Yeah, but you get a fair share of ppl with good builds that doesn’t do their job.
Peltasta who doesn’t taunt or tank? 
clerics who don’t heal? Archers who can’t kite? Linkers who doesn’t link?
Makes you sad.
Meanwhile we get OP QSs happily kiting siau bosses alone while the rest focus on the other o.o
[quote=“d_nlo, post:29, topic:243241, full:true”]
How is this any way related to a frigging Barbarian? A Knight, a pirate?
[/quote]they all stems from a boy’s dream swinging swords around 
Urg trigged.
Had a group with 3 swordsman 1 ele and me all 3 swordies had peltast 1. They all refused to taunt. 
Meanwhile swordsman are wondering why no one wants them.
On that note what is up with the archers that stand at melee range to shoot arrows?
What kind of class suggestions totally fitting into lore and story line we will see next, I wonder?
Pokemon trainers, demons, moomins, mothers, road workers, troubadours, talking animals, steam punk robots or politicians?
I’d personally want to play as a stone. I’d be just laying there on the road unable to move but do my job as a great part of pavement and nice little extra texture on some map. I’m looking forward on your assistance on tossing me onto new locations every once in a while when this great suggestion of mine will finally be accepted. With little help from friendly parties, I would even have the dedication to become the highest level stone out there on my server 
for one it is never to late games add classes all the time but that would would take a little longer seeing how it is an entire branch but its not impossible. that is a basic class that should have been in this game from the start i was just arguing this to someone els like 5 minutes ago lol but i agree classes like shinobi corsair and rogue should have been under that branch but that ship has sailed but there still are other classes they could put under the thief branch.
I think the point we tried to bring across in the middle got over people’s head.
What use is a new class branch if people sucks at even playing their current classes… Might as well make them not want to play instead of wasting that 1 valuable party slot.
O goodie your in the right thread now.
So lets go over this.
Shinobi in swordsman. A ninja class that uses swords and martial training. Seems appropriate for swordsman all its classes are weapon based, many which use swords. also lucha dor is planned for swordsman, a fighting class, so obviously martial types of combat will be acceptable under swordsman.
gypsy and vagabond are not even classes they are life styles of nomadic people, meaning it could fit literally every base class we have… if they were classes.
dancer and bard - Professions know for dexterity ang agility, sounds right at home in archer to me. That aside there are some music/dancing focuses in some religions, could be approached as clerics but i would find that less likely.
shadow dancer - im not sure what this is but if you view it as a dancer archer if you view it as shadow magic / teleportation, then its mages.
pirate tho that is corsair - Yes corsair exists and its a sword fighting class swordsman is fine. The argument of corsair reduces the need for thief even further as it has stealing abilities meaning there is not really room to give it to yet another class as the theme has been used, what use would 2 steals be?
More reason for them to be an Archer Class
to me i see no reason to specifically use classes that are “spiritually based” on real people this is a video game where you can create anything. shinobi is in fact a ninja which would follow the thief class base completely so would shadow dancer it could be like a prerequisite class to follow up on shinobi there is no reason that thieves should not be allowed to have trickster magic like illusion ans picking locks, i mean look at rogue it can turn invisible last i check even wizards cant do that and its magic. so magic in the thief branch is completely viable so in turn so is shadow dancer. as for gypsy’s and vagabonds they can easily be classes as a gypsy could be a traveling dancer or a class you take after dancer if you will kinda like what they did witch chaplain and priest. vagabond could easily be the 2nd rank of thief for obvious reasons. bards maybe be professions but they can easily be classes though technically wouldn’t have to be under thief branch could be under cleric, as they could buff allies and debuff enemies boost health sp stamina prevent status affects etc.
The issue is not if it would be viable under thief, the issue is they are viable under other classes as well, meaning thief has no need to exist.
you can argue all day there is plenty of reasons for thief to exist if not for the simple fact for those who want to play one and not have to use a stupid bow. just use two daggers. but have good one i am over this debate.
The game is based around 4 archetypes, it is hard(or impossible) to think of any class going out of the 4.
So, no. It doesn’t need.
So now you want them to redesign weapon systems so this class can be made to full fill a purpose that does not exist.
Every argument you make is making thief less viable 
If we wanted another class thrown in, would make more sense to consider a baseline fact with a baseline demand. First off, a lot of players diversify so that you find an assortment of all class variants. Secondly, half of the base classes target DPS, and the two non-DPS base classes easily can go DPS. With that in mind, it would make sense that, if there was a new class, that instead we had more variants of healing and tanking instead.
Maybe like a spell-sword tank, that does basic melee damage based on INT, but has an entire rank lineup focused on “ways to tank”, and absolutely no access to two-handed weapons. Take that, then add a new way to heal, something pure about healing and not a “Red Mage” like we’ve got right now for Cleric… maybe even not a holy-healer either, but instead one that builds its concept of healing around more traditional elements, such as Water healing (Ice), Nature healing (Earth), Chemical restoratives (Poison), or High-Tech (Lightning), which they have while wielding a weapon with no capacity of physical damage (And possibly instead have a lot of supportive skills, because at this point, if you exclude their ability to heal, MAGES have more support options than Clerics. Buffs and Healing in one please.)
This is probably a lot more meaningful than even more physical melee dps options.
ToS Thief class when?
What we have so far:
Swordsman: Melee Phys DD
Archer: Ranged Phys DD
Cleric: Utility / Support
Mage: Ranged Magic DD / Support
And what would a Thief class be?
Melee Phys DD? - We have that already.
Ranged Phys DD? - We have that already.
The only result in implementing such a class would be less options to combine classes and make builds.
Think about archetypes then you understand why the class system is in this way. Also, everyone can be a “thief” in the true meaning of the world but, the class are based on historical professions. So, just a raw “thief” has nothing to add historicaly since everyone sneaky enough can kill and rob.
And the issue with those is that they could just all go under existing base classes anyway, so the same problem arises.
lol it does not. hush i’m over you. obviously thieves would have their own weapon system it would make no sense to make a thief class and give them bows. can mages use bows? no it would not be that hard to implement all they would have to change is allowing thieves to equipped daggers as a main had weapon since every class can already equipped a dagger as a sub weapon boohoo. tata darling take care
I want a merchant class so I can set up a shop.