Whats the deal with rogues anyway?

[Ydars]

Exploder: I assume you don't actually PLAY many Rogues from your comments (at least in 3.5)?

If 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.

A Rogue player has to be extremely skilled to get the most out of his combat abilities, and they are quite hard to set up. Also the Raw damage a Rogue is capable of means nothing: what is important is how long you can stand toe to toe with a monster, and the answer is NOT LONG. You simply can't slug it out like a fighter can so you have to deal massive damage and you have to get out quick (in 3.5).

I haven't yet had the chance to play 4E but I agree that there the balance seems to have shifted to the point that I agree with you that Rogues seem a little over-powered.

I also hate the Rogue build in 3.5 that snipes from hiding all the time.

 

[Hussar]

Forked from: What do you do without balance?



I didn't want to derail the general balance thread and it seemed to taking a roguish turn so I forked it here.

I don't care much for the whole rogue archetype in its recent
incarnations at all.
I like the concept of a stealthy scout type of character who is good
at "thief" type technical skills. I think that such characters can be
valuable to a party.

With you so far.

What I don't like is the concept of a melee combatant
that thats constantly fighting "concealed" without the aid
of magic or that appears to be trained to inflict greater
damage with weaponry than the martially specialized fighter.

Here you lost me a bit. For one, who fights "concealed"? How often have you ever had a rogue try a hide check in combat before he gets Hide in Plain Sight?

Also, the rogue does not inflict greater damage particularly. A fighter and a rogue are roughly doing the same amount of damage per round. Sure, the rogue spikes, but the fighter hits far more often. Over a longer term, the total damage is likely pretty close.

Why does the fighter have to be the clumsy thug
while the rogue gets to be the shrewd combatant that
actually knows how to employ weapons to thier best effect?
There are of course game balance issues but are any
of them useful for anything other than justifying the
existence of this archetype?

How do you get this interpretation? The fighter is going to hit far more often, gets more attacks per round earlier than the rogue, is likely doing comparable damage per round and often is doing far more damage than the rogue when you add in all those juicy fighter feats.

I understand the concept of a suprise backstab being a special
skill, but the constant round to round benefits from weapon use
due to advantageous position seem like something any
experienced, intelligent warrior should know.

Thoughts, opinions?

There really isn't that big of a difference in my mind. The fighter is hitting more often, and with things like weapon specs, generally higher strength, better weapons, power attack and various other feats, is likely doing pretty close, if not more damage per round than the rogue.

In other words, the rogue is getting spike damage, and the fighter is getting a flat curve. Against high AC opponents, the rogue is pooched, he can't hit, while the fighter is likely doing ok.

I think the interpretations you are creating here are not really accurate to how these classes actually play. The fighter is hardly the "thug" you paint him to be. (unless of course, he actually is ) Nor is the rogue/thief doing such massive damage that he is leaving the fighter in the dust.

I know right now in my campaign, watching the fighter and comparing him to the Scout in the party, the scout isn't even close. In the last combat in today's session, the rogue did 0 damage over 5 rounds while the fighter was regularly doing more than 20 points every round (6th level party against AC 24 opponents). Iterative attacks make a HUGE difference.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The hit point differences and weapon differences can be explained by the method that the Rogue uses to train as a warrior. Whether we each agree with the choices the designers made is another matter. There hasn't been an edition of D&D yet where I've seen every player agree with every rule.

The decreased competence is a thing of the past. It was a way to balance the increased skill points (x2 to x4 that of most other base classes) or thieving abilities they received. This was part of the problem I had in the past where out-of-combat abilities were trying to be balanced against combat ability.

The new Rogue is much more capable as a martial character. And from in-play experience I do not find the class over-powered.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Exploder: I assume you don't actually PLAY many Rogues from your comments (at least in 3.5)?

If 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.

A Rogue player has to be extremely skilled to get the most out of his combat abilities, and they are quite hard to set up. Also the Raw damage a Rogue is capable of means nothing: what is important is how long you can stand toe to toe with a monster, and the answer is NOT LONG. You simply can't slug it out like a fighter can so you have to deal massive damage and you have to get out quick (in 3.5).

I haven't yet had the chance to play 4E but I agree that there the balance seems to have shifted to the point that I agree with you that Rogues seem a little over-powered.

I also hate the Rogue build in 3.5 that snipes from hiding all the time.

Actually I played a lot a rogues a lot during 3E (and earlier) games.
With regard to staying power this is one of the irritating things about the rogue. I dislike the concept of melee glass cannons in general. I believe that characters who are melee based should be able to both give and take decent damage at that range. The old thief class fit the concept well. The thief could get a lucky trick shot in if circumstances permitted but was not much of a combatant overall, and fit the get in, deal massive damage, get out role perfectly.

I know that having a core class that isn't super combat competent is crazy talk in this era but if we go back far enough to when there were only 3 classes and anyone could try using the non-combat thief skills then there wasn't a core class that was useless in combat.

 

[Ydars]

Exploder: I never played a Thief, except back in BECMI so I don't remember them that well. In AD&D, what was a Thief's hit-dice? In Basic, it was a d4 I think, and therefore it was even more of a glass cannon than in 3.5. This is probably why I never rarely them, but I did not always like playing combat munchkins back then: my favourite class was Wizard or Elf (in BECMI), but I hear what you are saying about "modern trends".

I also take your point about glass cannons, but I just have always loved skills based characters and the Rogue and Bard are where its at, at least in 3.5. I suppose they offer me more of a challenge than the fighter/barb because they take a little more thought and tactics to play well.

As I explained in the other thread, with the right magic items, the 3.5E Rogue was LETHAL to the squishy back-rank type wizard/sorceror/controller type monster if played well, though it was a dangerous role and you had to have an exit strategy. In high magic games, mine was benign transposition with the fighter/cleric/barb, or else there was always tumble.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Forked from: What do you do without balance?



I didn't want to derail the general balance thread and it seemed to taking a roguish turn so I forked it here.

I don't care much for the whole rogue archetype in its recent
incarnations at all.
I like the concept of a stealthy scout type of character who is good
at "thief" type technical skills. I think that such characters can be
valuable to a party.

What I don't like is the concept of a melee combatant
that thats constantly fighting "concealed" without the aid
of magic or that appears to be trained to inflict greater
damage with weaponry than the martially specialized fighter.

Why does the fighter have to be the clumsy thug
while the rogue gets to be the shrewd combatant that
actually knows how to employ weapons to thier best effect?
There are of course game balance issues but are any
of them useful for anything other than justifying the
existence of this archetype?

I understand the concept of a suprise backstab being a special
skill, but the constant round to round benefits from weapon use
due to advantageous position seem like something any
experienced, intelligent warrior should know.

Thoughts, opinions?

A sneaky guy implies light armor (because heavy armor causes noises, and makes you less mobile and agile). THis means his fighting style will also rely on fighting in light armor and with smaller weapons (that he can conceal).

Now, you can just stop there, and have a Rogue that deals little damage and is easy to injure (even if a little harder to hit, depending on how you model armor vs agility - in D&D, it's basically the same.)

But you can also go further and say that he still needs the same "fighting power" than a character that focuses on heavy armor and big, heavy weapons.

THe ways to achieve this is:
- Make good reflexes/agility similar effective to avoid injuries as heavy armor.
- Make concealed weapon use similar effective for inflicting injuries as heavy weapons.

In the simplest model, you end up with two variants for a melee guy - the lightly armored guy with sneak attack/backstab, and the heavy armor guy with large weapons.

You can do it a little more "complicated" - you can set certain strength or weaknesses to each.
- The heavy armor guy is slower, but he can take much more punishment (either by avoiding injuries/hits or negating them).
- The light armor guy is faster, but he can't take as much punishment (he's easier to hit or damage hurts him more), but he can deal more damage than the heavy armor guy, if he uses his speed and agility.

The question that might remain is - why can't I combine both for best effect - optimum armor, heavy weapon, massive damage? What's inhibiting the heavy armor guy from using the tricks of the light armor guy.

Well, the above already answers this questions - the light armor guy has more agility than the heavy armor guy. He can move faster and outmaneuver his foe. Since he's using a smaller weapon, he also can conceal his movements easier and execute them a lot faster.

Another question might be - how easy would it be to "switch" your style?
Well, 3E and 4E D&D say it's pretty hard. But of course you could make this a general feature of your "fighting class".
- Small Weapon, Light Armor: You can inflict sneak attack damage.
- Large weapon, Heavy Armor: You can take more damage and gain the ability to mark your foe.

Or, more in 3E terms:
FighterRedux:
While wearing Light Armor or while on Medium Load or less, you gain Sneak Attack +1d6/2 levels with light weapons only.
While wearing medium or heavy armor, you gain 2 extra hit points per level and a +1 bonus to hit every 4 levels.
And as a general "career" choice you can pick:
2+INT skill points per level and Fighter skill list, plus bonus feats every 2 levels, proficiency with all armor, shield and simple and martial weapons
8+INT skill points per level and Rogue skill list, plus light armor proficiency and rogue weapon proficiency.
Or something like that...

Why _not_ do this: The character class is harder to balance, and it's harder to play. You are not always that "tough guy" or that "mobile guy", and you have to change your play style for the character a lot - and the more optional character building options exist (feats), the more likely it is you still lock yourself into one of the two modes (unless every feat, power, maneuver, spell or whatever your system offers has a heavy/light feature).

 

[ExploderWizard]

*whole post*

Thanks for all the detail It was never my intention for this to become a "rogues are OP" rant but rather a "why have 2 classes when one with options will serve" rant.

EDIT: I can't give MR any xp, someone help please?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

EDIT: I can't give MR any xp, someone help please?

I can't, otherwise I would. He must just be too wise for his own good.

 

[Ourph]

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.)

Hit point differences: In addition to wearing lighter armor the rogue has fewer hit points and less general competence (BAB) with weapons.

Artificial weapon restrictions: limited in which weapons can be used against a disadvantaged enemy purely to limit damage output vs. the fighter.

This is the limitation of class-based systems. As soon as you start taking PC characteristics and grouping them into packages, you're going to run into situations where a certain packet of features comes saddled with one or more features that don't fit what you're looking for. The two solutions are 1) come up with a class for each concept that repackages abilities in exactly the way you want; or 2) use a classless, point-buy system where all of the abilities and features come ala carte. 3e is less restrictive than many other systems because a good chunk of each character is "buy system" based (skills, feats, freely multiclassed levels, prestige classes, etc.), but it's still more limited than a completely point-based system that doesn't use classes at all.

 

[WalterKovacs]

In 2nd edition I had a fighter/thief.
In 3rd edition (3.5 to be precise) I had a swashbuckler/rogue multiclassed with a feat that allowed me to count swashbuckler levels towards sneak attack progression. [There is a feat that does similar stuff for a fighter/rogue I believe, don't remember the exact details.]
Presumably you can do the same thing in Pathfinder, it is reverse compatible.

In 4th edition, you can multiclass into rogue and get a limited ammount of sneak attack. Or you can start as a rogue, and multiclass into fighter (they even have a paragon path that works as a rogue/fighter or fighter/rogue, the rakish swashbuckler).

The Rogue in 3rd sacrifices hit points, starting proficiencies, BAB, fort defense, and needs to wear light armor to use some of their class abilities. The fighter gets the best BAB progression, nearly the best HP progression, and is proficient with anythng but exotic armor/weapons. And they get feats at every other level, similar to a rogue's progression (with an extra at level 1). The feats a fighter aquire can increase his damage output comparable to the sneak attack of a rogue, without the restrictions on rogues also applying. Also, their itterative attacks allows them to dish out more damage.

If a rogue is going to have a class feature like sneak attack as it's main means of balancing it in combat, giving a chunk of monsters Character Resistance: Rogue is just silly.

In 3rd/3.5/Pathfinder there is multiclassing. If you want access to class features you can take them. In that edition more so than the others, classes aren't really that defining, considering you can mix and match to create the kind of character you want to be.

However "fighter" is pretty vague as a term ... so is rogue. Most of the class names are more defined by D&D than the "real" term defining them. Wizards, witches, sorcerors, warlocks, etc ... are all pretty much just different terms for similar things. Certain books or fantasy settings differentiate them, and D&D does so as well (for convenience).

In 4th edition ... a fighter as defined in 3rd (which is pretty open ended ... the feat trees can allow you to create a lot of different types of fighter). The ranger in 4e could easily have been a fighter in 3rd. Heck, the fighter with the tons of feats could be a better two weapon fighter or archer than the ranger could be.