4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Wulf Ratbane]

EDIT: I was going to make some sort of argument, but looking at the actual numbers, with the knowledge that the fighter is going to actually be power attacking for more than the values I listed, tells me that the rogue would be fine with a constant ability to sneak attack. See, thinking things through can change one's mind, even on the internet.

I was trying to save you the effort...

EDIT, the Sequel: Although, the rogue doesn't have to do anything to get this benefit. it is a class feature. The fighter has to direct at least some resources (feats) toward a damage optimization build. Hmmm...

The fighter has bonus feats to spare specifically to direct towards combat optimization. The rogue gets sneak attack every other level, the fighter gets feats. It's a wash.

The rogue trades defense, hit points, BAB, usually at least one round's full attack getting into flanking position, and that position is in harm's way.

Trust me. It's fine.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Or, you know, making yourself useful other than delivering damage, as has been discussed at length.

Though I really haven't seen much that convinced that this is even possible. (Though I might have just missed a part). Flanking and Aid Another might be helpful, but it doesn't convince me. A Commoner could do the same, being a Rogue doesn't mean anything here.

Skill application in combat rarely helps your allies, usually only yourself.
Exceptions I can think of:

Intimidate: Won't work against undead and constructs.

Knowledge: One skill check to give valuable information on a monster. Useful, but Rogues only have Knowledge (Local) - no Undeads or Constructs.

Use Magic Device: Let's you use many magical items. Counterpoints: Weak on the offensive (low caster level & saves), expensive (significant part of your wealth needs to be devoted to this).
Still one of the best things to do. (But beware: If there's a Wizard and a Cleric in your group, few spells would offer any meaningful benefits, since these spells will already be around!). Nice (core) spells: Enlarge Person, Bull's Strength, Mage Armor (incorporeal undead?), Bear's Endurance, Glitterdust, Melf's Acid Arrow (good vs. Constructs).

Perform: (Iron Heroes only) Grants benefits like of the Bards Inspire Courage.

Counterpoint to all: Why would a Rogue need to have any of these skills? It's not part of his class description, only of his options. It's like requiring that every fighter has Weapon Focus or the Ride skill, and every Wizard can cast Fireball or Invisibility.

 

[Jayouzts]

Critical Hits

I know the rogue will be able to use his sneak attack against all creature types, but will critical hits apply to all creature types as well. (This assumes, of course, critical hits as we know them will be around).

 

[Brother MacLaren]

One other thing you forgot to mention is the number of attacks. The fighter is getting one more attack most of the time over the rogue. That will change the total damage numbers considerably.

Not with TWF, which is a much better option for the rogue than for the fighter.

In MarauderX's game, the very non-optimized Rog17/Clr3 routinely out-damages everyone else, with 8 attacks per round (6 base, Haste, Opportunist, and 4 of those at his top attack bonus) for 10d6+10 damage each.
The Brb/Brd and Ftr can do powerful Leap Attacks (with Shock Trooper in the fighter's case), but that's just one attack per round.
The arcane trickster with Disintegrate does 45d6 or so, still falling short of the rogue's normal damage.
My druid can do damage to a group, but not 200+ pts to a single target like the rogue can do.

The rogue also has the HP to fight in melee, and if he had Elusive Target (he has no non-core feats) he'd be even better at that. Figure that a Rog20 with 14 Con and a +4 Con item has about 150 hp, whereas a similar Ftr20 has about 190. It's not that big of a difference.

 

[Reynard]

I was trying to save you the effort...
Trust me. It's fine.

No offense, but no. Working things out is far better and worth the effort.

The rogue trades defense, hit points, BAB, usually at least one round's full attack getting into flanking position, and that position is in harm's way.

Yeah. One would have to be careful of the TWF rogue though -- once in flanking position, he far outsstrips the fighter's damage potential.

 

[Reynard]

Though I really haven't seen much that convinced that this is even possible. (Though I might have just missed a part). Flanking and Aid Another might be helpful, but it doesn't convince me. A Commoner could do the same, being a Rogue doesn't mean anything here.

I wasn't really speaking to using the rogue's specific abilities, just not sitting there twiddling thumbs. Remember, kids, trip works against anything on two legs (that's why you always carry a flail).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah. One would have to be careful of the TWF rogue though -- once in flanking position, he far outsstrips the fighter's damage potential.

Yes. I think that's a valid concern - for 3.x at least. I can only hope that TWF in D&D 4 will work better (in the sense of "fairer"/"balanced"). If iterative attacks are gone, extra attacks from two weapon fighting need a strong balancing mechanismn.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think much of "balance" between character types, but even so let's look.

I guess I just fail to see why you wouldn't.

Or, you know, making yourself useful other than delivering damage, as has been discussed at length.

If you could play a class that has useful combat abilities that do damage over one that doesn't, why wouldn't you? Or, more importantly, if you were a designer, why wouldn't you make all the classes useful?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I wasn't really speaking to using the rogue's specific abilities, just not sitting there twiddling thumbs. Remember, kids, trip works against anything on two legs (that's why you always carry a flail).

It works even against foes with more than 2 legs, but barely so.
Against undeads (of the non-incorporeal variant) it might work well. Constructs are often too large. But I think the biggest problem will be the mixture of high strength and large size that many foes have. I am not saying it won't work, but it's far from reliable.
I played a Fighter that relied a lot on Trip (but it wasn't his only trick). It worked okay, I think, but he had Improved Trip and some other feats that made tripping more common (Defensive Throw, I think). And he had the strength to pull it off.

It might be pretty humilating for a Rogue if he has to drop his weapons and needs to pick them up again a few times in combat. I am not convinced it's a net positive feeling for the Rogue...

 

[jonrog1]

I have to say, Wulf is one of the maybe one and a half indie designers who, when he says "trust me it's fine" when it comes to the math ... you trust him and it's fine.

On the rogue "sneak attack" line, I fall into the "poorly named sacred cow" camp. Call sneak attack something else, to drag it even farther, conceptually and even linguistically from "backstab", and you'll just see it as the rogue's way to do damage in certain situations rather than according to certain victim biologies. One of the reasons I always liked the "Opportunist" ability. And considering how one of the main points of the 4th Ed was to get the play to stay in a "power envelope" so to speak of the "sweet spot", I'm surprised no one's thought that perhaps instead of super-powering rogues, they may well be de-powering everybody else.

Oddly -- or not, I'm a writer, I should know better -- naming not just the feats but the abilities properly in order change how they're viewed in an overall framework in the players' minds, may be a job almost as important for the game designers as crunching the math. Look how long they've been trying to de-link "hit points" from a literal understanding of physical damage.