Whats the deal with rogues anyway?

[ProfessorCirno]

ExpIf all I could do in an adventure was "find the traps and secret doors" life would get boring pretty quickly. D&D is primarily a combat game and I think all classes should be able to contribute.

I think this is where the big disconnect is - D&D hasn't always been primarily a combat game.

Also, I don't think "Class-less" games are so easy to define. Shadowrun doesn't have classes, but the archtypes are almost just as - if not more - rigid then any D&D class is.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. My intent was not to consider classless options (GURPS does great for that) but to consider how many core classes I wanted to feature.

My design goals are for a class based game that stays fairly simple (like old D&D) while alllowing for choice within class for character creation (like 3rd/4th Ed.) without getting so minute and fiddly that it becomes a pain in butt to create NPC's that use the same rules as PC's. I want to avoid long lists of feats,abilities, and skills that need to be carefully picked over individually and slow down character creation but at the same time provide meaningful and different options for two characters of the same basic class.

Thats a tall order.

I want to avoid the concept of prestige classes or a long list of base classes while still providing a good variety of choices. I think for now I will stick with the original 3. The finesse guy can be a choice for the fighter class and the non-combat skill sets can be learned by anyone.

Thanks again to everyone for your opinions.

 

[Umbran]

If it were just the name thats one thing, but there are actual mechanical differences that separate the classes at the roots.( I'm not being edition specific per se.)

Yes, and... what would you say if you saw all those things in one class?

I'm going to guess: "It is overpowered."

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes, and... what would you say if you saw all those things in one class?

I'm going to guess: "It is overpowered."

In one character maybe, not in one class. In terms of subclass-like ability sets, if a 1E fighter had all the regular fighter stuff, plus the abilities of the ranger and paladin then it might be considered overpowered. Since fighter, ranger, and paladin were all different, and separate paths to to take under the heading of "Fighter" it wasn't overpowered. My plan is to do something similar with the melee rogue concept and bring it under the blanket of the fighter class.

 

[Mouseferatu]

In terms of subclass-like ability sets, if a 1E fighter had all the regular fighter stuff, plus the abilities of the ranger and paladin then it might be considered overpowered. Since fighter, ranger, and paladin were all different, and separate paths to to take under the heading of "Fighter" it wasn't overpowered.

But you're talking cosmetics and semantics. Paladin may have been organized under fighter, but it was actually an entirely separate class, not just a choice that fighters made. It had different charts, different advancement, different abilities, different requirements... Calling it a "sub-class of fighter" was purely an organization element, and certainly doesn't in any way actually reduce the number of classes in the game.

 

[Hussar]

I think this is where the big disconnect is - D&D hasn't always been primarily a combat game.

/snip

I know I'm going to regret this.

When was D&D not primarily a combat game?

 

[Remathilis]

In one character maybe, not in one class. In terms of subclass-like ability sets, if a 1E fighter had all the regular fighter stuff, plus the abilities of the ranger and paladin then it might be considered overpowered. Since fighter, ranger, and paladin were all different, and separate paths to to take under the heading of "Fighter" it wasn't overpowered. My plan is to do something similar with the melee rogue concept and bring it under the blanket of the fighter class.

Couldn't you really make the same argument about wizards and clerics though, they are both primary spellcasters with just different focuses. Heck, the cleric doesn't even need his heavy-armor and d8 HD baggage anymore since most of his spells can hold ground in combat anyway. And wizards could certainly use a minor boost in AC and HD...

Why not combine them into two classes: warrior and spellcaster and let "sub-classes" handles the differences in knights, barbarians, paladins, monks and rogues or clerics, druids, necromancers, beguilers, warmages, (etc)?

 

[Hammerhead]

I always thought that both fighters and rogues should have Knowledge[Anatomy] as a class kill, and that critical and sneak attack damage should be based on the minimum of Knowledge[Anatomy] and Weapon Skill.

Really? Hurting your enemies is based on anatomy? Because it sure would be interesting to compare the anatomic knowledge of Olympic fencers, UFC champions, and Delta Force/S.A.S. commandos to those of a first year med student.

 

[Lanefan]

Problem the first: calling them Rogues instead of Thieves (or Assassins); thus implying there was supposed to be more to them than sneak-scout-infiltrate-spy-steal-backstab.

Problem the second: trying to make them able to do something *every round* in combat. Thieves work best when they get their backstrike in round 1, then spend the next few rounds blending back into the scenery before taking their next devastating attack in about round 4. Failing that, they spend the first few rounds sneaking around the main combat to get at the enemy spellcaster and glue her up...

Problem the third (for those who disagree with problem the second): immunities to criticals and sneak attacks. OK, an undead has no functioning internal organs, but it can still have a specific point that holds it together e.g. a skeleton's spine; and that's what a critical (by luck) or a sneak attack (by skill) connects with.

Problem the fourth: giving them "sneak attack" when they're standing there in plain sight, just because someone else is there too (flanking). Does nasty things to my sense of realism...

Not sure how any of this is solveable. I like Thief in principle as a class, though I've had awful luck playing them; the obvious solution of "dismantle the class and make the skills available to others piecemeal" just doesn't fly with me.

What might make them more playable (in any edition) would be to ban some spells that intrude too far into their niche. Knock, I'm looking at you.

Also, keep in mind that in pre-3E days Thieves bumped way faster than other classes; this alone served to balance them surprisingly well as they'd often end up a level or two higher than the rest once things got going; with correspondingly a few more dice worth of h.p., better saves, better attack matrix, etc.

Lanefan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I know I'm going to regret this.

When was D&D not primarily a combat game?

When your DM didn't run it like it was primarily a combat game.

Its rare, I know, but it happens. And if well done, it happens to be FUN!