long period of time fighting in their own native fighting style. A dedicated warrior will always beat out an average person, every single time...(nearly) But as a general rule, yes.

Lastly many professions take part in combat to protect, self defend or to acquire loot. This does not make every single one of them warriors. A warrior is a specific expression of combat, not just a combatant.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

Honestly, because deep down, it's fun to scam the system for a fraction of the cost.

let them spend thousands of gold pieces on magic items as you beat it with a bag of flour.

afterall, hit it!

 

[1QD]

Again, I think you're vastly oversimplifying the D&D Thief class. They certainly didn't start that way; and although over time their abilities have been watered down, they still have unique class features that make them stand out.

If you're serious about understanding the concept of the original Thief class and what makes them special I'd take the time to watch the following:

So I am supposed to support a clearly defined and niche that over a span of time makes less and less sense...Well which is it? Do I hyper focus on the thief or water it down? Personally I do not feel DnD is the end all be all of TTRPG's. In fact it has been my experience thus far that hard core DnD players make a poor match for my system, which is why I post in the general section. DnD'ers often are locked in place as to how a game should be played while new players tend to be far more open minded to new concepts. In cases of inexperienced DnDers and first time players of my system, mine has ranked as preferred more consistently than not.

My system makes everything a skill, and gives professions a role to play. You can even teach your profession skills to other players at a higher cost if you really wanted. For the trouble it might be better to just multiprof instead.

I can see room for many thief roles, but not the profession itself. Rather I would imagine a player taking another prof, and living a thief's life expressed through that proff. Again the Rogue is a likely candidate. Based on skills alone really. They have most of the theif like skill set plus limited magic and other abilities. Players should not feel any real gap or anything missing in this case.

 

[Jahydin]

So I am supposed to support a clearly defined and niche that over a span of time makes less and less sense...Well which is it? Do I hyper focus on the thief or water it down? Personally I do not feel DnD is the end all be all of TTRPG's. In fact it has been my experience thus far that hard core DnD players make a poor match for my system, which is why I post in the general section. DnD'ers often are locked in place as to how a game should be played while new players tend to be far more open minded to new concepts. In cases of inexperienced DnDers and first time players of my system, mine has ranked as preferred more consistently than not.

Sorry. There was some slight miscommunication in that I thought your OP was insinuating the Thief was redundant and could be pulled from D&D without consequence. Now that I know you're referring to your own system, I think I can make a bit more sense going forward.

More than anything, I was desperately trying to point out (not just to you, but for anyone that thinks the Thief just does "normal" stuff) that the original Thief actually had incredible powers that no one else could attempt, like climbing sheer surfaces, disappearing entirely in shadows, moving without making a sound, and hearing noises that no normal non-Thief could. I only hammer down on this because once I understood this (C&C makes this very clear, but I think Rules Cyclopedia does too), Thieves became a whole lot more useful because the "normal" versions of those skills should just be successes. So if the party comes to a steep cliff with hand holds, just let the Thief climb it and throw a rope down to the party. That idea can carry to your own game.

My system makes everything a skill, and gives professions a role to play. You can even teach your profession skills to other players at a higher cost if you really wanted. For the trouble it might be better to just multiprof instead.

I can see room for many thief roles, but not the profession itself. Rather I would imagine a player taking another prof, and living a thief's life expressed through that proff. Again the Rogue is a likely candidate. Based on skills alone really. They have most of the theif like skill set plus limited magic and other abilities. Players should not feel any real gap or anything missing in this case.

This all sounds good. The Thief makes perfect sense in a dungeon-crawl based game, but might me completely useless depending on your game's setting and power level.

One thing to consider is dropping the label, "Thief", but still use the archetype of "useful glass cannon" and shaping it to fit the power level and theme of your setting. For instance, in a cyberpunk setting, you could have a "Hacker" class that can disable cameras, crack security codes, and set off explosions for massive damage, but has to hide during combat since they're so fragile. Still a "Thief" in archetype, but tailored to useful in the setting.

Good luck with your game!