Rogue Design goals . L&L May 7th

[TarionzCousin]

I wouldn't mind/would enjoy it if they called the class the "Thief," not "Rogue." Maybe Rogue is more accurate, since the character doesn't just steal things, but I like the old-school vibe of "Thief."

Also, half the gamers on the planet can't spell Rogue correctly to save their lives.

 

[Cadfan]

Given all the talk about pillars and adventure-based design and all that, I don't know why you think this is unlikely. Indeed, I think this IS the reason rogues don't need to excel as much as fighters at combat: combat isn't what the game is basically about.

I guess we'll see.

There are structural reasons why combat takes up so much time. Its often intricate in a way that non combat events are not. It requires multiple die rolls per player, multiple decisions per player, and significant feedback between players and DM, as well as between individual players.

If you design a game where the Fighter's shtick is "being the best at the thing that takes up 60% of game time," then you've designed a bad game.

On the other hand, if you design a game where combat takes up no more game time than any other aspect of the game at which a character might specialize, well, THAT will be the true difference between 5e and every other edition. I wonder how that will be received.

 

[Henry]

Also, half the gamers on the planet can't spell Rogue correctly to save their lives.

I saw equal numbers of terrible spellers in AD&D write down "Theif" as their character class.

It's kind of sad, really -- I never saw a "Fiter", or a "Wizzard", or even a "Clerk" on a character sheet, but those poor skill-stealy-type guys just never could catch a break.

 

[Andor]

I don't like the emphasis on sneaky backstabbing at all...

I want rogues to head more towards flashy combat acrobat / "ninja as portrayed in media and anime." Fast moving, skirmishing, and able to effortlessless maneuver past the front lines to get to softer or more important targets.

*Sigh*

Nyet, nein, non, fuggedaboditt.

The rogue is Bilbo Baggins, he is Jimmy the Hand, he is Gord the (wait for it) rogue.

The whirling bass-o-matic is the Assassin. Or, as the say in Japan, the ninja.

We don't need Ray Park portraying Bilbo in the Hobbit, we don't need the rogue class to do the ninjas job. That's why we have a ninja/assassin class.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

That said, you ARE wrong; C is equally in effect (check page 19 of your DMG).

Only partially, only oozes, et al are immune, giants are fair game.

You are assuming a LOT of rolls going in the Thieves favor. Your example assumes a max roll on your foe's surprise (while you min roll yourself) and hitting with 10 attacks(!) via a corner case in the initiative/segment rules in 1e which doesn't appear in Basic, B/X, or 2nd Edition.

Yes, I was. But he's likely to hit on most of those attacks with the +4 from behind. Note that the shield and any dex bonus is also negated. I was also assuming maximum damage, which ain't gonna happen. I wanted to show how MUCH damage a thief good theoretically dish out. But it is NOT a corner case. The surprise rules are standard. It's not abusing any rule. Unless there is some obvious sign - loud noise, or huge open area, etc, surprise is rolled before EVERY combat.

I can build a stunlock wizard in 4e that breaks the save system. I can make a rogue in 3e that can deal 50+ d6s. I saw a psychic warrior who can did 260 damage with a heavy pick on crit. These are abominations to the system the same as your 10 attack thief was. Munckinism didn't begin in 2000...

Can you? Using core rules? The surprise rules are not an abomination. It is not some weird interpretation of the rules. It is the way surprise was meant to be played out.

I hate to keep bringing this up, but it seems there are a ton of people who can abuse the ruleset to create effects that I'm sure wasn't intended and never appeared before or after it again. Then again, and initiative system that needs its own supplemental book to explain is probably rife for abuse.

Are you seriously saying that the surprise rules in the combat chapter were never intended on use? And the initiative system, though a bit clunky in corner cases, works fine. Roll d6. Winning party goes first. Casters in melee add casting time. Pretty doggone simple.

 

[Libramarian]

I wouldn't mind/would enjoy it if they called the class the "Thief," not "Rogue." Maybe Rogue is more accurate, since the character doesn't just steal things, but I like the old-school vibe of "Thief."

Also, half the gamers on the planet can't spell Rogue correctly to save their lives.

Me too.

Thief is a fine name for a class with thieving skills, who may be using them for purposes other than thievery.

Rogue, with its connotations of unreliability and nonconformity, I think is actually potentially less accurate.

The most accurate name for a class that makes up for physical weakness with cunning and deception would be Trickster, which I actually kind of like and find no less flavorful than Rogue.

(I think the old-school flavor of Thief comes from how it's concrete enough to possibly refer to an in-world occupation -- but then it's true that that's really not what classes are in D&D.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

On the other hand, if you design a game where combat takes up no more game time than any other aspect of the game at which a character might specialize, well, THAT will be the true difference between 5e and every other edition. I wonder how that will be received.

From a game design perspective, there's nothing special about combat. It doesn't need to be as detailed or involved as it has become since 3e. It can be a simple d20 roll if you want to make it that simple.

And historically, D&D has not necessarily put as much weight on combat as it has recently. OD&D didn't even HAVE many combat rules officially: "Use Chainmail if you want, but otherwise, don't." The monsters weren't always there to fight, they were just as often there as traps or as interesting NPC's (see: the 1e Mimic for a perfect example of both in one).

And then you also have 4e, which is widely considered to be the edition most hostile to doing anything other than combat, and is often criticized for that, even by fans.

So, I think a game where combat, at its base level, is no more complex than a skill check, is something that is very within the scope of D&D, and should certainly be on 5e's radar.

So I have a lot of optimism for the idea that 5e won't be "a combat game with some other bits," myself. As you say, we shall see, and it's possible my optimism is misplaced, but I think there's a lot of positive signs on this road.

 

[fuindordm]

Nyet, nein, non, fuggedaboditt.

The rogue is Bilbo Baggins, he is Jimmy the Hand, he is Gord the (wait for it) rogue.

Another fine example is Rubel from the Thieves and Kings series.

The whirling bass-o-matic is the Assassin. Or, as the say in Japan, the ninja.

We don't need Ray Park portraying Bilbo in the Hobbit, we don't need the rogue class to do the ninjas job. That's why we have a ninja/assassin class.

Also James Bond and Emma Peel.

I totally agree with your sentiment. The game has room for a luck- furled, jack-of-all-trades trickster thief, and the sneaky and deadly assassin, they support different play styles.

 

[Mengu]

There are many good systems that let you build exactly the character you want. D&D has never been that game and the more WoTC has tried to make it massively customizable over the years the more they have fractured the community.

And the community won't be fractured by a rigid system that says this is the only way to play D&D? It would probably retain the old school, but the new school would just walk away. It seems to me the more customizable it is, the more it has a chance to unite people. Building exactly the character I want, is something D&D needs to be able to do. If customization is what's fracturing the community, we are doomed to be fractured.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I hope some kind of "wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... INSTA-KILL DEATH STAB!!" play is possible and fun. Stealth rules, as far as I know, have always sucked in tabletop games, so it'll be interesting to see if they can make that as fun and suspenseful as it is in video games.

Oh yeah. If I could play a rogue like the Tenchu video game I would be all over that.