Whats the deal with rogues anyway?

[Lanefan]

This was changed in 1E to attacks only.

tangent

Nitpick: the 1e write-up specifically refers to "any form of attack", which by default includes casting an offensive spell. At least, that's how we always interpreted it.

/tangent

Lan-"can you see me yet?"-efan

 

[I'm A Banana]

IMO, the 4e rogue buts up against 4e's intense combat focus in a pretty awful way.

The reason for the thief archetype to exist is not a combat reason. It's the Bilbo Baggins type, the guy who knows a lot, who can get you into anywhere, who has shady connections -- in earlier editions, it was more of an explorer than a fighter, and the game was balanced kind of around general exploration rather than explicit combat.

In 4e, the rogue NEEDS to be balanced for combat, and, basically, nothing else matters. They've lost their unique powers that made them special, the thing that they brought to the table that no other class did, and they fare worse for the conversion than wizards and clerics because wizards and clerics have "magic" (and 4e rituals) to fall back on, but rogues do not.

This is part of why you get the trickster rogue and the athletic rogue, but not the intelligent rogue.

So the rogue remains in for legacy, and because "dexterity-based fighter" is kind of an archetype. But the ninja smoke-bomb rogues of 4e are not the same archetype as Bilbo Baggins. Really, ANYONE in 4e can be the sneaky guy who opens doors and has underworld contacts (some maybe better than others). It's not a class archetype anymore.

Personally, I'm not a fan of it. I don't mind rogues being combat-balanced, or promoting backstab to an "almost always on" effect to do that, or using Dexterity as a means of defense. All that is well and good. What I'm not a huge fan of is that rogues don't have a good noncombat niche anymore, because no one has a noncombat niche anymore. It annoys me in general and it ESPECIALLY annoys me with the rogue.

 

[tomBitonti]

You could do that, though you'd probably have to toss some of the assumptions of various editions of D&D.

...

Basically, you'd have to balance the fighter and rogue around the new mechanic (which might not be too easy) or accept that you've given the fighter the rogue's combat schtick without giving the rogue anything in return (unbalanced).

Ya. I'm of the mind to limit the circumstances in which sneak attack can be used. Flanking seems to be too often. Either a feint, or an attack from hiding, (IMO) ought to be a precondition.

 

[ExploderWizard]

tangent

Nitpick: the 1e write-up specifically refers to "any form of attack", which by default includes casting an offensive spell. At least, that's how we always interpreted it.

/tangent

Lan-"can you see me yet?"-efan

I agree with the interpretation but there is still a difference between offensive spell use and any spell use. Under Basic D&D invisibility as written, a magic user couldn't become invisible, move past some critters, then cast clairvoyance while at a door, but an AD&D magic user could.

 

[Toben the Many]

As many people here have said, it's best to think of the 4e Rogue as just another warrior, albeit with a different style than the armored tank warrior.

However, to balance this - now everyone can contribute to disarming a trap. Disarming a trap no longer transforms into a little mini-game in which just one player can contribute.

Perhaps 1e Thieves were the precursor to ShadowRun deckers?

But I also want to say this - the Fighter daily abilities usually inflict a lot of raw damage, and it's guaranteed. Which is nice. The Fighter is Mr. Reliable. When you know you gotta hit and do damage, he's your go-to guy.

 

[EATherrian]

I also miss the old thief template. I like the expert at many things, but not combat. Even in 3E, when I last played a then-termed rogue, I made him like a thief. My character had 5 strength and I purposely had him suck at fighting as part of his back story. It also took me forever to get the change in sneak attack from hidden to flanking. I miss the thief, and think we should just accept that the rogue is not the thief. I won't play rogue, but I'd play a thief.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If people really missed the "skill guy" who sucked in combat in 3E, then why didn't I encounter more players using the Expert NPC class? I know if I was approached by a player who wanted to play one of the NPC classes the worst I would give him is an "are you sure?" I can't imagine any DM would stop a player from using one of these classes unless he thought he was saving the player from making a bad choice.

 

[EATherrian]

If people really missed the "skill guy" who sucked in combat in 3E, then why didn't I encounter more players using the Expert NPC class? I know if I was approached by a player who wanted to play one of the NPC classes the worst I would give him is an "are you sure?" I can't imagine any DM would stop a player from using one of these classes unless he thought he was saving the player from making a bad choice.

Well, my plan was to make him better at combat as he leveled it was a role-playing thing. Actually thinking about it, I could play the game without any combat and be happy. Combat takes me out of the story and I like playing to see the DMs story. I guess I'm weird.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Well, my plan was to make him better at combat as he leveled it was a role-playing thing. Actually thinking about it, I could play the game without any combat and be happy. Combat takes me out of the story and I like playing to see the DMs story. I guess I'm weird.

I definately enjoy that style of play. I just don't think it meshes well with the typical* style of D&D. And making a character that takes you out of any one aspect of the game doesn't appeal to me. I don't want a "skill guy" that can't fight, nor do I want the 6 Int half-orc fighter who is only trained to climb. Both of these character types would leave me bored at various points in the game. The former more often than the latter, YMMV.

I have been playing Bobby Singer in a Supernatural "Campaign" (actually a string of Gameday one-shots that have seen the same returning players so often we have dubbed it our Gameday Campaign). In the system and setting we are using, fighting usually equals dead characters and has only rarely occurred. My character can heft a shotgun when necessary, but he is a highly skilled demon-hunter. I rarely feel bored because the game is designed to be investigative and skill-focused.

My point is that playing against type seems counterproductive to the group's enjoyment of a game. To me, playing a thief that is horrible in combat in a D&D campaign involving combat more than other game aspects is akin to making a flumph PC for your GMs new historical wild west campaign. The GM can try to work with it, but you're not really playing along with the genre.


*I am not saying there is only one way to play D&D or even a best way. But over the years my shared experience with D&D players is that combat encounters will occur more often than non-combat encounters.

 

[Spatula]

IMO, the 4e rogue buts up against 4e's intense combat focus in a pretty awful way.

The reason for the thief archetype to exist is not a combat reason. It's the Bilbo Baggins type, the guy who knows a lot, who can get you into anywhere, who has shady connections

Bilbo knew a lot and had shady connections?

EDIT: D&D has never really been good at modelling non-combatants as PCs, aside from perhaps the 3e NPC classes. Bilbo wasn't a a member of the thief class (couldn't open locks, disarm traps, no Thieves Cant, no armor or weapon training - he was a landowner with quick wits and a ridiculous amount of luck). The hobbits from LotR were basically 0-level characters, with Merry and Pippin perhaps picking up a level of fighter along the way.