Neonchameleon said:
Much as I'd absolutely love to agree with you, combat is too central to D&D (and from the playtests takes too long) for this to work.
Remathilis said:
I want to agree, but combat's too vital to D&D to have a class sit there twiddling its thumbs.
Don't get me wrong. The rogue shouldn't be twiddling its thumbs. It can run in and stab and contribute just fine (yaay, bounded accuracy! yaaay, fast combat!).
But while the Fighter has a million and one ways to put a pointy object through the orc, the Rogue does not, really. They've got a few. A handful. Backstabs. Sneak attacks. A quick tumble. Whatever.
But where the rogue shines -- where it has all the options -- is when the combat is over, and there's a dark tunnel up ahead, and the party needs to know what lays down it, without going down it themselves.
Combat being "too central" may have been true in 4e, but it need not be true in 5e. In fact, if 5e comes out and it's all like "We HAD to design the rogue to be an awesome combatant because combat is TOO IMPORTANT for anyone to just be AVERAGE!", I know it won't work for me. Combat isn't that important for me. Combat shouldn't take up that much time, or be that much of a focus, or distort the game by that much, that you can't have a character who isn't some sort of awesome gut-stabbing ninja contribute a little bit and then get on with some other part of the game where they are awesome. Combat
should not be that central. It wasn't for me before 4e, and it doesn't need to be in 5e, and if it IS, that's a PROBLEM.
If we return with open eyes to a more 3-pillar-style system, then we can also return to those early days of 1e dungeon crawls, where you sent the thief up ahead to scout,
because the thief was the best scout. Because you don't WANT to get into the fight up ahead necessarily. Because there might be something up ahead you actually need to fear, that actually might be able to kill you, that might actually obliterate your entire party. A legit threat in the darkness ahead means you don't just want to tromp down the dungeon corridors behind the guy with the biggest shield. With a thief in your party, you can avoid combats, disarm traps, find the MacGuffin, and get out of the dungeon before anyone knows you're there.
Y'know the options that the Fighter has in combat in 5e? Parries, dodges, shield bashes, whatever. That's the quantity of options a Rogue should have when exploring. Stealth. Bluff. Disarm. Unlock. Climb. Even if you're not using the "skills module," the Rogue has these abilities.
If you want to play an awesome agile fighter, 5e should let you
play that as a Fighter. If your character is defined by combat, 5e should point out in big bright lights that
you should play the class that is the best at combat. You shouldn't need to make the rogue into a ginsu ninja. They should be awesome at AVOIDING fights, not necessarily awesome at kicking butt when they get in one.
Again, rogues should be able to contribute in combat. They don't need to be dead weights. They also don't need to be awesome Jackie Chan Bullet Time Kidney Slicers, though. They need to be awesome when exploring first and foremost.