What is a rogue to you?

[paladinm]

We definitely need to get back the old Thief skills (Hide, Climb, Detect Traps, etc.) In 3.x, all those became available to everyone. This isn't bad, but thieves/rogues need to be a Lot better at them than anyone else.

For combat purposes, I would give the rogue 2 main class features. Backstab/sneak attack should be more in line with how it started originally, and scale more slowly. And all rogues should have a weapon finesse feature that lets them use Dex instead of Str to hit.

 

[Hassassin]

Distracting Strike?

Bah.

A real rouge:

None of those addresses the issue I have, though.

 

[Minigiant]

None of those addresses the issue I have, though.

Why doesn't it?

The rogue can cheat and disable one opponent easily via poison or gadgetry. Such methods don't work on groups though as they can only hit one enemy at a time and lack the defenses to compensate for the additional time required.

 

[KesselZero]

Or, depending on your choices, sure, he can be a thug, assassin, swashbuckler, con-man, spy, or any of dozens of other concepts. If the fighter is to be expected to cover a variety of vastly different concepts, why should the rogue be restricted to one?

I completely agree, and I would actually argue that the rogue is restricted to one concept in later versions, especially 4e. The argument is basically that over the editions, rogue skills (aka thief skills) got simplified more and more until in 4e there's just one skill called "Thievery." With the exception of some feats and gear, all 4e Rogues are pretty similar (though there is now the Scoundrel/Thief divide with Essentials, but that's basically just a simplification of the combat mechanics). For a player, the difference between the various archetypes you mentioned is mostly up to roleplay, and isn't really supported mechanically. What I'd like to see (here comes my opinion) is a return to a larger spread of separate thief skills (Find Traps/Disable Traps/Pick Locks/Pick Pockets/Climb/Use Rope/Disguise/Bluff/whatever) so that I can choose where I want to focus. I could make a second story man by focusing on Climb, Use Rope, and Pick Locks, or a street thief who has Pick Pockets, Bluff and Backstab (if combat and non-combat aren't kept totally separate) or a dungeon-crawler with the Trap skills and Pick Locks, etc. etc. Instead, in 4e I get a few combat options about how I want to use my Sneak Attack damage, and one Thievery skill to rule them all. That's just not the kind of thief I personally am interested in playing, plus it's pretty easy for any other class to get the Thievery skill via a Background or Feat, at which point the rogue class is only defined by its combat mechanics.

 

[Hassassin]

Why doesn't it?

The rogue can cheat and disable one opponent easily via poison or gadgetry. Such methods don't work on groups though as they can only hit one enemy at a time and lack the defenses to compensate for the additional time required.

Ok, tanglefoot bag works, as does a Str poison. They make one target fight worse. The rest are area effects or just deal damage like fighter does.

However, nothing says a fighter can't use those items, so the rogue doesn't actually have an advantage. That's why I'd like to see a special "fight dirty" ability for the rogue, regardless of what it's called.

 

[Mattachine]

A 4e rogue can focus on Thievery, Stealth, Acrobatics, Athletics, Perception, Insight, or Bluff--these are all separate skills, covering, respectively, dungeon-crawler/trapster, sneak, secondary-story man/acrobat, tough/rake, scout, quick study, and con-man.

I find the AD&D thief (and BECMI) to be the really limiting, suggesting to the player a single archetype (though kits and specialties like acrobats were possible as time wore on).

 

[Minigiant]

Ok, tanglefoot bag works, as does a Str poison. They make one target fight worse. The rest are area effects or just deal damage like fighter does.

However, nothing says a fighter can't use those items, so the rogue doesn't actually have an advantage. That's why I'd like to see a special "fight dirty" ability for the rogue, regardless of what it's called.

Well I'll bring back accidental self poisoning. So only rogues and assassins would regularly use poison.

As for gadgets and grenadelike weapons, I'd give them a DC bonus to thrown tanglefoots and thunderstones as rogues know where to place them. Crafting them too maybe.

 

[thedungeondelver]

For completeness' sake, here's Fafhrd:

FAFHRD (hero)

ARMOR CLASS: 2
MOVE: 12"
HIT POINTS: 120
NO. OF ATTACKS: 2
DAMAGE/ATTACK: By weapon type
SPECIAL ATTACK: Nil
SPECIAL DEFENSES: See below
SIZE: M (6 feet 11 inches)
ALIGNMENT: Neutral good
CLERIC/DRUID: Nil
FIGHTER: 15th level ranger
MAGIC-USER/ILLUSIONIST: Nil
THIEF/ASSASSIN: 13th level thief
MONK/BARD: 5th level bard
PSIONIC ABILITY: Nil
Attack/Defense Modes: Nil
S: 18(00) (+3, +6) I: 17 W: 14 D: 18 C: 18 CH: 18

This Northern red haired barbarian is the strong arm of the two-hero team. Taking special interest in languages, he can read and write all the major ones of Nehwon and there is an 90% chance that he will understand any obscure one he is exposed to. He always carries a bastard sword (which he always names Graywand) and a dirk (mor short sword or poniard than anything else) he calls Heartseeker. He sometimes fights with a hand axe, balanced for throwing, in his left hand. He is also adept with a long bow. Fafhrd is able to climb walls and hide in shadows with a +20% over his usual thiefly base.

Coming from the frigid planes of the cold north, this barbarian hero is a hardy soul who withstands hardships with a grim smile. He loves sailing, as he went on many viking-like raids as a youth. It was in Lankhmar that he met the Gray Mouser. This hero is very emotional and willing to believe in wild tales and schemes far more readily than this shared partner. Fafhrd was even gone so far as to take up religion upon one occasion, which was short lived but epic in the telling.

...

Another case of the character with three classes instead of two, and this one more-or-less breaks all the rules for achieving bardhood, assuming the AD&D rules for that class.

 

[thedungeondelver]

For the record, in case I didn't mention it up thread, I want to see the thief brought back. The lockpicking, sneaking, hiding from the big fight, moving in shadows, moving silently, pickpocketing thief back in the game. As it has stood since mid/late 2e the thief has become "the guy in leather armor pulling the Dread Pirate Roberts pose over there" weak-sauce fighter. D&D is a game of classes and archetypes, and the idea of pick this, pick that, a little of this and a little of that drags the game off focus. So, (in the context of this forum) I would hope 5e has a "vertical hold" and "sharpness" control that'll let me put things back in the clear focus they had before.

I'm reminded of a con game many years ago when a guy - who was a good player in general, I'm not picking on him - who came from a 3e only paradigm wanted to play a fighter/thief (1/2 elven) and asked why he didn't at least have chainmail listed on his character sheet, but preferably plate...



Once another player at the table kind of explained that thief != rogue (as a non-level title) he was set and we had a fine old time

I just think that "fighter who wears light armor and is quick on his feet and uses daggers, poniards, and foils" should be a play style not a rule for how the game is played*. You want to be Indiana Jones or Wesley or Robin Hood? Go for it! Just roll up a fighter with high DEX and eschew the heavy armor.

*=Or at least give us the option to play like that in 5e.

 

[Mattachine]

. . . except that the fighter won't have the skill set needed to be Indiana, Wesley, or Robin.

So, make a fighter, make Dex and Int higher stats (maybe Cha, too), then pick skills, use feats, or nonweapon proficiencies to get stealth, lockpicking, etc., and then use light weapons and little or no armor.

Isn't that a thief/rogue (depending on edition)?