Do You Enjoy The Rogues New Role?

[JoeGKushner]

With 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder branches, the thief has become the rogue and it's days as primarily a skill using class that got in a backstab once in a while are long dead and gone.

When poeple talk about the game supporting different types of play, this is often one of the things I think of.

The rogue, while it hasn't 'killed the fighter and taken his stuff', has certainly changed the utility of the fighter in many ways. The role of striker in many ways was a combination of 'striker/meat shield' as fighters were often powerhouses on an individual level or in earlier editions, against hordes. In 4e, their role of "don't ignore me" has increased but it seems the 'cool' kids are in many ways the strikers. The fighter also loses a bit of it's 'tank' in that it's not fully proficient with all armors like plate, unlike the paladin.

Without a skill system tailored for the thief, it needs to be the rogue. As the rogue, it's cutting into other classes' strichk's still.

Opinoins?

 

[Victim]

Yes, I do. Being the guy who rolls F/RT while (not) contributing with a short bow was lame.

And I don't think fighters have lost anything; Come and Get It is THE defining defender power.

 

[JustKim]

I have never liked the role of rogues in D&D, I think they're a terribly ill-defined niche and one of the most persistent problems with D&D in every edition has been magic overshadowing rogue skills (to put it kindly). I also think the skill challenge system for dealing with traps during combat is probably the single worst system in 4E.

 

[Starfox]

I like the 4E rogue, but maybe the defender/striker roles are just a bit too different. Or maybe the martial classes are just too good.

Both rogues and fighters rock.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I have never liked the role of rogues in D&D, I think they're a terribly ill-defined niche and one of the most persistent problems with D&D in every edition has been magic overshadowing rogue skills (to put it kindly).

. . . except OD&D.

There's the answer then: party like it's 1974.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not much of a fan of the nouveau-Rogue that tries to be a Fighter with stealth just so it can be "balanced" in combat, and in the meantime has mostly forgotten how to steal.

The solution in earlier editions is to cut back on the magic that intrudes too far into the Thief/Rogue's niche ("Knock", "Spider Climb", I'm looking at you), and let them shine a bit. In 4e, I'm not sure what can be done; but the classes have melded together somewhat anyway so it might not matter as much.

Lanefan

 

[Jack99]

I do not see this new role. Rogues in our campaigns haven't changed their role much since the eighties. The only difference is that now they aren't useless in combat.

 

[Tuft]

I like the 4E rogue, but maybe the defender/striker roles are just a bit too different. Or maybe the martial classes are just too good.

Both rogues and fighters rock.

I very much miss the old skill-monkey role. "Superior damage" gets very "meh" after a few years of MMO play.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I quite like the new Rogue, they are capable combatants and they are still Skill Monkeys both in terms of stuff like opening locks and such and also being acrobatic and sneaking around. There are many Powers and Rogue-Specific Feats that tie into these things that make them superior to other classes in this regard, plus the auto-training.

Plus having the Thievery feat is a god-sent for Skills.

 

[doctorhook]

I like the 4E rogue, but maybe the defender/striker roles are just a bit too different. Or maybe the martial classes are just too good.

Both rogues and fighters rock.

I think you've got a correct assessment: it's not that they're too similar, but that they both might be just a bit too good.

OTOH, comparing whether or not Defender and Striker are too similar by comparing the Fighter and the Rogue is not totally helpful; both share the same power source in 4E (Martial), and thus share a number of traits on that basis. Defenders from other power sources accomplish the same role in dramatically different ways, and require entirely different combat strategies to be effective. If nothing else, it's certainly true that a Fighter's secondary role is Striker, which accounts for a substantial part of the overlap between them and Rogues.

As for whether or not I like the change? Yes, definitely; being a skill-monkey is boring as hell when that's the only thing your party needs you for, and too often that was the case. In 4E, a Rogue is automatically trained in both Thievery and Stealth, allowing them to function effectively as "thieves", but they also have capabilities to function in a variety of other capacities, including as an "assassin", a "face", and even a versatile, skirmishing warrior. Along with this, skill training allows members of other classes to serve as "thieves" as well. (3.5E did this too, but I think that the skill system in 4E puts less pressure on characters and their parties.)

In short, I think it's important to distinguish between the class, "Rogue", and the role "thief"; they aren't the same, though they aren't mutually exclusive; Rogue certainly opens up more character variety, though.