Whats the deal with rogues anyway?

[ExploderWizard]

In the end, I can't imagine that there are any systems out there that perfectly model reality. There comes a point for us all where we accept that the game is "good enough" and suspend our disbelief.

YMMV.

Its true that D&D isn't a good choice to model reality. It CAN model a fantasy world with internal consistency. The point of " good enough" is different for everyone.

 

[Spatula]

I don't recall magic being such a replacement for thieves prior to the 3E era of dime store magic.

8 hour invisibility. 2nd level spell. It's true that wands of knock and the like generally weren't that common, pre-3e, but the thief-as-scout is pretty much dead as soon as the mage has a few 2nd level spell slots.

 

[Remathilis]

Magic. The bane of all thief skills. I am designing magic with eye toward keeping thief skills useful from the beginning. There will be no cheap/easy magic item production/creation. I don't recall magic being such a replacement for thieves prior to the 3E era of dime store magic.

Here was my experience in 2e, in a party full of mages (a thief, a mage/cleric, a mage, another mage, a fighter-dual-classed-mage, and a fighter).

The Mages:
Hmmm... I'm 15th level now. What do I fill my 5 second level spell slots with? Acid Arrow? Nah, damage is minor compared to disintegrate or even lightning bolt. How bout Levitate? Ah, I have fly which lasts longer and moves better. What about Summon Swarm? No, Summon Monster III is much more potent. I know, Knock never gets old, esp when our thief rolls his 96%+. Invisibility if my hp goes low, Detect Invisibility if we get caught by invisible stalkers again, Alter Self, always classy, and, uh, what the heck, another Knock. Remy's dice have been trying to kill him as of late...

Part of that scenario was the inordinate amount of wizards in a high-level party, but I did start to see that as 2nd level spells (which is bereft of high-damage magic anyway) became less important, they began to fill with these utility magic effects like knock or invisibility. (FWIW: 1st level became Magic Missile x5 after 11th level).

what did 3e do to exasperate it? It put 15th level down 7th level due to cheap wands and scrolls.

 

[ExploderWizard]

8 hour invisibility. 2nd level spell. It's true that wands of knock and the like generally weren't that common, pre-3e, but the thief-as-scout is pretty much dead as soon as the mage has a few 2nd level spell slots.

Sure the wizard could fill up slots with this. It still doesn't help with silent movement (the other part of stealth) and if the wizard attacks or casts a spell (such as scying magic at a door) the effect ends. Add to that the fact that invisibility was not the " you can't even begin to target me" magic that it became in 3E then it doesn't seem so impressive.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I know these were completely separate classes in every way. My point was that they do not actually have to be that way. Turning these types of class abilities into paths for each of the three classes actually will reduce the number of classes which is one of my goals.

To what end?

I'm serious. You're not reducing the amount of word count--it's going to take just as much space to explain the options whether they're a separate class or not.

You're not reducing the number of actual character types. A sub-fighter with the "paladin path" is still different than a sub-fighter with the "ranger path."

You're not reducing the complexity of the rules--people still need to learn their "path" of being a fighter, whether it's paladin, ranger, or what have you. In fact, one could argue that you're adding complexity in terms of common usage, since now players have to find various material under subcategories of other material, rather than just looking for the name of their "class."

I'm not being facetious here. I honestly don't see you accomplishing anything other than being able to say "There aren't as many names of classes in my game." It's all still purely semantic. Now, if that's really your goal, more power to you, but I can't imagine why it matters that much when there are no functional changes to go along with it.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

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?

In 2nd and 3rd edition, the idea was to balance the Rogue against the other classes by giving the character a great many things that it would be able to do outside of combat. However, given the amount of combat in a typical D&D game, and how prominently combat is featured within typical games, this approach was eventually seen by many as impractical.

Balancing a lack of combat ability against a surplus of out of combat abilties works well in theory. In practice, it only works if the amount of opportunities for non combat abilities to prove critical to the success of an adventure is equal to the number of opportunities where combat abilities are important. Further more, a combat encounter can take up to an hour or more of real time to run. A Move Silently / Hide check takes about 30 seconds. And then of course there is the practical consequences of spells like Invisibility, Silence, and Knock. If the rogue sucked in combat and was trivially replaceable outside of it by easy to obtain magic items, potions, scrolls, and spells, why have the class for any reason other than flavor?

3rd edition addressed this by given the Rogue's Sneak attack more opportunities to be used (any time someone is flanked), and made sure it scaled up with level. 4th Edition attempts handle this by keeping all classes equally viable in combat and by balancing non combat ability separately from combat capability.

Your experiences in game with the Rogue / Theif classes may differ, but given how often combat ability mattered in my game compared to non combat skills, I think Sneak Attack mechanics are a good thing. I am satisfied with the Rogue as implemented in 3rd and 4th edition (a good selection of skills and the means to inflict high damage when working alongside other players).

END COMMUNICATION

 

[ExploderWizard]

To what end?

I thought I had mentioned the bit about multiclassing. As intended, the selection of a fighter path determines the direction of a character's martial career. Multiclassing would mean entering a magical based career. There wouldn't be a case of taking a few levels of several fighting classes to load up on different specialty skills as there would be only one fighting class. This will help keep niche abilities special and different kinds of characters from the same class from becoming clones.

 

[AllisterH]

8 hour invisibility. 2nd level spell. It's true that wands of knock and the like generally weren't that common, pre-3e, but the thief-as-scout is pretty much dead as soon as the mage has a few 2nd level spell slots.

But that's the main sticking point. In 1e/2e, it wasn't until you REALLY got high level (7th level spells and above) that you could afford as a wizard to use 2nd level slots for knock.

Of course, given the fact that 2nd level spells generally sucked ass in terms of damage it was a no-brainer. That said, the 1st level and 3rd level slots were filled with damage spells and not non-combat spells IME.

Now though? By 6th level, a fully charged wand of knock is actually affordable especially if the party pools its resources.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Your experiences in game with the Rogue / Theif classes may differ, but given how often combat ability mattered in my game compared to non combat skills, I think Sneak Attack mechanics are a good thing. I am satisfied with the Rogue as implemented in 3rd and 4th edition (a good selection of skills and the means to inflict high damage when working alongside other players).

END COMMUNICATION

Thus the problem and the reason for my inquiry. In order to remain a "class" that is equal to fighters and casters in combat the "sneaky guy" had to become this kind of super ninja fighter. The puzzle to solve is how to maintain a rogue class that can contribute in combat without effectively becoming a kind of fighter anyway.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I thought I had mentioned the bit about multiclassing. As intended, the selection of a fighter path determines the direction of a character's martial career. Multiclassing would mean entering a magical based career. There wouldn't be a case of taking a few levels of several fighting classes to load up on different specialty skills as there would be only one fighting class. This will help keep niche abilities special and different kinds of characters from the same class from becoming clones.

It sounds to me like you could just categorize classes according to 4E power sources (martial, arcane, divine) and then just implement a house rule saying that you can't multiclass with classes belonging to a power source you already possess.

Just a thought.