4th ed, the Good & the Bad?

[Phlebas]

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.

Maybe, I'm at 7th level, and I think you need to be higher to pull out spells like that for miscellaneous activity (though for the final encounter its def an option). for some reason our party is overloaded with spider climb items so we can spend the final encounter huddling on the ceiling.....

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

I've also got a bag of tricks for that unremarkable doorway problem

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.
........
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.

Def valid points, i was just trying to highlight rogues are not one-trick ponies with SA. Although i think the skill system could be improved, and played around with it in house rules, i haven't seen anything yet that really fixes all the issues elegantly. Personally i'm thinking of giving out free skill focus feats to all characters every x levels but thats a 3E sticking plaster.

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.

"Ah, so we agree the principle and now we're just haggling over the price"
I've no problem with changing the range of creatures immune to sneak, personally i'd like to see a mechanic similar to rangers favoured enemy to change the range. it would allow an undead specialist to be happy traipsing around a crypt, but still be nervous of plants or a construct demolition expert to have a skeleton-phobia.

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.

In my game i have a cleric / fighter with improved crit and lucky dice, so its becoming a regular feature of combat these days, but that may be a personal view..... especially since no-one can match the TWF Fighter / Rogue / Shadowdancer for damage output and she's now thinking of improved critical as well!

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.

I do think you can get issues if you don't mix and match challenges for any character class, try taking a druid, fighter specialising in mounted combat, illusionist and rogue down an undead filled crypt and see who feels more hard done by.... as a DM you have the ability to design PC killers or Gold mines with your decisions - SA immunity is just one of many factors you should be careful not to overuse.

In both the games I play in the Rogue spot has been taken by a Ranger + Artificier or Urban Ranger + Warlock- they're 5 PC games and when we rolled up / pointed up PC's it was just how it came out.

Where I DM there's 2 multi-class rogues and the only comment about SA came up when they were dealing with a bunch of half-golems in the sewers over several sessions. I always justified it as SA immunity was one of the reasons the half-golems were kicking butt of the other thieves guilds. Anyhow, the golems were beaten back and now they're more worried about the bad case of lycanthropy the docklands guild has come down with.....

 

[Phlebas]

..............
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.

I think the point i was trying to make is that if your games are just form a line and blast & hack at each other than the Rogue is not made for that. Thats why i highlighted it is situational and, more to the point, situational is where the rogue comes into its own.

btw most of those examples I quoted I have seen in real games. And most actually in an initiative context (ie during combat rather than solo play)

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!

We'll have to agree to disagree here - I believe skill-monkey is effectively a class ability of the rogue, you don't. I believe that you cannot expect a class to be master of non-combat activities and master of combat as well. No right / wrong intended or implied just different perspectives

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.

OK, classic example of rogue ability is to tumble past guards and engage spell-casters - engage works even if they're immune to Sneak attack as you're still forcing him to make the concentration roll or focus on you rather than the area effect spells - this only works in a group concept as you'll need the cavalry to hack their way through to you sooner rather than later.

Scouting has always been solo activity and the philosophy of solo v group activity is a whole other discussion for another thread and time

Maybe someone might be a bit more effective, but he shouldn't been able to do the job without the help of others.

My point about Rogues not being useless without Sneak attack really - they can have a supporting or starring role in any combat or non-combat situation.

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.

I know what you mean about shadow run, in one game the Decker moved away and nobody even noticed and that level of seperation is not something I enjoy

I'm not sure what you mean by corner-cases, assume its the same as occasional?

I do think you can play the game as a succession of spotlight moments as long as your careful to balance it both in terms of player vs player share and individual v group. Again this is a long way away from Sneak Attack so i suggest we leave it there, message me or open up another thread.

My point has always been that sneak attack is not the be all and end all of the rogue, and that reducing or removing immunities is, IMHO, not that major a factor (certainly not worth an edition war over.)

 

[Digital M@]

Even just taking this example.

That's about 1/4 of the encounters that the rogue cannot use his main combat ability.

26 encounters takes about 16 hours to play out. Give or take. I'm not familiar with the levels of Forge of Fury, but, 30-40 minutes per combat isn't out of line in many groups.

That's FOUR HOURS of sitting around twiddling your thumbs. Yup, you get to make that up by making 6 Disable Device checks. Woo hoo.

No other class does this. NONE. No one sits around for 4 hours during combat and cannot do anything related to their class.

Wrong! Magic users spend more time firing crossbows knowing they will never do anything than Rogues do not getting sneak attack. Rogues can still maneuver and help an over all encounter, still do damage with their chosen weapon. A wizard will get crippled by casting his three spells for the day and have nothing else to do until the group can rest. I hate playing magic users because you have to limit yourself to one or two rounds of action per encounter or risk having nothing to do but say, I fire my crossbow for two hours at the game table.

Now thankfully, this is being addressed in 4e. I just hope they lower the sneak attack damage a bit, then having it always on is fine. Sneak attacks are pretty easy to set up in 3E, you can even do it with a bow from the safety of the side lines. I am just saying the Rogue class is hands down the most active class in the game and even if the fighter can smash the gears of a large trap, he will not be as effective as the rogue in the party at doing so, so why bother unless the rogue rolls bad. It will be nice to have the mechanics in the game for a fighter to smash open a chest or door to bypass a poison needle trap.

Overall I like many of the changes, but my concern with 4E is the everybody is always a bad a$$ at whatever they do. It may significantly change the feel of the game.

Personally, I have never played a rogue in 3E because other players always clamor for it first, and I have never heard anyone complain about their characters being boring or too weak. But, that is my experience and I am only one of thousands, so.....

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I believe that you cannot expect a class to be master of non-combat activities and master of combat as well.

Agreed 100%. You want to be a primary combat damage-dealing badass, play a warrior class.

Rogues are, IMHO, meant to be secondary or tertiary combatants, using tactics to give his party an advantage, not accumulating a bodycount as fast as his armor-wearing, Maul weilding partymates.

I have no problem with rogues having periods of merely being able to deal base weapon damage- other classes do so as well. My first adventure ever (back in '77) concluded with my fighter standing shoulder-to-shoulder with only the party's mage (who only had Magic Missile left) against a Purple Worm. I welcomed those d4s from thrown daggers and d6s he did with his staff strikes after that final spell was expended- it made the fight close enough to give me a chance. (The worm won, but with only 4 hp left- I never felt cheated, and that single adventure hooked me on the game, along with several of the guys who fell earlier in the game).

Rogues can't SA undead? I'm crying! That means that PC Paladins & Clerics (and some others) get to step to the fore.

This is a "problem" that really didn't need a fix.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Agreed 100%. You want to be a primary combat damage-dealing badass, play a warrior class.

Rogues are, IMHO, meant to be secondary or tertiary combatants, using tactics to give his party an advantage, not accumulating a bodycount as fast as his armor-wearing, Maul weilding partymates.

Rogues can't SA undead? I'm crying! That means that PC Paladins & Clerics (and some others) get to step to the fore.

This is a "problem" that really didn't need a fix.

I disagree. I like the archtype of backflipping over someone's head and stabbing them in the neck only to deftly dodge under the blow from the other enemy, kick them in the stomach then eviscerate them. That's a rogue's shtick. It's the fighting style I want in my combats. And fighters don't do that well. They instead are the people who deflect the blow with their shield and force the enemies weapon away with a strong blow hacking through their block and their chest then they immediate whirl around an throw their shield up to deflect a blow that was about to hit the rogue in the back. Meanwhile, the cleric is calling down holy smites on their enemies, the power of their god descending in columns of light from the heavens and roasting their enemies while the wizard throws white hot balls of fire roasting them.

That is all kinds of awesome right there. Everyone gets to have fun, everyone has cool powers.

Contrast that to:
The fighter slices at the zombies shambling towards them hacking off the head of two of them in a row without even pausing before cutting a third one in half. The wizard roasts a group of them with a fireball, a dozen of them turning to ash in an instant. The rogue then pulls out his daggers, a gleam in his eye as he stabs the first zombie he sees in the eye, right through the socket into the brain of the creature. It doesn't appear to notice and continues towards the rogue, pummeling him. The cleric holds up his holy symbol and concentrates for a second sending waves of holy energy around him, destroying the remaining 15 of them.

It doesn't feel like you are a high level character in that battle. It doesn't feel like you are cool or interesting, or that you even have a reason to be there. Whereas in the first battle everyone is useful and cool and fun. Now, tell me why the second battle should be the way things should be done as opposed to the first one. Why is it that one person in the party should be completely useless against a monster?

Is it because said rogue can find traps? That isn't much of a tradeoff. Sitting there for an hour waiting for the rest of the players to finish having fun killing things so I can make the disable device roll for 10 seconds sounds like all sorts of awesome to me.

 

[Wolfspider]

I disagree. I like the archtype of backflipping over someone's head and stabbing them in the neck only to deftly dodge under the blow from the other enemy, kick them in the stomach then eviscerate them. That's a rogue's shtick.

Kicking a zombie in the stomach isn't going to effect it much. Neither will eviscerating it or stabbing it in the neck. There are some creatures that just can't be hurt in certain ways.

What if a party goes up against an incorporeal creature that can only be hurt by magic? Do you think that such creatures such as these (ghosts, for example) should not be used in 4e because a fighter type or other physical combatant might not be able to hurt it and would then not have fun?

 

[Campbell]

I think part of the disconnect we're experiencing in this thread is due to a disagreement on what a rogue should be on a conceptual level, largely because the 3rd edition rogue was conceptually confused. A significant number of people who now choose to play rogues do not want to play AD&D thieves. They want to play a lightly armored, athletic, stealthy warrior that takes every advantage his enemy will give him (basically the Iron Heroes Executionor or the Arcana Evolved Unfettered). They get their kick not from bomb disposal or thievery, but from sticking a knife into an enemy's side or ambushing a monster.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I disagree. I like the archtype of backflipping over someone's head and stabbing them in the neck only to deftly dodge under the blow from the other enemy, kick them in the stomach then eviscerate them. That's a rogue's shtick. It's the fighting style I want in my combats. And fighters don't do that well. They instead are the people who deflect the blow with their shield and force the enemies weapon away with a strong blow hacking through their block and their chest then they immediate whirl around an throw their shield up to deflect a blow that was about to hit the rogue in the back.

The rogue you describe is a master combatant. Therefore, I would suggest that Rog/Ftr is the proper combination to model the rogue you describe.

You also have a much narrower view of the fighter than I do.

I wanted to make an agile reach-weapon fighter for 3.5. Using Tumble, taking advantage of AOOs, maybe Trip. So I started him as a level 1 rogue. Not because he was a thief or ever stole anything, but because that set of abilities (in particular, Tumble as a class skill) best represented the character concept. Over time, he'd have been mostly Ftr with a couple of Rogue levels. The character classes function best as sets of abilities, not archetypes.

 

[The Little Raven]

The rogue you describe is a master combatant. Therefore, I would suggest that Rog/Ftr is the proper combination to model the rogue you describe.

Can you list some archetypical rogues that aren't good combatants, aside from Bilbo Baggins?

 

[Greg K]

The rogue you describe is a master combatant. Therefore, I would suggest that Rog/Ftr is the proper combination to model the rogue you describe.

I personally prefer the martial rogue from Unearthed Arcana as an option. I'd probably let the player trade out skill points per level to boost hit die to d8/level. I might also let the player trade out more skill points to increase BAB/level. So, the character would have a couple of more skill point per level and a better skill selection than a fighter, but lack the sturdiness and training in all martial weapons as well as medium and heavy armor.
However, if they multiclassed into a fighter, I wouldn't allow them to take all martial weapons, medium, and heavy armor.

But yeah, I also don't picture the standard rogue as being someone meant to be mixing it up on the front line.