The Return of the Sneaking Man

[DEFCON 1]

At the least, against any single, unaware target I see the rogue be the one-hit, one-kill wonder.

The best way I saw to accomplish this (via houserule) in 4E was the "minionizer" rule. A guard or wandering monster would have normal stats as a standard monster, but if they were able to be taken by surprise and attacked from stealth... they were considered to be minions for that first attack. So if the Rogue (or whomever) attacked during the surprise round and hit... the guard/monster would instantly go down (since they were a "minion" at that point and any damage would kill them.) If, however, the attack missed... then the guard/monster regained his standard monster stats and could go into combat with the formerly-stealthed PC. The PC then had to decide whether to engage or try and run away.

 

[The Human Target]

I agree..... but thats central to the whole archetype of what a theif IS. D&D has always had times when:

the bard having the fun charming a princess to get some vital info while the party lounges

the rogue is having fun, slicing throats while the party waits

the fighter is having fun, charging straight at the big boss, or intimidating weaklings in the tavern while the party supports and heals him

the wizard rains fire down on the enemy minions, while the party waits and stays away from the fireball

This is central to D&D. Sure there are times when thats annoying but its the DMs job to MANAGE it. There are sooo many ways to manage it. Maybe you invite the theif player to come an hour early one night, or maybe you tell the party, he guys, this is his moment to shine, have some nachos, dont worry theres some you moments soon. Or maybe you "timeslice" and make sure theres some thing interesting for everyone.

What you DONT DO is completely change a central tenant of the game by
making everyone equally useful at all times, and rejig the game based on assumptions that its a miniatures game that everyone can autoheal to stay in combat. We tried that it was ok, but it didn't feel like D&D to a lot of people.

Heres the thing. I'm 27. The people I play with have jobs and kids and wives and other hobbies.

We like not sitting around for extended periods while other people eat up game time with solo play.

We want to play.

 

[Stormonu]

So... you want rogues to be a single-player experience. While I'm aware of the old solo adventures, that's kind of a different kind of game entirely. D&D isn't Assassin's Creed.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not advocating for the rogue to be any more viable in a DM-and-one-player game than any other class in the game. But there are some people that due to lack of a large play group only have one or two players. Choosing to play a rogue in that situation should be no worse a choice than Fighter, Wizard or any other class.

I know they exist because I just helped an individual last week start up a campaign whose only players are his wife and he's DMing.

 

[KarinsDad]

There's plenty in a name though, and I don't see why the use of the name 'rogue' isn't more generally thematic for PCs who are generally living a bit on the shady side of life etc. 'Thief' is a profession. It is a much narrower concept and doesn't convey the full range of concepts that the rogue is meant to support. IMHO rogue is a pretty good name for the class. I'd rather something like 'thief' as a narrow concept was something like a theme.

You guys are taking my jokes way too seriously here. Unbutton your collars.

 

[Incenjucar]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not advocating for the rogue to be any more viable in a DM-and-one-player game than any other class in the game. But there are some people that due to lack of a large play group only have one or two players. Choosing to play a rogue in that situation should be no worse a choice than Fighter, Wizard or any other class.

I know they exist because I just helped an individual last week start up a campaign whose only players are his wife and he's DMing.

Your words expressed a party of one. If you meant that, in a game designed for a party of one, which is not what D&D is built for, a rogue is as viable an option as any other class... well they are in 4E. Probably much better than most defenders, even. If that was not what you are trying to communicate, I can only ask that you try again.

If you actually mean you would like solo rules for D&D, you should focus on your desire for support for that type of game in itself rather than a particular class.

 

[Grabuto138]

The best way I saw to accomplish this (via houserule) in 4E was the "minionizer" rule. A guard or wandering monster would have normal stats as a standard monster, but if they were able to be taken by surprise and attacked from stealth... they were considered to be minions for that first attack. So if the Rogue (or whomever) attacked during the surprise round and hit... the guard/monster would instantly go down (since they were a "minion" at that point and any damage would kill them.) If, however, the attack missed... then the guard/monster regained his standard monster stats and could go into combat with the formerly-stealthed PC. The PC then had to decide whether to engage or try and run away.

In a 4e situation, when a sneaking rogue wants to silently take out a guard this is best (and probably, most appropriatly) handled as a skill challenge and the hit points of the guard or the damage of the attack simply wouldn't enter into the equation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

all chars should be effective in combat. But the thief should be lethal and stealthy. Actually in 4e, the thief is deadly and stealthy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In a 4e situation, when a sneaking rogue wants to silently take out a guard this is best (and probably, most appropriatly) handled as a skill challenge and the hit points of the guard or the damage of the attack simply wouldn't enter into the equation.

Absolutely it could be handled as a skill challenge, and in many cases it would be (like when there's a large contingent of guards around a camp and the party wants to take them all out commando style). However, there are always positives and negatives to every method.

So for instance... the party comes to a hideout and there's a single guard. If you run it as a skill challenge, you have the rogue (and/or some of the party members) making upwards of 7 skill checks to accomplish taking him out (assuming a basic Level 1 challenge). But what does it mean if some of the players fail their checks? Does the guard hear them, or is that only when the third is failed? What do those first couple of failures mean to a single guard? And what are the odds of there being an actual failure of the skill challenge when the rogue is probably using his very best skill of Stealth and the party members that contribute are going to add in their very best skills like Athletics or Perception? Not every guard encounter is necessarily enhanced in this way.

Thus the other option is a single stealth role for the rogue to get in close, then a single attack roll to try and subdue him. Quicker, cleaner, and using an attack roll rather than a skill check feels more natural in certain ways. Not always, obviously... but it is a nice change of pace from a steady stream of "skill challenge to take out the guards" encounters.

 

[hanez]

In a 4e situation, when a sneaking rogue wants to silently take out a guard this is best (and probably, most appropriatly) handled as a skill challenge and the hit points of the guard or the damage of the attack simply wouldn't enter into the equation.

Wow. I'm astonished by that. I didn't know that after DMing 4e for about a year and a half.

I don't really like that at all. I'm not a fan of subgames in d&d. I prefer using skills and damage. Guess Im a grognard

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A thief takes out a guard in a single round in 4e, assuming he gets a surprise round and does not fumble...