How did thieves evolve into rogues (ninjas)?

[DraQ]

Thieves stopped being a thing because pickpocketing was never, ever useful in any game ever. There's a reason the term is associated with starving children and not blinged out crimelords. Only a desperate person would even bother trying such a thing.

Pickpocketing becomes very useful when instead of just getting some extra cash you want to do something in particular - like obtaining a crucial item, depriving someone of crucial item, planting something on someone for whatever reason. The possibilities are awesome and numerous.
And do mind that a well designed storytelling has heroes not as blinged out whatever (yeah, I know they usually end up that way) but usually a band of ragtag underdogs.

Another problem with pickpocketing is that few games implement it as anything beyond "roll the dice to see if you broke the game by making everyone hostile forever".

Sneaking is more useful but also something any adventurer should know how to do.

True, but you can have degrees of stealth. Sneaking up to scout on a bunch of hostiles, generally not making noise when moving in a building or positioning yourself before battle is one thing, sneaking right behind someone and their friends, close enough to stab them or take something of theirs is a whole other thing.

Picking locks is very circumstantial. Chances are the good shit isn't locked in a gigantic chest. If something is useful, it's probably being used. Locked doors can simply be broken And besides, if something is locked, someone has the key somewhere (or they should... the number of games where there are locked chests everywhere filled with stolen loot... which the bandits themselves have no way of opening... is retarded.)

Picking locks is herp because derp.
If there are any delayed perks of nondetection then bashing anything puts you at disadvantage - not everything is about stabbing outlaws. Most interesting stuff that can happen in a cRPG is when you are moving against an organization that's well integrated into society and has sufficient muscle to just smash flat a group of 1-6 dudes attacking them openly. This organization can be your primary target or just third party neutrals that have something you need but aren't giving it to you willingly.
In case of just a bunch of evil dudes no one minds being sliced apart you can always pull an excuse of the guy with the key not being around at the moment and not willing to entrust the key to their underlings - place a few messages or NPC conversations around and you're set.
Chests containing worthwhile stuff can also be trapped in a way that destroys their contents when opened forcefully, or those contents can be naturally fragile.

In a way everyone being capable of basic stealth helps here because it allows stealthy approaches to involve the entire party instead of just being thief's solos.

This is just a wild guess, but the archer-thief archetype could be due to Robin Hood or maybe due to the fact that both archery and traditional thief skills such as pickpocket and sneaking are usually dependent on agility/dexterity. Plus thieves are usually more fragile so it would make sense for them to use ranged weapons.

Of course, actual archery is VERY strength dependent, so it doesn't really fit the skillset of a shifty street-smart guy with a knife in his boot.

That's a problem with shitty DMs, then, not rules or editions. Thieves are (were) the only class to be able to instantly be able to blend in with the general population because their equipment was minimal and easily concealed.

If only any cRPG actually made it matter.

See, thieves/rogues/intelligence officers - the only reason that that class has for existing is that they have access to skills that no other class has. They are the specialist class - weak at regular adventuring, but someone you cart around for when their specialty comes into play. Thus, they only realistically exist in rigid, class-based systems where no one else has those specialty skills. So, once you go skills, once you shift all of the class's specialty skills over to regular skills that anyone can take, then the class no longer serves a purpose, because those special skills can be shared out amongst the rest of the party and then that character slot can be filled with a more powerful adventurer who will make the party stronger. (Which is not to say that thieves could not still be effective in this new environment, just that the party is more effective if they aren't there.)

Sorry, but no, that's bullshit.

That entirely depends on:

• How many distinctively useful utility skills there are?
• How many distinctively useful combat skills there are?
• How many skills can a character reasonably specialize in?
  
• What is the max and expected number of party members?
• What synergies exist between skills?

If the thieving skills aren't limited to just an extra skill or two any character can tuck into their build and if reasonable builds not focused on thieving skills are also not limited to just a minimum number of skills allowing them to accommodate a lot of utility extras, then either deicated utility builds or splitting utility between multiple, but noticeably nerfed character become desirable options.
And by noticeably nerfed I mean that your two thieving fighters won't be nearly as good fighters and/or thieves as dedicated characters (you will still get both to act in combat so it may balance out).

Of course, that depends on actually building both mechanics for those distinct skills and interesting content allowing their use rather than just plopping down a bunch of mobs that can be stabbed for massive DPS.

He is no rogue, though, nor assassin. Those names have no more relation to what he is now than "thief" does. Today, he is a martial artist, skilled in anatomy and the targeting of weak points in the body, thus allowing him to do mega-damage whenever he gets in a good strike, as well as potentially applying a myriad of effects when he does land that blow (such as bleeding, broken bones or a build-up of bile (poison) by striking a gland). No need to even use sneaking for such abilities, since it not through the means of stealth that these abilities are used, but are instead effects of distraction and combat control - ie the skills of the martial artist.

And so, out of and , the dreaded Daggermonk was born.

Equip the Boots of Blinding Light of Maximum Invisibility.

I think this is a case for the world being an illusion and the blindness of self leading to CHIM.

Morrowind had its share of awful and lulzy bugs like blind giving the PC to-hit buff instead of debuff like it did NPCs, pickpocket formula being borked or unarmored not working without at least a single piece of armor, but BGs seem to be built from this shit, from AI stopping proccing when out of sight, to baby* stealth (cover your eyes to become invisible).

*)
CBA to look up what was the name of that creature from the Hitchiker's Guide.

 

[Caleb462]

Dunno why you bothered, if you're going to savescum (and you obviously did if you found pickpocketing useful) you might as well just savescum the real challenges instead of savescumming pickpocket attempts to make other shit easier. You've already voided any sense of fairness or challenge, why go through the motions of becoming stronger so you cheat less on a particular part of the game?

With a high enough Steal skill, you don't have to savescum that much, but sure... I did. As for the why... eh, because that's how I enjoy playing the game I suppose.

 

[Damned Registrations]

You made some fair points, but I still think the situations where a thief would be useful are far too niche. Take your 'sneaking up on guys to steal something' scenario. Now, if this is a group of people your party can't beat in combat, then surely your single rogue will be absolutely fucking murdered if he is discovered. Even putting aside the rest of the party, that's a really dubious plan. And if alerting them won't be a total disaster, why bother stealing when you can rob them (and get far more out of it, not only in terms of loot but also information)? At best this is an option for a single character RPG willing to take crazy risks (you don't pull this shit in roguelikes, even in something like Incursion you're basically forced to become a ninja despite incentives otherwise); but then how many more things are you missing out on because of all you sacrificed so you can pilfer trinkets?

Also; regarding rogue sneak attack damage: I actually like the way 3rd edition DnD did things. The situations where you get the bonus damage made a lot more sense (basically on anyone who was sufficiently distracted, like someone surrounded or unarmed or off their feet) and it was just extra damage. It implied to me the sort of character who was highly aware and specialized in taking advantage of vulnerable enemies, as one might expect a mugger or pirate or whatever to be. Someone who preys on people be attacking unannounced, outnumbering their foes, attacking unarmed travellers, etc. As opposed to a proper warrior, who is more focused on his own safety and accustomed to fighting people head on, possibly while outnumbered himself.

Trapped chests can be a thing, but again, what sort of scenario warrants something being locked up like that? You're not going to spend 1400 gold trapping a chest to spite anyone who breaks it open to get at the 300 gold worth of loot. And what sort of truly valuable shit would you leave in there anyways? Coins are about the only thing heavy enough to bother leaving behind, and even then, why would you stash your coins instead of spending them or exchanging them for something lighter and easier to carry? Who is going to stash expensive crystal figurines in a locked chest? These are really bizarre scenarios. If you have enough shit that needs guarding, you can probably afford a vault with guards rather than a trapped chest. Though a locked vault too sturdy to be broken into with the key in the owners hands far away is a legitimate scenario for sure, at least on occasion. But having situations where something worthwhile can only be acquired by lockpicking routinely is extremely contrived.

I think another issue is the general smaller party sizes. It is much, much more difficult to justify a thief in a 4 man party than an 8 man party. I'm not really going to miss 1 of my 8 characters if they're dead weight in combat, but if it's 1 in 4? Or worse yet, perhaps the spellcaster or healer is also dead weight for the most part, now you're looking at the difference between having 1-2 guys handling most of the combat or 2-3 guys. SRR had plenty of applications for non combat skills (albeit nothing explicitly thiefy) but it certainly wasn't a good idea to make your main character into some sort of utility character at the expense of being able to fight. You needed every bit of muscle you can get, you can't carry around someone just because they have a ton of charisma and medical skills. Even the decker needs to be a decent marksmen or a small army of robots.

 

[DraQ]

Dunno why you bothered, if you're going to savescum (and you obviously did if you found pickpocketing useful) you might as well just savescum the real challenges instead of savescumming pickpocket attempts to make other shit easier. You've already voided any sense of fairness or challenge, why go through the motions of becoming stronger so you cheat less on a particular part of the game?

It's better to savescum once to get bozar than to savescum all the time while in combat.

 

[Avellion]

Giving thieves non-combat tools would make a game harder to balance and design. Not only does encounter design have account for that some players might bring one or more non combatants. But now levels and quest design has to be designed around giving thieves some actual usage.

A lot of the thief tools were also pretty useless in a lot of games it did exist in. Pickpocketing in particular was extremely underutilized, and caused little more than save scumming. And those skills that were actually useful may potentially lock a player out of content or take away resources that can be spent on adding more content. Why make good content with multiple solutions factoring in all the thieves tools when you can flood the game world with mass produced content and then put 100+ hours on the box. Multiple solutions? Just add a speech skill, and now you can put "Multiple solutions" on the game box as well. In addition, making a player think "damn I should have brought a thief with me", after encountering a locked door or chest or after running into a trap badly damaging his entire team (assuming the game doesnt already provide players with regeneration that would make fucking Wolverine blush) seems like a no go for a lot of modern devs.

The current state of the thief is also caused by the dumbing down or homogenization of combat, with combat getting increasingly more about hp. MMORPGs have already inflicted their players with "Bring the player, not the class" mentality which homogenized classes to the point where classes might as well only differ in attack animations and models. In combat a thief could have multiple applicaitons that would not turn them into ninjas, incluidng but not limited to,

1. Killing priority targets
2. Setting up traps
3. Steal consumables such as potions, wands, scrolls and ammunition

 

[Telengard]

See, thieves/rogues/intelligence officers - the only reason that that class has for existing is that they have access to skills that no other class has. They are the specialist class - weak at regular adventuring, but someone you cart around for when their specialty comes into play. Thus, they only realistically exist in rigid, class-based systems where no one else has those specialty skills. So, once you go skills, once you shift all of the class's specialty skills over to regular skills that anyone can take, then the class no longer serves a purpose, because those special skills can be shared out amongst the rest of the party and then that character slot can be filled with a more powerful adventurer who will make the party stronger. (Which is not to say that thieves could not still be effective in this new environment, just that the party is more effective if they aren't there.)

Sorry, but no, that's bullshit.

That entirely depends on:

• How many distinctively useful utility skills there are?
• How many distinctively useful combat skills there are?
• How many skills can a character reasonably specialize in?
  
• What is the max and expected number of party members?
• What synergies exist between skills?

If the thieving skills aren't limited to just an extra skill or two any character can tuck into their build and if reasonable builds not focused on thieving skills are also not limited to just a minimum number of skills allowing them to accommodate a lot of utility extras, then either deicated utility builds or splitting utility between multiple, but noticeably nerfed character become desirable options.
And by noticeably nerfed I mean that your two thieving fighters won't be nearly as good fighters and/or thieves as dedicated characters (you will still get both to act in combat so it may balance out).

Of course, that depends on actually building both mechanics for those distinct skills and interesting content allowing their use rather than just plopping down a bunch of mobs that can be stabbed for massive DPS.

That the thief is a specialist class is as per Mr. Gygax himself. That the thief is designed as an NPC class is also as per Mr. Gygax. The old specialist classes are all non-combat, by design. And, like all non-combat specialist classes, from the scholar down to the field medic, the only reason you take them along is they have access to skills that no one else has. Because you don't take a non-combat character into combat unless you need them for some reason down the line.

Under the d&d skill system, combat skills don't exist, so you're only sharing around the classic seven-eight non-combat skills, which is easily enough done with a couple of intelligent characters in the party. A skill monkey can hit those skills more efficiently, and maybe thus see an overall rise in party non-combat skills level, but the weakening of combat ability for dragging that non-combatant around instead of a combatant will easily erase any advantage those extra points may have brought you.

Or, to take but one example, a skilled RPG player with a Rogue can be highly effective in game. But you're taking a skilled player and giving him a D class character, which he raises to a B class through his skill. Now, just imagine what damage that same player could wreak putting his skill to a dextile, witty fighter with some sneaking ability.

 

[DraQ]

Telengard
I don't really care about DnD in particular.
I'm just saying that skill rather than class based system can be just as conductive to classes like thief.
In particular with strong synergies existing solely along the lines of previously existing classes you will effectively replicate a class based system (which isn't a good thing if you're going skill based in the first place but it illustrates my point).

Dichotomy between skillmonkey and "actual" (combat) class merely indicates how skewed the system or existing content is.

You made some fair points, but I still think the situations where a thief would be useful are far too niche.

That entirely depends on what is the norm in your RPG.

Take your 'sneaking up on guys to steal something' scenario. Now, if this is a group of people your party can't beat in combat, then surely your single rogue will be absolutely fucking murdered if he is discovered. Even putting aside the rest of the party, that's a really dubious plan.

Any interesting story is going to involve dubious plans. When you can roll up enough X then just faceroll the opposition with it, it's unlikely to ever get interesting, whether the X is "XP", "trinkets" or "units".

Take original Star Wars, for example, not because I have any particular love for it, but because it's a good model for what an RPG adventure can realistically aspire to be:

• Characters don't fight the entire Deathstar when tractored in, they first try to impersonate enemy personnel only fighting when it doesn't work, then turn off the TB and GTFO before the things get hot.
  
• Rebels don't roll up big enough blob of warships to steamroll the Deathstar, they use a vanishingly small (in comparison) group of fighters to get past the defenses and exploit a weakness. While the DS is charging its lazorz and waiting for the rebel base moon to emerge from behind the gas giant.

"Dubious" plans are what generates any sort of drama - assuming it's the situation rather than stupidity that forces them into action.
In this case you're forced to do dubious stuff

And if alerting them won't be a total disaster, why bother stealing when you can rob them

Not a total disaster is still a disaster.

For example you can have following outcomes:

• Full failure - TPK.
• Failure - caused alert and had to pull out failing to obtain whatever you set out to obtain - you didn't get whatever you went in for, a town or other quest hub is now (or will be) crawling with troops looking for you (at significant advantage), no opportunity to do almost any sort of business (buying, selling, repairing), party's contacts and other friends to the cause killed off or imprisoned, further consequences of failing to get important item.
• Partial failure - managed to get the mcguffin, but like above, same with consequences.
• 50/50 - managed to get the mcguffin, caused alert, killed off the witnesses (any guard who has seen the party) plus whoever was sent to apprehend you - the hub is crawling with troops looking for adventuring types in general (less aggressive), most businesses won't deal with you, but some will take the risks, party's contacts ok or hiding.
• Partial success - got mcguffin, caused no alert, left traces (smashed stuff) - scaled down version of the above.
  
• Full success - managed to get mcguffin without alerting anyone or leaving traces - business as usual.

(and get far more out of it, not only in terms of loot but also information)?

Depends. Mechanically the numbers can be unmanageable (and inventory limited enough to not allow transport of resulting piles of equipment).
NPCs may also be set to destroy information if it's at risk of falling into enemy hands, so it gives you less information, not more.
Hell, the faction you're robbing may not necessarily be hostile or need to become hostile at any point (at least not until you hit them and they know) - think police morgue mission from DX:HR.

At best this is an option for a single character RPG willing to take crazy risks

Why?
Especially that you can grade failure.

Trapped chests can be a thing, but again, what sort of scenario warrants something being locked up like that?

Not just loot, obviously. Think information, sensitive spell components, really rare elixirs that you'd keep out of enemy's hands, think like that.
Also think an organization with actual stakes in the gameworld rather than a bunch of bandits in the middle of nowhere who think they are smart because they started to use both sides of toilet paper for efficiency's sake.

I think another issue is the general smaller party sizes. It is much, much more difficult to justify a thief in a 4 man party than an 8 man party. I'm not really going to miss 1 of my 8 characters if they're dead weight in combat, but if it's 1 in 4? Or worse yet, perhaps the spellcaster or healer is also dead weight for the most part, now you're looking at the difference between having 1-2 guys handling most of the combat or 2-3 guys. SRR had plenty of applications for non combat skills (albeit nothing explicitly thiefy) but it certainly wasn't a good idea to make your main character into some sort of utility character at the expense of being able to fight. You needed every bit of muscle you can get, you can't carry around someone just because they have a ton of charisma and medical skills. Even the decker needs to be a decent marksmen or a small army of robots.

And again, if you really need that extra fighter chances are that the game is suffering from bloat (which is also indicated by DPS being a relevant measure of anything - so DPS again), because otherwise what party can do would be more important than how much damage can it output.

 

[Archibald]

Most games are built around fighter archetype. Stuff like picking locks, stealth, trap detection and so on are presented as "alternatives" to simply killing stuff. And its a problem for most classes, for example wizards usually are also reduced to having 10 variations of magic missiles and fireballs with different damage types/colours. So I'd blame GM's and designers for focusing too much on one type of adventures.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

All your points make sense. Furthermore, some people might have just been too triggered by the very word "thief", you know, negative connotations and all, plus PoCs stole their bikes so the word was a pain to hear.

I think there also is some "mythization" process being applied to an otherwise underwhelming class. A thief's just a thief: lock picks, sneak a bit, steal stuff. But a rogue, he's got some "Romanticized" connotations. He's a rebel, a maverick, he's slick and nimble, cool like James Bond and gritty-smooth like Marlowe, he's a part Clint Eastwood and part Lupin III. Plus rogues have got the ninja powers, which makes them insta-cool to most people.

Yup, nobody is fine with "plain" thieves any more, rogues are way more exotic and appealing.

At the end of the day, I blame MMOs and Assassin's Creed. :D

I actually remember thieves becoming rogues and D&D also getting rid of assassins partly or even largely because people were 'triggered' by the names of those classes back when political correctness first reared its head---- late 80's or early 90's I think..

 

[Dreaad]

Thieves stopped being a thing because pickpocketing was never, ever useful in any game ever. There's a reason the term is associated with starving children and not blinged out crimelords. Only a desperate person would even bother trying such a thing.

Sneaking is more useful but also something any adventurer should know how to do. Picking locks is very circumstantial. Chances are the good shit isn't locked in a gigantic chest. If something is useful, it's probably being used. Locked doors can simply be broken And besides, if something is locked, someone has the key somewhere (or they should... the number of games where there are locked chests everywhere filled with stolen loot... which the bandits themselves have no way of opening... is retarded.)

So yeah, in lieu of having a class whose only purpose is to quietly open locks, they made a class which is a glass cannon in melee combat. Which is probably more unique than something like a ranger or paladin, who are basically just warriors with slightly different skillsets and utterly useless spellcasting.

What I find more baffling is the association between rogues/thieves and archery. How is that a useful skill for someone sneaking around? Bows are large and clunky, and firing one is not at all stealthy. And it's a very different skillset than fighting with knives or swords or whatever, so you wouldn't expect it fall under the class of 'basic' weaponry anyone with a passing interest in combat would know how to use. I'd only expect actual warriors to be marskmen.

Banditry? Probably all such ne'er-do-well life choices we lumped together at some point and wa-lah.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

Also, as others have said, the thief was a victim of combat oriented RPGs. "Oh no, my thief does jack shit in combat, he can only do a backstab once or twice". And this is just like with wizards in early D&D. Vancian casting became obsolete because some people didn't like that they can't spam spells, just one or two, and not in every encounter. They had to change both so they can deal damage all the time.

fuck, posts like this remind me how shitty everything is. Makes me want to go around punching millennials in the face.

 

[Jason Liang]

The real problem with thieves is class progression. This is a problem that not even Neverwinter Nights/ 3E could solve.

A high level mage summons dragons and demons, raises the dead, casts NUKE and METEOR, MAHAMAN, TILTOWAIT, Wish spells, Time Stops and Horrid Wiltings, makes himself invulnerable with Restoration+Improved Invisibility+Stoneskin contingencies. A high level thief gets better at picking locks and disarming traps. There's no way to imagine a high level thief that is anywhere as powerful as a high level wizard or warrior.

In the original Wizardry, if you wanted loot, you HAD to take a thief. A cleric could identify traps but only the thief could disarm the traps. The Gold Box games were already cheating since I doubt anyone took a pure thief instead of an elf mage/ thief. Pure thieves have been marginalized ever since.

Perhaps Diablo was a turning point.

In Card Hunter, the game designers completely omitted rogues. The three classes are Fighter, Wizard and Cleric. The closest you can get to a rogue is an Elf Fighter.

 

[octavius]

High level Thieves get the ability to use all (I think?) items when lvl 20 in Baldur's Gate 2, don't they?

 

[Jason Liang]

They do, with Use Magic Devices they can cast spells from any Scroll or Wand. In the same way, in Diablo the rogue could equip a Thinking Cap and play as a mini-mage.

 

[Ulminati]

Thieves turned into rogues when the focus of most games became combat. It made little sense to have a class without combat focus when combat takes up 90% of a session and 99,9% of a crpg

 

[Keldryn]

Another major factor is that in AD&D (and B/X D&D), thieves had the fastest level progression table, which helped balance their weak combat utility. For the first few levels, they needed half as much XP as did a magic-user. Also, in AD&D, it was the only class that non-human characters had unlimited advancement in (typically, level limits were in the 7-12 range), which made it an appealing option, particularly for multiclassed characters.

Then 3e comes along, introduces a unified XP table, moves thief abilities to the skill system, eliminates racial level limits, opens up all classes to all races, and changes how multiclassing works. So now taking one level in the rogue class needs to be as useful as taking one level in any other class.

Combat in 3e and later also became more tactical and often much slower to play at the table. When a typical combat takes 5 or 10 minutes to resolve, it's not a huge deal if you can't contribute as much as everyone else; once the battle is over, you'll get a chance to shine again. XP mostly came from treasure in pre-3e D&D, so avoiding combat was often the smartest move.

When combats often take 45 minutes or longer to resolve -- and when the bulk of you XP comes from overcoming "challenges" -- then not being a useful combatant can quickly lead to the whole 20 minutes of fun spread out over 4 hours thing.

A lot of Gygax's rules were clunky, but he got many things right that later designers completely fucked up in their attempts to "fix" the game.

 

[Perkel]

Thief is only as good as game design in game.
Which is reason why thief became rogue.

In PnP due to GM scouting can be very good thing to do, same with finding out hidden thiefs, traps waiting to fuck you up. Then starting battle with backstab to enemy mage before he even has chance to put up his defense is also something that changes completely battle.

CRPG has a problem of linearity. Unlike roguelikes you know exactly what will happen after one time so you can reload.

For example in Dwarf Fortress i constantly sneak in forest or scout ahead in dungeons. It is biggest and most important job in DF.

 

[Mortmal]

MMOs happened and gradually got rid of unique class skills in favor of DPS parity.

Simple and efficient, that's exactly what happened . Same as MMORPG (UO) become MMO (WOW) , they mutilated it and threw RPG to the garbage bin.

 

[DraQ]

The real problem with thieves is class progression. This is a problem that not even Neverwinter Nights/ 3E could solve.

A high level mage summons dragons and demons, raises the dead, casts NUKE and METEOR, MAHAMAN, TILTOWAIT, Wish spells, Time Stops and Horrid Wiltings, makes himself invulnerable with Restoration+Improved Invisibility+Stoneskin contingencies. A high level thief gets better at picking locks and disarming traps. There's no way to imagine a high level thief that is anywhere as powerful as a high level wizard or warrior.

And that's the exact kind of thinking that leads to boring, MMO-style design.
There is no reasonable way to equalize wizards and thieves (or wizards and warriors for that matter) in terms of power.

Warriors aren't interesting because of their power. They are interesting because they are up close and personal with the danger.
Thieves aren't interesting because of their power either, they are interesting because they can trick their way out of hopeless situations using their wits, they are the natural underdog class, trying to buff them to raw power levels of wizard misses the fucking point.

Also, you already had archer rogue in LoL1.

CRPG has a problem of linearity. Unlike roguelikes you know exactly what will happen after one time so you can reload.

Nothing that can't be fixed.

 

[Dreaad]

I wonder if some slightly more in depth mini stealth like sections added to a game would make thieves viable to party based crpgs. Kinda like Shadowrun hacking but more detailed and complicated.

So while your combat group advances through the enemies, your thief goes in, by himself, ahead of the group, or through a different entrance. Depending on his skills, charm/sneaking/lockpicking/assassination etc or choice of tools.... he sort of makes the certain sections easier for the rest of the party, picks of sleeping guards before they get into armor after alarm goes off, tricks the bodyguard to abandon his post, steals enemy wizards components or potions, sets traps in key choke points etc. The he just waits for the party to reach him, without being discovered. You would still have the problem of being all alone with no one to help when shit goes wrong.... but hey choice and consequence.

 

[made]

MMOs happened and gradually got rid of unique class skills in favor of DPS parity.

Simple and efficient, that's exactly what happened . Same as MMORPG (UO) become MMO (WOW) , they mutilated it and threw RPG to the garbage bin.

To be fair, even in WoW rogues initially had more to do: unlock doors, disarm traps, open shortcuts (back in BRD and BWL, when dungeons still deserved the name). These days, probably the only difference between classes is their color on the damage meter.

 

[Infinitron]

Thieves were always going to turn into Rogues, MMOs or no MMOs.

I'd say MMOs picked up on the existing trend and codified it.

 

[Ellef]

The vanilla WoW rogue had more non combat variety than most modern party based games like Pillars and co.

 

[Infinitron]

The vanilla WoW rogue had more non combat variety than most modern party based games like Pillars and co.

That doesn't surprise me. WoW is a game where you control a single character, so there's less need for your rogue to function as part of a unit built for the purpose of combat.

Only semi-related, but interestingly, I would say that real-time combat is actually more conducive to "oldschool thievery" than the oldschool turn-based combat is. When your character is pulled into a turn-based mode, there's much a stronger demand for him to have something interesting to do there, on each turn.

I think the best best for a traditional top-down RPG to have oldschool thievery would be in a game with a strong focus on simulation but also real-time combat - so like, D:OS with real-time combat, or something like that.

 

[Norfleet]

And that's the exact kind of thinking that leads to boring, MMO-style design.
There is no reasonable way to equalize wizards and thieves (or wizards and warriors for that matter) in terms of power.

Warriors aren't interesting because of their power. They are interesting because they are up close and personal with the danger.
Thieves aren't interesting because of their power either, they are interesting because they can trick their way out of hopeless situations using their wits, they are the natural underdog class, trying to buff them to raw power levels of wizard misses the fucking point.

To be fair, this kind of thing was already partially nodded to even in D&D. Wizards had rather limited ammo, while a fighter or a thief could stab people all day long. It's certainly not based on any kind of historical mythology, which actually *IS* more like MMOs. If you don't have some kind of magical power, you're a nobody, not a hero. Mythical heroes of the type you play are descended from gods and capable of doing things that ordinary schlubs can't do. MMO-esque classes are actually tilting back towards their mythological roots.