4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Brother MacLaren]

Unfortunately, I happen to like the archetype that a rogue represents.

Can you expand upon this? I'm not sure what archetype the rogue class by itself represents. Many rogue-type characters from fiction have at least a modest amount of combat training, and so I would represent them as RogX/FtrY. That is, a rogue who can fight well. A "pure rogue" would be, I don't know, Bilbo Baggins or something. Or that guy from Conan the Destroyer.

Amanda from Highlander? Batman? Indiana Jones? Any one of them can do decently well in a stand-up fight. A multiclass fighter/rogue fits that archetype much better than the straight rogue class does. Okay, so is anything wrong with that? Is something offensive about multiclassing? Rog/Ftr is, I think, the way to represent the archetype of "sneaky agile adventurer who can handle themselves in a fight."

 

[kennew142]

The discussion of the uselessness of the rogue has gotten me thinking. I'm wondering if the issue doesn't turn on the frequency with which undead and constructs are encountered in the game. My games tend to be very heavy with undead. I like them. I find them cool.

In my games, what dungeons there are tend to be populated with undead and constructs. For my money, they make a lot of sense in a dungeon-like setting. Because of the frequency with which the party encounters undead, the combat weakness of the class becomes more obvious.

Also, I am unable to find my 1e/2e books right now, and it's been a long time since I played either of those versions. Here's my question: could rogues backstab undead in 1e and/or 2e. I don't remember that they couldn't. Is this phenomenon new to 3e? If so, does that make those of us who want rogues to be able to do it the real grognards?

 

[Rallek]

As I recall in 2e....


You could only backstab things that were generally humanoid, they specifically discount beholders and the like. The creature in question must have a discernible "back" which rules out jellies and the like. I would think that the humanoid requirement would hit that one, but they felt they needed more definition, I guess.

Oh, and the thief has to be able to reach a significant area of the target, for example to backstab a giant, the thief would have to be elevated so that they could reach such an area, an ankle stab won't do the job.

The target must also be unaware that an attack is forthcoming.

So technically I guess undead and constructs would be backstab-able, though my DM must have house ruled "no", as I don't recall every doing it to such a critter.


Oh again, you only got backstab damage for the first attack, even if you got more attacks on your action, only the first counts for the multiplier.

 

[Reynard]

As evidence, I submit that in your attempt to defend rogue's inability to usefully fight undead, you have been forced to take the position that it is ok if "party of heroes saves kingdom from undead menace" isn't something D&D can do well without special treatment from the DM.

I wanted to come back and revisit this, because I think it is important regardless of what edition we are talking about.

The DM gives "special treatment" to every situation. That's his job. Of the many, thankless* duties of DMing, the most important is taking his players and their characters into consideration when choosing (if he using pre-published scenarios) or creating (if not) adventures. The assumption is that the DM is always looking for things -- creatures, setting elements, encounters, NPCs -- that will not jive with his players/characters because of preferences, playstyles, experience and/or expectations. That the DM has to consider the rogue player especially when deciding what to do the the ravening oard of undead campaign should be no surprise or concern, because the DM should also be considering the fighter (he's using a falchion with improved crit; that ain't going to fly), the wizard (there goes all the mind affecting spells Bobloves so much) and the cleric (man, Linda is going to run the table with here super-charisma and extra-turning). The same goes for any campaign, andy adventure.

But to respond to your example more specifically, I'd say this: the "versus undead" campaign theme is only unviable for the rogue PC is the following are true:
a) the PCs only fight undead (which would be odd, even in a themed campaign -- what, these guys don't have necromancers or cultists or charmed thralls?)
b) the campaign is centered entirely around combat (as opposed to, say, raiding the tombs of the Lich Kings while they march across the earth, looking to capture their phylacaries)
and c) the DM is so married to his vision of what should happen at the table that he stalls or outright denies any attempt by the players to alleviate the problems of being forced to fight nothing but undead (a), and fight constantly at that (b).

*

 

[Brother MacLaren]

But to respond to your example more specifically, I'd say this: the "versus undead" campaign theme is only unviable for the rogue PC is the following are true:
a) the PCs only fight undead (which would be odd, even in a themed campaign -- what, these guys don't have necromancers or cultists or charmed thralls?)
b) the campaign is centered entirely around combat (as opposed to, say, raiding the tombs of the Lich Kings while they march across the earth, looking to capture their phylacaries)
and c) the DM is so married to his vision of what should happen at the table that he stalls or outright denies any attempt by the players to alleviate the problems of being forced to fight nothing but undead (a), and fight constantly at that (b).

I'd add this:
d) the rogue is so focused on Sneak Attack that he is totally ineffective in any other means of combat.

And d) isn't a necessary condition of playing a generally rogue-ish PC. The high-Dex TWF dagger-throwing specialist vs. zombies does pretty well, as does Rog6/Ftr2 with 14 Str, a greatsword, and Power Attack.

 

[Digital M@]

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.

Fighters do nothing outside of combat. They have so few skill points they can do nothing, not even walk across a rope bridge on a windy day without the risk of falling to their death. In dungeons, I sit at the table for long periods of time as I wait for the rogue to scout ahead, search for traps, disarm traps, search rooms and move around virtually undetectable. It is not all sexy, but it can take so long, I would rather bash a door open, take the trap damage and keep moving. To me, the waiting is as tedious as buying common supplies in town after town. A fighter has no leadership since the skills do not support it, so they have no role for taking a lead in conversations. Rogues have all of the skills for leading and scouting and some great combat skills.

IMO, I would be happy with extended creature list for sneak attack, but less extra damage. I also believe the arguments for hitting weak points in constructs for extra points and the like is very weak. Where the hell do you think the fighter is aiming for on a construct? KNowing knees are a weak point does not enable someone to do more damage. If the ability came at a higher level where experience and knowledge impacted it, I would enjoy it more. As is rogues seem the most busy character in every campaign I have ever played in.

In 4E other classes can find and disarm traps, but better than the rogue? NO, if the party has a rogue, they will still do all the same stuff. People keep saying balance in and out of combat, but how do you balance all of the out of combat stuff?

 

[kennew142]

Fighters do nothing outside of combat. They have so few skill points they can do nothing, not even walk across a rope bridge on a windy day without the risk of falling to their death. In dungeons, I sit at the table for long periods of time as I wait for the rogue to scout ahead, search for traps, disarm traps, search rooms and move around virtually undetectable. It is not all sexy, but it can take so long, I would rather bash a door open, take the trap damage and keep moving. To me, the waiting is as tedious as buying common supplies in town after town. A fighter has no leadership since the skills do not support it, so they have no role for taking a lead in conversations. Rogues have all of the skills for leading and scouting and some great combat skills.

You are assuming that the fighter will have no abilities outside of combat in 4e. I am hoping they do. One of the reasons I don't play rogues in 3e is the lack of effectiveness in combat (especially in the types of campaigns that are popular in our group). One of the reason I don't play fighters is that they have so few capabilities outside of battle.

The only fighter I was able to enjoy in 3e had the able learner feat, 14 INT and was human. He had some valuable non-combat skills, but I had to craft a very specific build to do it. If only there had been some feat my rogue could have taken that would have made him better against undead and constructs....

 

[kennew142]

And d) isn't a necessary condition of playing a generally rogue-ish PC. The high-Dex TWF dagger-throwing specialist vs. zombies does pretty well, as does Rog6/Ftr2 with 14 Str, a greatsword, and Power Attack.

This build may scream rogue to you, but not to me. To me, a rogue is a finesse fighter, not a power-attacking greatsword wielder. But everyone is welcome to their own tastes.

 

[kennew142]

As I recall in 2e....


You could only backstab things that were generally humanoid, they specifically discount beholders and the like. The creature in question must have a discernible "back" which rules out jellies and the like. I would think that the humanoid requirement would hit that one, but they felt they needed more definition, I guess.

Oh, and the thief has to be able to reach a significant area of the target, for example to backstab a giant, the thief would have to be elevated so that they could reach such an area, an ankle stab won't do the job.

The target must also be unaware that an attack is forthcoming.

So technically I guess undead and constructs would be backstab-able, though my DM must have house ruled "no", as I don't recall every doing it to such a critter.


Oh again, you only got backstab damage for the first attack, even if you got more attacks on your action, only the first counts for the multiplier.

This was my recollection as well. I don't think any rogue I ever played in 1e or 2e was denied backstab against undead.

EDIT

Sorry about 3 posts in a row. This thread must have been a little slow at the time.

 

[Reynard]

Just for giggles, I counted up encounters in Forge of Fury. Of the 27 combat encounters in the adventure, 6 were with uncritible enemies. There are also 6 traps or locked doors in the adventure (I left out the yellow mold "trap" and any doors that couldn't be opened with Open Locks).

Obviously, the rogue is useless in the typical 3E adventure.