Agreed, 100%
4th ed, the Good & the Bad?
- Thread starter Silverblade The Ench
- Start date
Agreed, 100%
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Which skills? Which skill helps the Rogue affect the outcome of a typical (maybe undead-related?) combat? Most skills only help the Rogue to get into a good attack position or allow him to make attacks. Next to none help him aid another character or hinder an NPC.Reynard said:
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
I think we are thinking of the same skills, just in different ways. the ability to maneuver around the battlefield (Tumble), misdirect enemies (Bluff) and disappear and reappear under concealement (Hide) all allow the Rogue to aid his party even when his sneak attack isn't available. D&D 3.x is a very tactical game where the battlegrid plays a big role and therefore control of movement and positioning is important.
Again, though, as long as "help the party" or "be useful" of "have fun" is defined solely as being able to dish out huge amounts of damage, there's no way to argue against this (relatively new) position that rogues suck unless they can sneak attack.
Rallek said:
It's wonderful that you and other imaginative souls like you can find so much pleasure in playing a clearly underpowered class. If you loved the rogue in 2nd ed., there's no telling what you could do with an Expert or even a Commoner in 3e! I apparently lack your imagination, because I really don't enjoy playing "organic" characters that are constantly being upstaged in combat by characters of other classes. Currently, my sole recourse is to choose a different class. Unfortunately, I happen to like the archetype that a rogue represents. In my head, I'm imagining a character like the Gray Mouser. I don't want to be forced to play a wizard or a cleric to get my share of the spotlight!
Solution: To give different types of players the greatest number of options, ensure that the classes are well-balanced both in combat and out of combat. Do not assume that an out-of-combat ability can be used to balance and in-combat ability and vice versa. Those players who love to play "organic" characters can simply opt not to use the full capabilities of their characters. Now everyone can play the type of character that they want; it's a win-win!
The Little Raven
First Post
Reynard said:
So, I can run away from a fight (Tumble), feint when it's not helpful at all (Bluff) or hide from the fight (Hide), all of which do exactly what to help my party?
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"?
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"?
Mourn said:
Alternatively, you could maneuver yourself into position so as to hinder the movement of enemies. Or you could engage an enemy, going full defensive, so that same enemy doesn't kill the wizard or cleric. You could do any number of things besides pouting that you can't keep pace with the fighter on a per-round damage measuring contest.
Mustrum_Ridcully, and to a lesser extent Mourn....
Ok, list of very sloppy, off-the-top-of my head generic ways that a rogue can help a party in a fight...
Well the first thing that I can think of is UMD, but that might be seen as cheap, as MDs are so varied and diverse that UMD is probably applicable in just about every situation, also you have to hit a DC of 20 (I think) to get that wand to work, and we might be talking about lower level thieves… still first thing that springs to mind is UMD.
Second idea, if dealing with slow and plodding zombies, use rope and grapple to trip them, or hook a leg and give it a violent yank… of course that’s not a skill so much as an attack action, so while I think it is another viable option, it might not answer the skill query at hand. So moving on.
Use the climb skill to reach an elevated position and then snipe with bow/crossbow/or heave flasks of nastiness at enemies. If no ledges or other elevated features are available use your climbing gear or rope use to attempt to secure yourself to the wall and then proceed with snipe/throw actions.
If the climb check fails, use tumble skill to try and get less hurt by the fall.
If the zombies didn’t just appear where I am, then I’m going to say that I could have used listen and/or spot to allow my party to get the upper hand on the encounter as a whole.
If I’m in a tomb or dungeon, and I’ve used my search to find some traps, then I’ll use my tumble, balance, and jump skills to try and maneuver the undead or any other generic enemies into the traps that I’ve discovered on my way here.
hmmm more ideas…. use flaming oil as a lesser kind of battlefield control. Only useful at low levels perhaps… but at higher levels I have a decent shot of UMDing something handy.
Depending on the area I’m in try to take advantage of conditions, bringing down a section of roof, or ruined wall onto my enemies and trusting to tumble/balance/jump to get me mostly out of harms way, along with my various evasion abilities….
Anyway to work a flaming cart or barrel into this? I’ve always loved rolling the burning barrel of tar down stairs at things… same idea with the cart really, though that’s more of an “in the village” thing.
Well to do this right, I’d need to know more about where the encounter is happening, where I am, how I got there, and all that.
still and all though, I think that I can "help" without ever landing a blow, even if I'm just tumbling over to dump a potion down the throat of the recently fallen (insert injured party member here).
Ok, list of very sloppy, off-the-top-of my head generic ways that a rogue can help a party in a fight...
Well the first thing that I can think of is UMD, but that might be seen as cheap, as MDs are so varied and diverse that UMD is probably applicable in just about every situation, also you have to hit a DC of 20 (I think) to get that wand to work, and we might be talking about lower level thieves… still first thing that springs to mind is UMD.
Second idea, if dealing with slow and plodding zombies, use rope and grapple to trip them, or hook a leg and give it a violent yank… of course that’s not a skill so much as an attack action, so while I think it is another viable option, it might not answer the skill query at hand. So moving on.
Use the climb skill to reach an elevated position and then snipe with bow/crossbow/or heave flasks of nastiness at enemies. If no ledges or other elevated features are available use your climbing gear or rope use to attempt to secure yourself to the wall and then proceed with snipe/throw actions.
If the climb check fails, use tumble skill to try and get less hurt by the fall.
If the zombies didn’t just appear where I am, then I’m going to say that I could have used listen and/or spot to allow my party to get the upper hand on the encounter as a whole.
If I’m in a tomb or dungeon, and I’ve used my search to find some traps, then I’ll use my tumble, balance, and jump skills to try and maneuver the undead or any other generic enemies into the traps that I’ve discovered on my way here.
hmmm more ideas…. use flaming oil as a lesser kind of battlefield control. Only useful at low levels perhaps… but at higher levels I have a decent shot of UMDing something handy.
Depending on the area I’m in try to take advantage of conditions, bringing down a section of roof, or ruined wall onto my enemies and trusting to tumble/balance/jump to get me mostly out of harms way, along with my various evasion abilities….
Anyway to work a flaming cart or barrel into this? I’ve always loved rolling the burning barrel of tar down stairs at things… same idea with the cart really, though that’s more of an “in the village” thing.
Well to do this right, I’d need to know more about where the encounter is happening, where I am, how I got there, and all that.
still and all though, I think that I can "help" without ever landing a blow, even if I'm just tumbling over to dump a potion down the throat of the recently fallen (insert injured party member here).
re: Rallek
Other than UMD you listed, EVERY thing you suggested is class independent of the Rogue. You could easily use a NPC class to do the job just as well (other than TRAP-finding).
Seriously, an ADEPT brings more to the party than a rogue does.
I am honestly stunned that people seem to have such a hard time understanding what is wrong with the rogue. Using the 2E thief as an example of a good class as well is also surprising. My time on rec.games.frp.dnd, the 2E thief was WIDELY acknowledged as a poorly designed class.
I have no problem if the frequency of "uselessness" for a rogue is the same for a fighter or a wizard. Currently, it is nowhere that seldom.
Other than UMD you listed, EVERY thing you suggested is class independent of the Rogue. You could easily use a NPC class to do the job just as well (other than TRAP-finding).
Seriously, an ADEPT brings more to the party than a rogue does.
I am honestly stunned that people seem to have such a hard time understanding what is wrong with the rogue. Using the 2E thief as an example of a good class as well is also surprising. My time on rec.games.frp.dnd, the 2E thief was WIDELY acknowledged as a poorly designed class.
I have no problem if the frequency of "uselessness" for a rogue is the same for a fighter or a wizard. Currently, it is nowhere that seldom.
AllisterH -
Indeed this is the case. That's kind of the point, just because the rogue doesn't have a specific "hinder enemies" class feature, that doesn't mean that it can't use other skills and class features to hinder enemies. There is more (in my experience) to running a good character of any stripe than just using encounter appropriate class exclusive ability X. YMMV, of course.
As far as being "poorly designed" in 2e, if by that you mean its combat ability was well behind that of the other classes, you are again 100% right. This was kind of the second half of my point, combat balance isn't always the end-all and be-all of "fun to play". Then again perhaps the groups I've played with are an aberration, and the rogue has always been badwrongfun.
As far as useless in combat goes, well I look at it this way. Imagine that the rogue doesn't just do less damage without sneak attack, but that he can't attack at all, in any way. Further, let us imagine that the rogue can't even assist others by using potions or triggering traps and the like when he is denied sneak attack. In fact, let's go ahead and just say that the rogue is actually mechanically incapable of acting at all during combat with any enemy that can't be sneak attacked. So a party of 5 PCs fights a group of 5 zombies, instead of doing nothing for 9 turns out of 10 every round, I do nothing for one additional round.... hmmm I could live with that.
Of course the rogue can act, just not with the same combat effectiveness as other classes. I guess if I have to be less effective 1 turn in 10 every combat where I don't get sneak attack, I can live with that... and to be honest I really can't see why that is such a radical idea.
Indeed this is the case. That's kind of the point, just because the rogue doesn't have a specific "hinder enemies" class feature, that doesn't mean that it can't use other skills and class features to hinder enemies. There is more (in my experience) to running a good character of any stripe than just using encounter appropriate class exclusive ability X. YMMV, of course.
As far as being "poorly designed" in 2e, if by that you mean its combat ability was well behind that of the other classes, you are again 100% right. This was kind of the second half of my point, combat balance isn't always the end-all and be-all of "fun to play". Then again perhaps the groups I've played with are an aberration, and the rogue has always been badwrongfun.
As far as useless in combat goes, well I look at it this way. Imagine that the rogue doesn't just do less damage without sneak attack, but that he can't attack at all, in any way. Further, let us imagine that the rogue can't even assist others by using potions or triggering traps and the like when he is denied sneak attack. In fact, let's go ahead and just say that the rogue is actually mechanically incapable of acting at all during combat with any enemy that can't be sneak attacked. So a party of 5 PCs fights a group of 5 zombies, instead of doing nothing for 9 turns out of 10 every round, I do nothing for one additional round.... hmmm I could live with that.
Of course the rogue can act, just not with the same combat effectiveness as other classes. I guess if I have to be less effective 1 turn in 10 every combat where I don't get sneak attack, I can live with that... and to be honest I really can't see why that is such a radical idea.
