Are we sure we need a skill guy?

[mmadsen]

I think we should look at this as two separate questions: (1) Do we need a Rogue archetype? and (2) Does that Rogue archetype have to be implemented with skill points used to buy skill ranks?

 

[hong]

I think we should look at this as two separate questions: (1) Do we need a Rogue archetype? and (2) Does that Rogue archetype have to be implemented with skill points used to buy skill ranks?

I like how IH split the rogue into two bits: the executioner (finesse/stealth warrior, more-or-less) and thief (JOAT with the ability to stay alive in a fight).

 

[Desdichado]

I think we should look at this as two separate questions: (1) Do we need a Rogue archetype? and (2) Does that Rogue archetype have to be implemented with skill points used to buy skill ranks?

Or consolidate that into the question of what exactly is the rogue archetype anyway?

D&D is supposed to be a game that is strong on literary archetypes--that's the whole point of it's class system after all, and the rogue as implemented seems to fill more a game mechanics need than a literary archetype need.

I think there is a rogue archetype; I think the rogue class doesn't necessarily fill it well though.

 

[Odhanan]

The utility of the Skills guy depends on what the adventuring is about, exactly. If that's straight dungeoneering, there are ways to replace the main functions of the rogue (Sunder, 10-foot pole... it's been posted above).

However, if the adventure is about character interaction, urban investigation, diplomacy, and such, the Skill guy will absolutely shine, no question about it, and in that case, it's hard to think of replacing a high Bluff, Gather Information or Knowledge (Local) without tweaking the system one way or another, or torturing every NPC you're coming across (with the appropriate Intimidate ranks to back it up).

 

[BryonD]

Basically I'm looking for a set of rules that doesn't involve a trade-off. For example, a character could choose to skip a feat to enhance their attack in favor of a feat to enhance their skills - but those skills have important implications for combat. To me, that's a good way to establish a character's style. What I don't want is "hey, carry me in combat, I'll carry you out of combat."

Ok, but what is the answer to the question?

I think "hey, carry me in combat, I'll carry you out of combat." grossly misrepresents the issue and that may be the key problem.

 

[Ry]

However, if the adventure is about character interaction, urban investigation, diplomacy, and such, the Skill guy will absolutely shine, no question about it, and in that case, it's hard to think of replacing a high Bluff, Gather Information or Knowledge (Local) without tweaking the system one way or another, or torturing every NPC you're coming across (with the appropriate Intimidate ranks to back it up).

I'm much more inclined to the highlighted option.

 

[Ry]

Ok, but what is the answer to the question?

The answer to the question is "Yes, but to a far lesser extent than in D&D."

 

[mmadsen]

Or consolidate that into the question of what exactly is the rogue archetype anyway?

What you bring up is a facet of the first question: Do we need a Rogue archetype? I think we do, and I think that archetype is the clever Trickster.

D&D is supposed to be a game that is strong on literary archetypes--that's the whole point of it's class system after all, and the rogue as implemented seems to fill more a game mechanics need than a literary archetype need.

I think you've got that reversed. I think the skill mechanics largely exist to implement what the Rogue does -- sneak around, fool people, etc. -- but the skill mechanics aren't the only way to implement that idea, and they're not necessarily the best way either.

 

[The_Gneech]

OK, but what if I said to you: "Yeah, you can have your skill guy. But in a pinch he'll be good at fighting too. Your fighter-minded friends are also good at fighting, and in a pinch they can use skills too."

I'd say, "How is that different from what we have now?" Rogues can't stand up to fighters toe-to-toe, but they can hold their own in most fights. Fighters can't pick locks and disarm traps, but they can smash down doors and tough-it-out if they fall in a pit.

If you're talking about making both of them effectively a FTR/ROG multiclass, feel free to do so. But then you're going to have the combat-happy folks wanting to trade in skills to be better fighters, and the skill-happy folks wanting to trade in toughness to have more skills ... which puts you right back at square one. So why not bypass all that and leave the classes as they are and just encourage multiclassing?

FTR/ROG is a very effective combo, actually ... with BBN/ROG possibly being slightly moreso. If you're wanting to combine them, I'd recommend doing it this way!

-The Gneech

 

[Ry]

Actually... that gives me an idea.

Maybe what I want is to combine 2 Unearthed Arcana concepts: Gestalt Generic Classes. You can be a Warrior/Expert or an Expert/Spellcaster.