4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[The Little Raven]

If you're playing a Rogue and are so concerned that there might be the odd combat where you've little or nothing to do, give it Leadership and hire a tank as your cohort. (or, just play a tank as your second PC) That way, you'll be involved in every battle at least in some form.

So, instead of allowing me to emulate rogues like the Gray Mouser or Silk from the Belgariad, you suggest I change my concept by becoming some sort of leader-type? That's like giving me a band-aid for a headache... I appreciate the effort, but it doesn't actually solve my problem.

 

[Lanefan]

So, instead of allowing me to emulate rogues like the Gray Mouser or Silk from the Belgariad, you suggest I change my concept by becoming some sort of leader-type? That's like giving me a band-aid for a headache... I appreciate the effort, but it doesn't actually solve my problem.

Silk more often than not leaves the heavy fighting to Barak and Mandorallen, and they leave the spying to him.

The Belgariad is actually a fine example of a party where each of the characters has their moments to shine but *they don't all shine all the time*. Most adventuring parties by default will work much like this; it's not a broken model, so why waste good design time trying to fix it?

Lanefan

 

[The Little Raven]

Silk more often than not leaves the heavy fighting to Barak and Mandorallen, and they leave the spying to him.

Read those fight scenes more carefully, and note that Silk is often wiping his daggers clean. He's the quintessential rogue and is no push-over in combat, despite not being on the level of Barak, Hettar or any of the others.

There's a reason people are very paranoid of him and his daggers... and why he has several stashed all over his person.

 

[Xanaqui]

So many examples of still not understanding... Rogues don't have to be designed to be balanced against combat. RPGs do not have to be designed to be balanced against combat. The idea of the Thief in D&D was that they were worse than Fighters in combat in every single way. That's because Fighters were meant to be good at combat. That is their thing. Thieves' thing was sneaking, hiding, disarming traps, stealing, etc. If you want to fight, play a Fighter. If you want to steal, play a Thief. This is why you don't need to balance solely for combat. If you want to be good at combat all the time, play a Fighter. It's really that easy. Or did you want to be good at combat and also better than the Fighter at a bunch of skill-based feats? Why isn't that imbalanced?

The main problem is that the vast majority of the skills that the Rogue is good at become irrelevant around LV 7 or so when the Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid has spells that replicate or are better than the vast majority of them.

Furthermore, in core 3.x, most skills are useless or nearly useless in combat.

Fix the two above problems (make more skills useful in combat, and dramatically reduce the overlap between spells and skills), and I think the 3.x rogue becomes a more viable class, even with the inability to sneak attack roughly 1/2 the time at high levels.

 

[Xanaqui]

edition comparison

I was really going to leave this subject alone, but while discussing my characters from previous editions in another thread it hit me like a bolt out of the blue.

Why did I love playing thieves (and bards) in earlier editions of D&D, but I find them weak and unsatisfying in 3e? In all editions bards were pretty much limited to d6 damage (plus a few points for magic and/or strength). Rogues were similarly limited when denied their backstab. The disconnect has to do with the difference in damage between rogues/bards and fighters in the different editions.

In 1e and 2e fighters did more damage than rogues, but it was only by a few points. An average rogue with a +2 shortsword did d6+2 points of damage. The average fighter with even an 18/00 STR with a +2 longsword did only d8+8 damage (with weapon specialization). The difference in damage was only 7 points on the average. In 3e, fighters do so much more damage than other martial characters that they overshadow them in combat, especially against creatures with DR.

In 1e and 2e, we thieves and bards didn't hit as often in combat, but we could do the same crappy damage when we did. We didn't feel overshadowed by the fighters, paladins and rangers because we were all in the same boat - being overshadowed by the wizards!

I loved playing 1st and 2nd ed Thieves (and Assassins in 1E and Bards in 2E) largely because they got to higher levels more quickly; they were typically 1-2 levels above the rest of the party, which made up for quite a few of their problems (bad HP,poor chance to hit, abilities slowly overshadowed by magic, backstab topping out around LV 13).

Note that the fighter in your example is doing over twice the damage of the thief, per attack. Also note that with Weapon Specialization (and high level), the Fighter's number of attacks per round increased, whereas the Thief didn't get this (although most min/maxed Thieves did use 2 weapons in 1E).

However, I agree that everyone but a high-level Cleric (Harm) or Druid (Creeping Doom) or perhaps 1E Illusionist (Prismatic Spray) felt overshadowed by Wizards, other than at very low levels.

I don't know why it hasn't occurred to me until just now. I'm not usually this slow on the uptake.

When 3e came out, martial types with good BAB got a significant boost in power. They still couldn't compete with wizards, but they did more than rogues and bards. Rogues looked promising, with this new sneak attack and more ways to use it than backstab. Then the rules disallowed its use against some of the most common monsters in the game.

I disagree. Other than at the highest levels, against weak opponents over 1 HD, their power decreased, particuarly compared to the powers of their opponents. A LV 13 or so fighter got a commensurate BAB to a 3rd edition one, but had 5/2 attacks with weapon specialization (all at full BAB, unlike the 3E one). If one used 2-weapon fighting (1st ed), or weapon mastery (Complete Fighter's handbook), and magic items from early standard modules (which seemed to love girdles of giant strength,and gave out magic weapons like candy), Fighters could do a lot more per non-sneak attack round than a Thief or Bard (even one with Gauntlets of Ogre power). Never mind the HP disparity, or that thieves in 1/2E had roughly the raw BAB of Wizards in 3E.

DR exacerbated the problem. In earlier editions, if a monster required a +2 weapon to hit it, you either had it or you didn't. In 3e (especially 3.5), DR could mean hitting a creature over and over again without ever doing any damage. It became very frustrating.

I found being able to do nothing worse. For that matter, I think that's one of the nice things about Sneak attack - the ability to pierce DR through high damage.

To make matters worse, combat (even at mid-levels) in 3e can take forever. I don't know about anyone else, but our group never took so long in 1e and 2e to finish a fight that we did in 3e. The net effect of this was to increase the amount of time at the gaming table dedicated to fighting, almost of necessity reducing the amount available for exploring, social interaction and other things the rogue and bard were so good at.

I could go on, but I think I now understand my personal issues with 3e rogues and bards. I've seen fighters (although not usually fighters with power attack and a two-handed weapons) look on in envy at the amount of damage a 3e rogue can do when they get their sneak attack. But there are so many different circumstances in 3e in which rogues lose their sneak attack (creature type, concealment, barbarians , creatures that can't be flanked, etc...) that it really feels excessive.

I am a player/GM who puts much more emphasis on role-playing than on combat as story elements, but 3e combat mechanics really eat up the time. It isn't being less than optimal in some fights that is the problem, it's being well-nigh useless for such a long period of time when the right circumstances roll around.

I agree on your last point. As GM, I end up having to deliberately put in creatures so that the Rogue can sneak attack them, or I'll end up with a combat ineffective rogue for long stretches of time.

As far as bards are concerned, 3.5 nerfed one of their more effective 3.0 builds (Archer). Even as such in 3.0, one would still have been stronger as a Cleric (rather than a Bard) in virtually every way. I think that said class needs help, and likely a re-design.

 

[Phlebas]

The main problem is that the vast majority of the skills that the Rogue is good at become irrelevant around LV 7 or so when the Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Druid has spells that replicate or are better than the vast majority of them.

Playing the wizard in a rogue-less party I've invested in a chime of opening but I'm not going to load up on divinations to replace the rogue - spells might be better but they are not an effective solution because they run out quickly and frankly I've found a fiendish ape called 'ook-ook' is a much better use for a 3rd level spell for the party in almost all circumstances....

Furthermore, in core 3.x, most skills are useless or nearly useless in combat.

Skills = a versatility limited only by your imagination (or a DM who doesn't give you more than a 20' x 20' room to work in...). And that, IMHO is what makes playing rogues enjoyable - you have the skill base to try different things all the time

Tumble through line of skeletons, climb onto altar, take out necromancer.....
Hide as guards run past, sleight of hand the amulet from the leader, Decipher the runes and deactivate the constuct
Hear the wizard chanting a spell, disable trap and exit stage left
balance across chasm, open locked door and surprise the enemy

etc etc.

Could anybody other than a rogue try it? Sure, anybody other than rogue / bard / ~ranger succeed? unlikely. The skill points a rogue gets are fundamental to the class concept.

I actually like the fact that for some monsters the rogue character has to think. The same as huge DR/immunity to crits makes martial types think, the same as SR / Resistance makes spell-casters think. The same as a large room with two exits, different coloured squares on the floor, and a deaths head symbol on the wall makes everybody think... the classics are classic for a reason.

Just MHO and YMMV.

In all honesty the fact that rogues sneak attack is limited / not-limited is so far down the list of things that will decide whether I convert to 4e or not I'll have to make a climb check (DC 15) to get that far down to read it......

 

[Leugren]

Leugren, do you take a few levels of mage first to represent the mouser's training during which he earned his name? If so, you can use scrolls and wands and other assorted mystic goodies well before your general rogue's UMD would kick in reliably. So I'd go for using some of those toys, along with the occasional spell or two.


In addition I'm going to call BS on the argument of "my character concept is X literary figure, and the base class is too weak!" in general. So all rogues are now the gray mouser, all barbarians have to be Fafhrd, but they also have to be Conan, Kull, and Beowulf. All sorcerers are Elric, and Merlin, and Harry Potter too... and so on. How does one "balance" the Gray Mouser vs. Conan, or Elric vs. Merlin?

Hmmm.... how many skill points does the "Legolas" class get, and is that overpowered compared to my "Cloud Strife" damage bonus?


We can't look to figures from books/movies/games, and try to model them in generic D&D. Why? Because they are from specific settings, with their own internal rules and unique tropes, and often they are mutually incompatible with other specific settings. That's why we're not talking about the unique character of the Gray Mouser, with his own setting specific rules, and history, we're talking about a generic Dungeons and Dragons rogue. Can you use that as a base to build a "Mouser" class? Absolutely, and if that's a concept that you really want to play sit down with your DM and work it out. That's the strength of D&D, by keeping it relatively generic we perserve the flexibility of individual DMs and players to make it their own in the way that best works for them.


Your Gray Mouser and my Fafhrd may fit wonderfully together, and they may rock Nehwon homebrew world number 7 to its very foundations, but they might not fit so snuggly in Hyborea rip-off number 113. So why not leave the options as open as possible by keeping the class a bit more generic? Wouldn't that also qualify as "win-win"?

Superlative use of the Chewbacca Defense, with a generous serving of the Straw Man fallacy to boot. I used "the Gray Mouser" within the referenced post merely as an example of a roguish character who spends a lot of time in the limelight. This is quite clear from the larger context of the post. My main point was that a well-designed game should accommodate a wide variety of play styles; not just yours. There were a lot of things about the 3e rogue that made it difficult for people like me to enjoy playing one, despite our desire to do so. The fact that I am not alone in these convictions is amply evident from other posts on this thread and elsewhere.

This point has been beaten half to death within this thread, however, so lest I be accused of argumentum ad nauseum, I will gracefully retire to my corner now...

Cheers.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I wouldn't be opposed to a general reduction in hit points and damage across the board, although I would point out that spell damage has remained more or less the same. Maybe the increase in hit points and melee damage was intended to balance spell damage. Reducing spell damage would have worked as well. I would hazard a guess that most players would be opposed to reducing hit points and damage. For many gamers it is just cooler ( ) to do 50 points of damage than 5.

You realize they're completely redoing spell damage in 4e right?

 

[Xanaqui]

Enough Sneak Attack?

Playing the wizard in a rogue-less party I've invested in a chime of opening but I'm not going to load up on divinations to replace the rogue - spells might be better but they are not an effective solution because they run out quickly and frankly I've found a fiendish ape called 'ook-ook' is a much better use for a 3rd level spell for the party in almost all circumstances....

Perhaps. I was more thinking of Fly (or in some cases, Spider Climb) vs. Balance/Tumble/Climb/Jump, Freedom of Movement vs. Escape Artist/Swim, Knock (or just a heavy damage spell) vs Open Lock/Disintegrate/Passwall, Dimension Door/Teleport vs Disable Device. Invisibility vs Hide. I don't really find divinations comparable - some do things Rogues can't dream of, and others are solved more simply by removing (or opening) the door. It may just be a difference in level ranges that we're thinking of.

Summons are very flexible. I really like them for trap detection

Skills = a versatility limited only by your imagination (or a DM who doesn't give you more than a 20' x 20' room to work in...). And that, IMHO is what makes playing rogues enjoyable - you have the skill base to try different things all the time

Tumble through line of skeletons, climb onto altar, take out necromancer.....
Hide as guards run past, sleight of hand the amulet from the leader, Decipher the runes and deactivate the constuct
Hear the wizard chanting a spell, disable trap and exit stage left
balance across chasm, open locked door and surprise the enemy

etc etc.

Actually, I think that as a skill-based class, Rogues have far too few skills. I've tried pumping them to 12 + int mod, and it still ended up being too few. I've added generic combat options onto a dozen or so skills, and that did help some.

And yes, I do try to emphasize skill usage where I can; I think it's one of the better advances of 3E vs. late 2E.

Could anybody other than a rogue try it? Sure, anybody other than rogue / bard / ~ranger succeed? unlikely. The skill points a rogue gets are fundamental to the class concept.

Well, given an individual skill, yes, any class could try it. They mostly get a better breadth of skills. However, even with an 18 Int (or 16 if Human), they get 1/3 of the core skills; less if you include the fact that a bunch of sub-skills (such as Knowledge) need to be purchased separately. I'm thinking that they should get something closer to a base of 14 skill points/level (base), with all skills as class skills.

I actually like the fact that for some monsters the rogue character has to think. The same as huge DR/immunity to crits makes martial types think, the same as SR / Resistance makes spell-casters think. The same as a large room with two exits, different coloured squares on the floor, and a deaths head symbol on the wall makes everybody think... the classics are classic for a reason.

Just MHO and YMMV.

In all honesty the fact that rogues sneak attack is limited / not-limited is so far down the list of things that will decide whether I convert to 4e or not I'll have to make a climb check (DC 15) to get that far down to read it......

I wouldn't mind sneak-attack immunity if, say, 10% (or less) of creatures had it. The problem is that at high levels, more like 50% of creatures have it, and even at low levels, it's well over 10% (all Plants, Oozes, Undead, and Constructs- just to start). SR on the other hand, is controllable, and (over a number of levels) pretty easy to mostly ignore (heck, your summons example above is a classic way to get around SR). DR is an annoyance you can specifically prepare to get around. I'm unclear as to why Immunity to Crits matters much to anyone but Rogues - isn't it at most roughly a 23% or so reduction in damage (assuming Improved Crit/Keen and a maximum crit weapon)? Frankly, high-level warrior-types typically got a bunch of +1d6-type damage abilities on their weapons in my games (and would typically not go for maximum crit weapons), so I think it was quite a bit less significant than that in my games.

To be clear, with some frequency while designing an adventure, I have to look through the first draft to determine if anything can be sneak-attacked, and if not, I need to change the module in response. I find that annoying, particuarly if I'm doing a run of them. When playing a rogue, I find not being able to sneak attack anything because the GM wanted to create, say, an undead-filled crypt extremely annoying.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Playing the wizard in a rogue-less party I've invested in a chime of opening but I'm not going to load up on divinations to replace the rogue - spells might be better but they are not an effective solution because they run out quickly and frankly I've found a fiendish ape called 'ook-ook' is a much better use for a 3rd level spell for the party in almost all circumstances....



Skills = a versatility limited only by your imagination (or a DM who doesn't give you more than a 20' x 20' room to work in...). And that, IMHO is what makes playing rogues enjoyable - you have the skill base to try different things all the time

Little of which can really help you defeat an enemy. Bypassing, maybe. But that's only you, what's with the rest of the party? (Especially with those players that actually want to beat down the enemies)

Tumble through line of skeletons, climb onto altar, take out necromancer.....

Oops, the Necromancer is a lich - so taking him out actually meant "Save vs. Paralyzation!" Or lower level: The Necromancer that created the skeletons is dead since the time the Tomb was closed, approximately 10 centuries ago...

Hide as guards run past, sleight of hand the amulet from the leader, Decipher the runes and deactivate the constuct

Hide in plain sight? After you spent 2 minutes picking the lock open? Deciphering some runes on the fly? ANd what kind of non-standard construct are we speaking about?

Hear the wizard chanting a spell, disable trap and exit stage left

So you actually didn't want to stop the Wizard and instead let him slaughter your allies while you run away?

balance across chasm, open locked door and surprise the enemy

... just as much as they surprise you, since they are 3 Bodaks. Your first thought would have been "Screw it, no sneak attack against them", but it's actually "AAArgh!"

Okay, these were a few cheap shots. My issue with these examples are:
1) They are highly situational. Most constructs don't have secret switch to turn them off. Most enemy leaders don't carry any important amulets around. They might work, and I think they're cool if used. They don't really use the rules for solving the encounter. It's more playing the DM then playing the game.

2) They don't rely on the core abilities on the character. Everybody has skills. The Rogues class abilities might say he has access to a lot of skills - but why does he need to put ranks in Decipher Script (in fact, which Rogue does), Use Magic Device (though which Rogue would want to miss that?), Disguse or any other skill on his list? He gets 8+INT to choose from, that's a lot, but it's not enough to cover them all, and it's possible to miss a lot of these skills if that's not what your character is about. The abilities you can really rely on for the Rogue are his class abilities, which include Sneak Attack. It is a core ability of the class, since he gets it every 2 levels!

3) If these situations would work out fine, the Rogue would get all the spotlight. The rest of the characters are not required for the situation. I know that some people think that would be fine if there are other situations where another characters gets the full spotlight. But I think that's not what team play is about. Everyone should contribute significantly in all situations. Maybe someone might be a bit more effective, but he shouldn't been able to do the job without the help of others.
I agree it's okay to have corner cases, and they will probably work out fine for the total game experience. But they should stay corner cases, they are spice that is best used in low doses. There are games that work the opposite - Shadowrun for example. There, Mage, Rigger and Decker/Hacker have their own "subgames" - that they play effectively alone! The rest of the players and characters are standing around doing nothing.