With the death of the latest Outlander assassin, I thought I'd reask the question as an update on imm attitude:

Any thought to allowing Outlander thieves/assassins on having hide again?

Perhaps make it a skill that can be relearned at level 51 and/or once they've received their special, super-secret Outtie thingie.. "A thief/assassin in Outlander that has mastered their oneness with Thar-Eris can learn once again to hide within the shadows."

The loss of hide would still deter the flood of thieves/assassins joining, but the lack of any kinds of these classes except one every six months seems a little extreme for anyone "walking the line", especially since there are thief-only things for barter in the Tree.

Rangers should "walk the line" in Battleragers because they can study spells, but you still see a lot of them. I've even seen rangers/druids in Trib (though about as often as thieves/assassins in Outlander).

Sorry, this subject always gets me a little worked up since I think from an RP perspective, its ridiculous that the Imms are so against it. If anything says "brigand" or "trickster", its a law-breaking, stealing thief. And yes, I know and remember the arguments the imms gave against this, but there are not a lot of thieves as it is.

Rangers should "walk the line" in Battleragers because they can study spells, but you still see a lot of them.

Well, yes, but they lose their spells as well as any device (staves/scrolls) abilities they had. Hide is a civilized-oriented skill, so thieves and assassins give it up.

As Amaranthe mentioned in the farewell thread, it's fully intentional that thieves and assassins are somewhat rare in Outlander, as they always have been.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Not that I disagree with limiting them in outlanders, but I can't really agree with the reasoning. Hide might be civilized oriented for a city thief, but I could make an argument for any of them just being a highwayman, which I would hardly consider civilized as applies to the definition in use by outlanders now. On the other hand, I could easily make an argument for any class except ranger or druids, maybe healers and druids too, being somewhat civilized-orientated in some skills. You don't learn advanced swordplay from the guy hiding out behind a tree. The shared ones I'd say are even worse. Haggling? Definitely civilized. Pen? Hell yeah. Even bartering in itself is, it was just a precursor to monetary systems. Hell, outlander itself seems to have at least some civilization however it's glossed over. It is a group, not an animal pack whatever the RP put to it by some, with actual leadership rather than an alpha leader. They have advanced learning. A specific base of operations even. Now they might be naturalists, I could buy that. That doesn't have anything to do with civilization though, only certain trapping associated with it, not dependant upon it. I think outlander works better when you think in broad strokes rather than looking too closely at specifics, like a skill being too civilized. Again, not that I disagree with limiting hide, I think that might be a slight balancing issue. It's just the reason presented I don't find all that kosher. Better to say they spend so much time learning to cover themselves with leaves they don't have the focus for shadows anymore. Or the ancients just downright don't approve of hiding behind a building or signpost. Anywho.

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens." - Jimi Hendrix

Not having Hide, was really irrelevant to me, after
getting camo. I did perfectly fine, had times to
work on stalk, snuck up just fine, and very easily
could get away and dissappear. Being ranger food
was a risk, however with 1rd blindness skills, and
the ability to vanish, it was really just a mute point.

I really just felt like a ranger without creep.


It's AFTER outlander, not having hide OR camo, is what sucks.
I could have played it out, but I mobbed 4 times, and just
really felt my characters time was up after that.


In the end overall, I think hide and camo would be way out
of balance.

The reason, as I know it, why thieves/assassins lose hide when they join the Outlanders is because hide is inherently a civilized skill. If you play a thief you would notice that thieves can mostly only hide in civilized areas. Not places that are considered wilderness. Civilized = cities. Outlanders are against cities. This is why they gain camouflage instead.

This is different from rangers and druids since even though they lose confidence in certain skills (such as camo) when they spend more time in city areas they may not necessarily be against civilization and cities like the Outlanders. This is why rangers can join the Tribunal if they're lawful. Being a ranger could just mean you're familiar with how to get by in the wild. Doesn't mean you have to be an ecologist or tree-hugger.

Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong with any of this.

Edited: Changed it so it reads that 'they may not necessarily be against civilization' instead of 'they are not against civilization'.

>>because hide is inherently a civilized skill.<<

Mostly true. Thieves can hide on plains and sometimes in other places. Some creatures in the game hide in their natural environment rather than camo. This could just be older area code, but it rings true that if there are shadows somewhere, something can hide. Less effective than camo, yes, but it suits a thief or assassin. Especially since assassins can hide in a lot of places thieves can't in the wilds.

Maybe the real solution to this would be to take away chameleon altogether from assassins/thieves and give them the kind of hide assassins can use.