Whats the deal with rogues anyway?

[RefinedBean]

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

Covered.

All this talk makes me wish that the next edition of D&D is, at the very least, classless. I doubt that will ever happen, though.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Covered.

All this talk makes me wish that the next edition of D&D is, at the very least, classless. I doubt that will ever happen, though.

While maybe not entirely classless I wouldn't be surprised if we saw what makes up a class get divided up into multiple different aspects we pick from at character creation. Sorta a "make-your-own" class concept.

 

[Mouseferatu]

All this talk makes me wish that the next edition of D&D is, at the very least, classless. I doubt that will ever happen, though.

See, to me, classes are part of what makes D&D D&D. I'd hate for it to go classless.

 

[tomBitonti]

So ... what are the primary tropes, anyways?

Heavy armor dude [Fighter]
Weapon master dude [Fighter]
Light skirmisher dude [?? Fighter, Scout, Rogue]
Sneaky stabby dude [Rogue]
Elite archer [?? Fighter, Ranger]
Sneaky shooty dude [Rogue]

And what are their primary skills:

* Having the strength and training to fight in heavy armor
* Having a depth of training and skill in their weapon
* Being light on their feet and quick
* Knowing how to hide and use misdirection to conceal their action
* Having a depth of training and skill in their weapon
* Knowing how to hide and use misdirection to conceal their action

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.

IMO, what distinguishes fighters from rogues is that fighters are skilled at finding that vital spot while engaging an active, possibly armored opponent, while a rogue is skilled at finding that vital spot in a distracted or unaware opponent, whilst distracting or hiding from that opponent.

 

[Vurt]

Unearthed Arcana (3.5) p.58 has a variant fighter that basically trades the fighter feat progression for sneak attack. A few lines below it is a variant rogue that trades its sneak attack for bonus feats as a fighter. There's your rough class equivalency right there.

 

[RefinedBean]

While maybe not entirely classless I wouldn't be surprised if we saw what makes up a class get divided up into multiple different aspects we pick from at character creation. Sorta a "make-your-own" class concept.

See, to me, classes are part of what makes D&D D&D. I'd hate for it to go classless.

Classes are just tropes with names, though! They're an artificial limit on the imagination!

Although I will say that I do enjoy re-fluffing classes from the ground up. My 4th Ed Hexblade (Beastmaster Ranger whose beast acts as the Dark Companion) would certainly agree.

I could get behind something like Seraph mentioned. For younger and inexperienced players, simply present some "builds" that help you figure out how to make a good Fighter, Rogue, etc. For everyone else, mix and match as you see fit, and call it what you will.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think too you don't need concrete classes to gain the benefits of a class system. The biggest in my eyes being some measure of balance, ease of setting up encounters, and such. Just easier to compare math.

I think what could be done is have character creation be:

-Race
-Power Source
-Concept Features (like Class Features)
-Combat Style
-Utility Style
-Skills
-Powers
-Feats

The most important aspect would be that the Power Source dictates what Powers you can pick. Then Combat Style and Utility Style would dictate what Powers are choosable within that Power Style. It would give balance but also freedom.

You could "multi-class" To gain Powers from other Styles.

 

[Voadam]

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.

or 3) use something like the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana

Pick your class abilities, pick your skills, pick your good and bad saves. Only BAB, number of good saves, HD, number of skill points, and spell ability is determined by class.

 

[Ourph]

or 3) use something like the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana

Pick your class abilities, pick your skills, pick your good and bad saves. Only BAB, number of good saves, HD, number of skill points, and spell ability is determined by class.

As demonstrated by the underlined above, the generic classes option doesn't fix this...

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.

So, while it's a good way to make a class system look more like a points-based system, it doesn't get you all the way there.

 

[Spatula]

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.

Until such activities are overshadowed by magic, sure.

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?

The archetype of a quick, agile, deadly, stabbity-stabber is hardly unique to D&D. The D&Dism is conflating that kind of combatant with the non-combat role of scouting, traps, and pick pocketing.

In 3e I kindof agree with you. In 4e, sneak attack only works with small bladed weapons and some projectiles, and IMO it makes somewhat more sense as precision damage that the fighter's weapons are ill-suited for.