Results 91 to 120 of 1492
-
2012-08-17, 11:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Ah, but you're only looking at one side of the issue. The more you broaden what a class can do, the more you water down what classes mean as a whole. If you took a wizard to be anyone that can cast arcane spells, then you would remove sorcerers, warlocks, and any other kind of arcane caster from the game entirely. On the other hand, if you define the rogue more, then you allow for more classes to be made that would otherwise be redundant with the rogue. As those classes become more and more well-defined, you become more and more able to give those classes unique, interesting abilities that only make sense with the reduced scope of that class.
I don't mean to say that we need to be extremely strict with how classes are defined. Using your example, you say you would be annoyed if wizards were set to all come from a wizard's college. Learning spells through long hours of study and application of logic and rigor naturally fits a background of going to a wizarding school, but it doesn't lock you into it. You could just as easily have a wizard that found some ancient tome, and spent hours learning spells from it instead of learning from a teacher. Or you could have one who discovered magic independently, or maybe you learned your craft directly from a master, or any other of many different possibilities.
However, as different as these background sound, they all agree that the Wizard picked up certain skills while he was studying. They agree that he has a spellbook, that he learns magic from study, that he can cast rituals, and so on. I would say that the Thieves' Cant falls into this category as well.5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-08-17, 11:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Minnesnowta
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
- I have no problem with Thieves' Cant if there are other classes which can be used to represent my characters.
- I don't believe that WotC is planning to create other classes; I believe they intend for the Rogue class to be used for every "Sneaky" character.
- I am highly limited in what kind of characters I can play if every single one of them is required to have a thorough knowledge of the criminal underworld.
- I don't think that Thieves' Cant should be a required ability for every "Sneaky" character because it acts as a limiter for what I'm allowed to play.
I hope this makes my concerns clear. In theory, I have no issue with the ability. However, in reality, I have an issue with Thieves' Cant. I'll repeat my questions; why are you confidant they WotC will change their design policy and release a large number of base classes, instead of relying on customizable backgrounds and a limited number of base classes? If WotC does not plan on releasing classes like the "Assassin", "Trapsmith", "Spy", etc, do you agree that Thieves' Cant should be a background?
EDIT - A third question;
Why do you think that the things which make individuals distinct from each other should be different base classes, instead of different backgrounds? (which is what I'm advocating for, on the basis that it fits the current design)Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-17 at 11:35 PM.
There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...
-
2012-08-17, 11:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Except that I can learn how to pick pockets, cut purses, pick locks, and burgle houses, all without ever communicating with another thief. It should be a background, not an inherent part of the class.
Jude P.
-
2012-08-17, 11:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
-
2012-08-17, 11:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Enterprise, Alabama
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
-
2012-08-17, 11:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Er, I don't think they will change their design philosophy, I think they will continue making lots of classes as they have since 3rd edition. If anything, were they to focus on a small number of classes that cover a lot of areas, that would be the change. Even looking at sneaky characters, there's also the Ranger, the Assassin, the Bard, the Ninja, the Scout, the Shadowcaster, and the Lurk.
And even if you don't want to fit into one of those classes, you can choose another class, and find a background, choose feats, and pick skills to improve your sneakiness. I think the problem here is more that you're tied to the "Rogue = Sneaky" and inversely, "Sneaky = Rogue", when neither has to necessarily be the case.
Trapsmith and Spy are skills, not classes. If WotC really did plan to not release Assassins, Rangers, and so on, and instead to lump all of those archetypes into the Rogue, then yes I would expect them to remove Thieves' Cant, at least from the base class. However, I would say that the fact that Thieves' Cant is in there at all is proof that they do want to make classes more narrow, as they have in the past, which leads me to believe that the other classes will be put in. We've already seen this with the Wizard, who instead of being made broad, was made narrow, and now we have the Warlock and the Sorcerer to fill those other niches.
Why do you think that backgrounds should be the only way to make individuals distinct?
Edit:
You can get spells from feats. Only minor so far, but we might be getting higher level spellcasting at higher level feats.Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-08-17 at 11:58 PM.
5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-08-18, 12:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Minnesnowta
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I would say the existence of Thieves' Cant either indicates that WotC intends to create a massive number of highly specialized classes, or that they made a design mistake. From what I have read, the developers do not intend to release a massive number of highly specialized classes. No other classes in the material we have seen have been highly specialized with regard to character background - there are mechanical specializations, as you have noted, but there is nothing that forces a Fighter to be a soldier. There is something that forces the Rogue to be a very specific type of criminal.
Spoiler""The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that were in the first PH style book for each edition." Specifically mentioned by WotC staff so far are: fighter, cleric, wizard, warlock, sorcerer, bard, paladin, psion, barbarian, monk, druid, warlord, assassin, rogue.", source
The Rogue in 3.5 was much broader in what characters it could represent, because it wasn't mechanically tied to a stereotype, the way the D&D Next Rogue is with Thieves' Cant. This significantly broader class existed alongside other similarly broad classes. The only base class that had a constraint on character background was the Druid (with Druidic as a specific language known to every Druid), which isn't well thought out either.
I think that backgrounds should be used to represent a character's background. In this case, my character's background is determined by the class I've selected, rather than the background I'd like to select. Why do you think that a class should determine a very significant part of a character's history, rather than allowing a player to choose their own background?
We're actually in agreement for the most part. We both agree that Thieves' Cant is acceptable if there are enough classes around that many characters are feasible. I simply don't believe that WotC will release enough classes to accomplish this (as it seems they're generally relying on backgrounds for this sort of thing in D&D Next), while you do. I believe that placing Thieves' Cant into a "Criminal" background that anyone can select, regardless of class (surely there are criminals out there in other classes who can read a gang sign) is a more appropriate fit with the design philosophy of D&D Next.Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-18 at 12:37 AM.
There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...
-
2012-08-18, 12:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
So, in 3e, if I wanted to play a samurai, I must, must use Complete Warrior's Samurai or perhaps Oriental Adventure's? I couldn't play a Warblade or Swordsage and just call myself a "samurai". I couldn't be a monk/paladin multiclass and call myself a "samurai"? (Miko sounds like a nice name. )
-
2012-08-18, 12:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
That's not what I'm saying whatsoever. Samurai is a perfectly meaningless title. It's basically just Japanese for "Knight". There are certainly differences between the fighting styles of Japan and Europe, but they're not significant enough to justify different classes. It seems like exactly the kind of thing that might turn up as a sub-class of a fighter, just like a Blademaster or such might.
Beyond that, I think the biggest disconnect we're having here is how much Thieves' Cant defines your character. Nowhere in the description of Thieves' Cant does it say you're actually a thief, only that you picked up their language. You could easily be a freedom-fighter who uses dirty tactics and Thieves' Cant to communicate with other rebels. Or you could be a spy who learned Thieves' Cant so that he can easily contact informants or thieves when the need arises (and it often will!). Or maybe your character is part of some other sect of cunning, sneaky-types who use a secret language to communicate.
My question is, how is Thieves' Cant more restrictive than a wizard's spellbook and method of preparation? Or a warlocks pacts? Or a sorcerer's bloodline? Or a Fighter's combat training? Or a Cleric's domain?5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-08-18, 01:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
No, no, that doesn't prove anything. The English language doesn't work like that. The only thing stated or implied there is that it may be possible to gain spellcasting from another source. Nothing more, nothing less. Considering we know two ways(feats and race) to gain spellcasting already, that's not much. It doesn't imply multiclassing, and it certainly doesn't imply 3e style multiclassing. And considering the base +2 weapon attack bonus, and slow progression, we have a definite implication we will NOT have 3e style multiclassing.
They(PrCs) really are not their own classes, as you can't make a character who just has a PrC, you must have at least one base class, and no I don't think the shift in progression is silly.
Here's the problem with PrC's, you have no idea how they will interact with the rest of the game content. You don't know how their abilities will interact with the rest of the classes in the game, past and future, and you certainly don't know how quickly they can gain the prerequisites. If you have an alternate class feature, you can know that a character who has ability a, is say a level 8 rogue. For a PrC you have no idea what the player did before the PrC, and thus you can't balance the PrC's abilities."Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."
-Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion
-
2012-08-18, 03:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Utah
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
You can call me Draz.
Trophies:
Spoiler
Also of note:
- Winning Entry of Gestalt Build Challenge IV
- 3rd Place in Iron Chef XI (Blade Bravo)
- Judge of Iron Chef XXIII (Divine Champion)
I have a number of ongoing projects that I manically jump between to spend my free time ... so don't be surprised when I post a lot about something for a few days, then burn out and abandon it.
... yes, I need to be tested for ADHD.
-
2012-08-18, 06:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I think Thieves' Cant is in there on purpose as a test. Like when everyone wondered where the Cleric's Turn Undead was, they want to see what playtesters consider necessary to D&D, even if it isn't used much in actual play.
That said, I don't like it. A class should be what your character does, not what they are. If you make a bodyguard/enforcer for the criminal underground Fighter may be a class that's the best fit for your idea, but they would be much more likely to know the Cant than a Gentleman Thief who took to it as an escape from the ennui of High Society.Now with half the calories!
-
2012-08-18, 08:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I just want to point out that "Arcane caster" is a concept MUCH broader in scope and potential mechanical implications than "Rogue". If anything, they needed to limit Wizard fluff further, and leave the rogue's fluff open.
There's only so many things you can give to a mundane rogue without making people scratch their heads and 'wtf' at you. Trying to make for example, a Swashbuckler, or a Scout, ends up making some very diluted classes that would have been better off just being a part of the Rogue in the first place. I mean this is the whole reason we got the name "Rogue" instead of "Thief", so you could play a larger range of concepts with the same class.
On the other extreme, the Wizard, whose main defining feature is "Arcane spellcaster who studies anything and everything" gets to do anything and everything that the developers think of, because arcane magic can do anything and everything. His spells known let him do more different things than any other class, and as more material gets released, that will only get worse.
If the Wizard was going to be the Generalist who knows everything, he should be closer to the Warlock, getting to learn every ritual spell out there, but non-rituals he gets restricted to lower level spells. Other classes would cover the specialist roles for specific types of magic (for example a Shapeshifter/Transmuter, and Abjurer, a Blaster, etc), which aren't nearly as flexible/studious/whatever, but are each much better at their chosen school of magic.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2012-08-18, 08:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Minnesnowta
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
In order for you to have a character with Thieves' Cant which makes sense, these things need to be true;
- You've grown up in a literate, relatively civilized society.
- Within this society, there is a significantly large criminal underworld, which all criminals are intimately familiar with.
- Your character has to have been intimately familiar with the slang of this criminal underworld.
- It is impossible for any other class to reach your level of familiarity with the slang of this criminal underworld.
Now here are the restrictions that the mechanics of a Fighter puts on me;
- You are skilled with weapons.
These are not comparable restrictions. A Fighter puts almost no restrictions on my character; a Rogue puts many, many restrictions on my character.Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-18 at 09:01 AM.
There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...
-
2012-08-18, 10:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Enterprise, Alabama
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
-
2012-08-18, 11:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Va
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I'm not necessarily a fan of Thieve's Cant, but I can't understand why everyone is this upset over it. Thieve's Cant is as easy as anything else to refluff, in some way, you are familiar with slang and doublespeak. It's still relatively wide open. Now, I'd be fine if they slipped it into the thief background, in fact, that might still be a better option(or make it a language anyone can learn), but I don't think they need to.
-
2012-08-18, 11:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Location
- NY, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Because, as I understand it, it's a language with both a written and oral components. An Orc tribe living on the caldera of some volcano might not even use pictograms, but somehow their Rogues can read and decode hidden messages in Thieve's Cant.
Still, it's a somewhat weak objection; unless you're a 3.5 Barbarian, everyone in D&D is assumed to be literate.
My main objection is that it makes perfect sense... for the Thief class. Rogue is intentionally vague; unlike how Magic User became the much more specific Wizard, Thief was made to be more widely applicable on purpose editions ago. There really doesn't seem to be a good reason to backslide now.
-
2012-08-18, 11:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Who ever said you had to grow up in this society? It does necessitate that one had to exist, but nothing about you growing up there.
You don't need a large criminal underworld to have Thieves' Cant. What you need, is a large number of criminals, who have reason to want to talk to each other without anyone else noticing. I find it had to believe that there are that many settings that wouldn't fit this requirement.
Yes, which could happen in any number of ways. A gentlemanly thief doesn't just jump out of bed one day and steal the crown jewels. He needs to spend a long time learning how to open locks, sneak around, disarm traps, bluff guards, and fight dirty. Where do you think he learned all of this, a book?
This I don't think should be true. It should be possible for other characters to learn Thieves' Cant just like any other language, but we don't have all of the rules for that. It would also make sense to spread out the Thieves' Cant a bit more.
I don't have any problem with giving the thieves' cant to a background, I simply don't see why it can't be on the rogue, as well.
This is actually another problem that I hadn't brought up yet. The fighter has even worse issues with this than the rogue. I'd actually far prefer to see the fighter be narrowed in scope a lot, because currently, the fighter seems to make just about every other martial character obsolete. If it were up to me, a fighter would be required to have learned a "school" of combat. Where and how he learned that school would still be up for debate, but it would make the fighter more of the wizard of martial classes. They learn by study and rigorous practice.
This would make other classes, like the Barbarian and the Monk much more able to grab a part of the martial pie, as it were, instead of forcing them to become another kind of spellcaster, as they were in 4E.5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-08-18, 11:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Honestly, I'd much rather have just a few classes: Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, and Fighter, or whatever and have each class be flexible enough to become each type of the subtypes. Actually they already seem to be moving to this method which will be odd when they start bringing in classes like the Paladin (which already seems pretty well covered by the Cleric War archetype)
Now if Combat Superiority becomes as fantastic a combat resource as the devs seem to want to make it (based on them talking it up rather than it's actual usefulness), then it makes far more sense to me to use that whole specialization/background mechanic to create the barbarian/monk classes than to try and strike gold again and again.
'Cause really, to me a Barbarian is really defined as prioritizing damage and having a rage mechanic. Damaging CS do this already, and Rage can be a quick add to a background ability. And a monk uses their fists and has some sort of mass of attacks ability. Well, again mass of attacks can be done by CS and Unarmed Combatant ability can allow their fists to act like finesse weapons.
Now as to Thieves Cant, I don't really hate it. But it does make far more sense as a Background ability maybe for Professional Criminal background or something.Last edited by Dienekes; 2012-08-18 at 11:58 AM.
-
2012-08-18, 11:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
-
2012-08-18, 12:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Minnesnowta
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
You need to have a large number of criminals who have organized to the extent that they have developed their own sekret speshial language which no one else can ever crack. And who have inducted every Rogue, in every city, of every age, by teaching them this sekret speshial language. Incidentally, this also ensures that classes are in-game constructs (There's a clear, in-game distinction between a Rogue and a Fighter with the Thug background who's had a criminal history). I can't actually think of any published setting where there's a magical cabal of criminals that all speak the same code across every city, in every country, with no other person breaking the code. It's comical how silly that idea is, but that's what Thieves' Cant, by RAW, currently is.
"Among thieves, there is a secret language, a way of communicating between members of the criminal underworld that rogues know and use. Creatures hearing you converse in Thieves’ Cant might think you say one thing when you are actually saying something else entirely.
Benefit:You have learned the secret language of thieves."
Name me a setting that actually has a "secret language of thieves"? Because off the top of my head, established settings like FR, Eberron, Golarion, Dark Sun, etc. don't have a secret language of thieves.
Yes, which could happen in any number of ways. A gentlemanly thief doesn't just jump out of bed one day and steal the crown jewels. He needs to spend a long time learning how to open locks, sneak around, disarm traps, bluff guards, and fight dirty. Where do you think he learned all of this, a book?
I don't have any problem with giving the thieves' cant to a background, I simply don't see why it can't be on the rogue, as well.
TLDR;
Unless the designers are intentionally restricting the range of characters that can be expressed by the Rogue (to characters who are intimately familiar with criminals, in settings where thieves have a secret language), Thieves' Cant should only be part of a background that is available for any class (because every class could have a criminal background).Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-18 at 12:53 PM.
There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...
-
2012-08-18, 12:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I'm starting my own play-by-post for the 5th edition playtest, here on the forum. I'm going to be experimenting with making my own adventure, since I know Reclaiming Blingdenstone is already being done, unless there's some reason that I missed for not being allowed to do that.
Dubhshlaine, Elf Mage, in Eberron D&D 4e
DM for Feiticeiro's Ergodic Dungeon (Always Open!), In-Game
-
2012-08-18, 01:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Technically, FR, Mystara, and the various other 1e had/have a secret language of thieves, since it was around for that edition and every thief spoke Thieves' Cant...but then, in 1e every lawful good character spoke Lawful Good, too. I don't see why the devs want to go back to that sort of thing, particularly now that backgrounds are explicitly separate from class and secret languages are a perfect example of what should be background instead of class.
-
2012-08-18, 01:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Minnesnowta
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...
-
2012-08-18, 01:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Location
- Brazil
- Gender
-
2012-08-18, 01:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Location
- Minnesnowta
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
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.Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-18 at 01:56 PM.
There is the moral of all human tales;
'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
And History, with all her volumes vast,
Hath but one page...
-
2012-08-18, 01:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
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.
-
2012-08-18, 02:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
It's a comparatively minor problem, sure. It's also downright trivial to fix, as all that takes is removing Thieves Cant, sticking it on a background somewhere, and calling it a day. That immediately broadens what the rogue class can represent, and it provides options for everyone else to get Thieves' Cant - say you have a thug who works for someone in the criminal underworld, as muscle. This is someone who fits in the Fighter class, but really has no excuse not to know Thieves' Cant.
I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2012-08-18, 02:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Location
- Brazil
- Gender
-
2012-08-18, 02:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Location
- NY, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Not really; the 3.5 PHB didn't really give much at all in the way of fluff, and didn't tie you to a criminal background.
My PDF software is being funky today, but once I can open it up I'll edit a quote from it in here.
Because there isn't a logical way to explain why all Rogues know the same language which no-one else can learn. Even with Druidic you can hand-wave it as part of how they commune with nature, that anyone who knows it is so deep in their philosophy to be a Druid themselves.
But what kind of universal connection is there between stealthy people who kill people with precision attacks? Obviously not crime, that makes no sense for a huge portion of the characters who have those abilities. The skills are commonplace, and simple enough to be re-discovered several times, so it likely isn't some secret rogue dojo somewhere. They aren't magic, so there's no room for that kind of a hand-wave.