Whatever Happened to Thieves’ Cant?

[Palanan]

Thieves’ Cant was part of the game from the late 70s, and I remember it as an essential aspect of being a rogue in Second Edition.

It’s apparently been revived in 5E, but it seems to be completely absent from 3.X, and exists only as third-party material in Pathfinder. Anyone know why this is the case?

[InvisibleBison]

It's been folded into the Bluff skill, which I think makes a lot more sense than having it as a rogue class feature. Not all rogues are thieves, and not all thieves are rogues.

[SimonMoon6]

Might as well ask what happened to "alignment languages" (which never made sense to me) or the super-secret Druid language.

[Kurald Galain]

the super-secret Druid language.

The super-secret Druid language is still there. I'm not sure if it's specified what happens if you retrain your class though.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by InvisibleBison
It's been folded into the Bluff skill, which I think makes a lot more sense than having it as a rogue class feature. Not all rogues are thieves, and not all thieves are rogues.

It doesn't really do it justice, though, since it's really a language in its own right, and you don't need to be a criminal to speak it.


Originally Posted by SimonMoon6
Might as well ask what happened to…the super-secret Druid language.

Druidic as a secret language is going strong in 3.5 and Pathfinder, and looks like it’s in 5E as well, so not sure where this is coming from.

[Eldan]

Druidic might just be one of those magical languages that you can only speak if you are in the right club, like the alignment languages in OD&D. Change your alignment, you can no longer speak or understand it.

[Metastachydium]

It doesn't really do it justice, though, since it's really a language in its own right, and you don't need to be a criminal to speak it.

But why on earth would every rogue ever speak it? I've seen it argued that it would work quite well in 5e as a background (rather than class) feature, and I tend to agree, but I fail to see how it being a major part of playing a rogue would make sense.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Metastachydium
But why on earth would every rogue ever speak it?

At least in 3.5, rogues by definition include tricksters, spies, thieves and scam artists, often at the fringes of society and frowned on by civilized folk, which is exactly the sort of people who would speak a thieves’ cant.

The name itself isn’t quite fair, since not everyone who spoke it was a thief; it was the language of wanderers and vagabonds of the road, and different regions had different versions. Since rogues aren’t likely to be living a settled family life, and are much more likely to be mobile, it makes sense they would know the language of the road.

[Berenger]

If there is a "thieves cant" sociolect in your setting, I'd recommend to treat it like any regular language and make it accessible by putting a skill point in Speak Language. This option should be restricted to characters with a fitting background (just like any other skill and language, imho).

[Tzardok]

Druidic might just be one of those magical languages that you can only speak if you are in the right club, like the alignment languages in OD&D. Change your alignment, you can no longer speak or understand it.

As druids can "fall" for the crime of teaching non-druids Druidic, I think that is unlikely.

[Metastachydium]

At least in 3.5, rogues by definition include tricksters, spies, thieves and scam artists, often at the fringes of society and frowned on by civilized folk, which is exactly the sort of people who would speak a thieves’ cant.

I used not to like rogues much. But then, I realized there's not much about the class itself that doesn't appeal to me. They get tons of fun stuff. What I had issues with were the stereotypes associated with rogues: the whole "they are greedy, backstabbing never-do-wells" thing. It is easy to build a respectable locksmith with a surprisingly good reaction time who branched out into producing and maintaining other security systems (such as traps) using the rogue chassis (I've actually kind of wanted to do just that someday for some time now). It would make eleven kinds of sense.
Long story short, I feel like making Thieves' Cant "an essential aspect of being a rogue" kind of reduces a fun class to an archetype (or a close-knit group thereof) which strikes me as a trite and restrictive approach to it.


The name itself isn’t quite fair, since not everyone who spoke it was a thief; it was the language of wanderers and vagabonds of the road, and different regions had different versions. Since rogues aren’t likely to be living a settled family life, and are much more likely to be mobile, it makes sense they would know the language of the road.

Well, technically PCs are not supposed to live a settled family life and tend to be quite mobile regardless of class.
Incidentally, if I were to make Thieves' Cant a class feature, I'd probably tack it on urban druids rather than rogues.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Berenger
If there is a "thieves cant" sociolect in your setting, I'd recommend to treat it like any regular language and make it accessible by putting a skill point in Speak Language. This option should be restricted to characters with a fitting background (just like any other skill and language, imho).

This is the approach I’d use for Pathfinder, in terms of treating it like another language. But I could see a case for almost any PC being able to learn the language—a druid who relies on vagabond camps for news of the wider world, or a cleric who tends to the needy outside the walls of a city, or a paladin who’s learned the language of the road in his travels.


Originally Posted by Metastachydium
It is easy to build a respectable locksmith with a surprisingly good reaction time who branched out into producing and maintaining other security systems (such as traps) using the rogue chassis (I've actually kind of wanted to do just that someday for some time now).

I’d say that’s a very cool character concept, and even allows for a settled family life.

But there’s no reason offhand why that character couldn’t also maintain connections with light-fingered vagabonds, especially if he knows one or two who have gone semi-legit and help him test his systems. I don’t see that knowing their language takes away anything from the character; to me it adds a little more depth.

[InvisibleBison]

I’d say that’s a very cool character concept, and even allows for a settled family life.

But there’s no reason offhand why that character couldn’t also maintain connections with light-fingered vagabonds, especially if he knows one or two who have gone semi-legit and help him test his systems. I don’t see that knowing their language takes away anything from the character; to me it adds a little more depth.

There's no reason why the character couldn't have contact with criminals, but there's also no reason why they must do so. Having thieves' cant be an optional element that anyone can take means that you won't ever have a character who should have it but doesn't or who shouldn't have it but does; making it only obtainable by taking a level in rogue creates both of those problems.

[Fizban]

Thieves' Cant is a super-special secret club language. Where do those come from? Organizations. In 3.x, base classes are supposed to be base classes. No prerequisites, no built-in ties to organizations, lots of paragraphs describing how many different character "concepts" could all use the same class and how anyone could just teach themselves or gain power without even caring about deities. Organizations come from PrCs or other organization mechanics. So "theives' cant", and "druidic," are completely inappropriate as class features. If they're languages, they should be languages. And if you shouldn't be able to learn them without an appropriate and willing teacher hey, guess what? That's how all languages work. Of course, if the DM can't be bothered to enforce the most basic of common sense like gravity exists and you can't learn a language from nothing. . .

[Malphegor]

Isn’t this what the 3.0 skill ‘Innuendo’ was for? Which I think got folded into bluff, as the general ‘lie and obfuscate through words’ skill

[Kitsuneymg]

Isn’t using linguistics to communicate the gist of what you want to say the 3.5/of thieves cant?

[Elves]

Ruts groit dem gib mum. Oyt oyt? Slempmy mummers kemp me knifewise. Quizkill.

[Maat Mons]

On the topic of non-criminal Rogues, I think the class is actually a good choice for NPC guards. It has Gather Information, Intimidate, Knowledge (local), Listen, Search, Sense Motive, and Spot all as class skills, plus enough skill points to max all of them out even on an 8-Int non-human.

On such characters, I think it would make most thematic sense to exchange Sneak Attack for Fighter feats. The Militia feat can get you proficiency with all Martial weapons. I wouldn't bother with medium and heavy armor proficiency. You're not going to catch fleeing criminals if your speed is reduced. Actually, maybe skip Militia and take Fleet of Foot as your regional feat.

[Fizban]

I was just about to say that Sneak Attack itself is perfect for guards. They need some sort of edge to have a chance of dealing with elites or stuff with a couple extra HD, and the extra d6 from a flank or just having enough guards that one of them wins initiative is just the thing. If you want a light armored (and thus presumably lightly armed) "beat cop" sort of guard, SA is great.

Aside from PC classes not being generated with percentages so the Rogue-classed cop is actually the elite detective.

[Jervis]

The super-secret Druid language is still there. I'm not sure if it's specified what happens if you retrain your class though.

Strict Raw you keep it, ive used that trick in builds to qualify for Focklucan Lyrist before


It doesn't really do it justice, though, since it's really a language in its own right, and you don't need to be a criminal to speak it.



Druidic as a secret language is going strong in 3.5 and Pathfinder, and looks like it’s in 5E as well, so not sure where this is coming from.

Thieves Cant is just street talk, stuff like calling Diamonds Ice or the Mafia Don Grandpa.

[Telonius]

Bad branding, IMO. Too negative. Should have been "Thieves Can!"

[sreservoir]

The super-secret Druid language is still there. I'm not sure if it's specified what happens if you retrain your class though.

Class levels are a rebuild option, not a retrain option.

[Bohandas]

Bad branding, IMO. Too negative. Should have been "Thieves Can!"

like that webcomic

https://www.yesthievescan.com/

[DigoDragon]

Bad branding, IMO. Too negative. Should have been "Thieves Can!"

To paraphrase JoCat, "Thieves Can't what?"
XD

I think the language is something just too rarely used; GMs gloss over it by just telling the rogue PC what they hear on a gather info check rather than try and RP it out and making up codes.

[Duelpersonality]

There's a really good depiction of a "thieves' cant" in Blade of Tyshalle by Matthew Stover that follows the "it's part of Bluff" model. Maybe even Slight of Hand.

Essentially people speak normally, but use subtle hand and facial gestures to indicate which words are meant to be heard by the recipient. It allows two characters to have a conversation while being observed by guards who remain convinced they're arguing with each other. It's really well done, and I think makes for a more convincing secret communication method.

[RexDart]

In my current campaign, we have a Dwarf Rogue who's the servant of a poncy aristocratic Elf Wizard. Basically a Jeeves and Bertie Wooster situation. The wizard is basically incompetent and ignorant of everything outside the academic and arcane realms (e.g. buying things - "How much could a banana cost? 20 gold pieces?")

The Rogue is perfectly respectable, but also a "fixer" who can navigate the less-respectable parts of the world, and a bodyguard of sorts.

[Particle_Man]

IIRC one of the features of the 1st ed AD&D Assassin class was that they could, at high level, learn alignment languages not their own (handy, since they assassins were evil), thieves' cant, and even druidic. This has not carried over into 3rd edition, since only druidic remains as a language. Although assassins have bluff and sense motive, at least.

[RNightstalker]

Strict Raw you keep it, ive used that trick in builds to qualify for Focklucan Lyrist before

I ask out of curiosity, how?

[Bohandas]

Speaking of sociolects, is it still a thing that everyone in Sigil talks like cockney victorian street urchins, or was that permanently gotten rid of after 2e?

[Tzardok]

3.x doesn't spend anymore than a paragraph or two on Sigil in the Manual of the Planes. Not enough space to go into any slangs. The "officially endorsed" Planescape fan website Planewalker of course kept the Cant and expanded it whenever it could.

[Eldan]

Speaking of sociolects, is it still a thing that everyone in Sigil talks like cockney victorian street urchins, or was that permanently gotten rid of after 2e?

It was mostly just never mentioned, since there's no resources on Sigil more than a paragraph long. Rarely a page.