Originally Posted by kyoryu
Seriously, if the biggest problem we have with 5e is that it says that all Thieves get Theives' Cant, we'll be in pretty good shape.
Originally Posted by Menteith
Yup. Refer back to my post which directly quoted that. By "Sneaky" character, I was referring to the broad range of characters that the 3.5 Rogue could cover, which the D&D Next Rogue could also cover without Thieves' Cant artificially limiting what characters the class can support. From what I understand of AgentPaper's argument, they would prefer a system with far more classes, with each class corresponding to a specific type of character, which does not seem to be the intent in D&D Next. My claim is true in context of the discussion.
I do not believe that base classes like "Swashbuckler", "Trapsmith", "Thief", "Pirate", "Detective", "Saboteur", and so on will be put into the game to cover these types of characters. I believe that WotC is going to use the "Rogue" base class to cover all of these characters. Thieves' Cant does not belong on all of these characters. Which is what I specified earlier in the thread.
For many of those concepts, you have to ignore/refluff the 3.5 Rogue class.
Why can't you refluff Thieves' Chant, then?