Do You Enjoy The Rogues New Role?

[joethelawyer]

I think you might, in fact, be the minority; I suspect most groups are more casual, and do play D&D for the combat. I certainly wish I could get my group to take some interest in doing something other than rolling attacks.

We also don't use the special attack stuff. Things like trip, bull rush, full attack, grapple---plus all the rest of stuff that the Pathfinder Combat Maneuver Bonus is supposed to cover. None of us want the game to be a tactical wargame. Our combat is just "The fighter swings his sword." "The magic user and clerics cast spells." "The thief shoots his bow."

It makes for faster combat, and gives us more time to do other things during a session that just 3 or 4 combats and then go home.

Basically we play a 1e style game using 3.x rules, spells, skills, and feats.

 

[outsider]

I definitely enjoy the "new" rogue role. The default playstyle of D&D features alot of combat, and it sucked being so sub-par at it.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I like the rogue being more viable in combat. I don't like that the fighter is not better at offensive combat than the rogue. Something in between would have been my preference.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Im not too fond of the newfangled rogue. The modern ( 3E forward) rogue is just a fighting man in a gimp suit that needs special rules constructed for him in order to function.

The rogue exists as it does because the designers needed a melee dps class with cartoon ninja combat techniques. It has proven to be quite popular, so I guess a lot of players like it.

 

[JoeGKushner]

One of the other 'problems' is an equipment issue. Back in the day the rogue/thief didn't necessarily need the magic weapons and the other party members who were more upfront in combat could get them without too much 'tussle'.

Nowadays? Not so much. Items used to be designed to make the rogue's abilities more useful but now they don't necessarily need those bonuses and need straight up combat ability more.

 

[Remathilis]

See, I think Gary Gygax pegged what the old (pre-3e) thief class was for in the 1e PHB.

1.) All races (except half-orc) had unlimited advancment in thief. (the only class most did. Yes, dwarf fighters were limited to 8th, but thieves? 20th+)

2.) All races (except human) could multi-class thief with another class. Dwarves could combine it with fighter, elves with fighter, magic-user (or both), gnomes with fighter and illusionist, halflings with fighter, half-orcs with cleric and fighter, and half-elves with fighter, magic-user (or both).

3.) Put those two facts together: an elf might be an ok fighter (5-7) and a pretty decent MU (9-11) but if the took thief, they could continue to 20 (and beyond) gaining saves, thief skills, hp, etc. He also gave up little to take thief with either class: a fighter/thief could still use F/RT and OL by taking off his gauntlets and HN by removing a helm. Elfen chain allowed him to use ALL is skills (at penalty), and oh, he had backstab to augment his combat prowess (and average hp of 2-8). The MU/Thief? decent hp (2-5), thief to hit, thief skills, leather armor and thief weapons (hello shortbow & longsword!) and the spellcasting up to (potentially) 6th level spells? Sign me up. Oh, and dex synergies with both Ftr and MU. And it didn't eat a lot of XP either, thief had the lowest XP table.

Thief: Its the class demi-humans take to continue advancement once they are done being fighters and mages.

Thank the Gods of Greyhawk they made "rogue" a worthwhile class to take, rather than a half-class taken by the inexperienced and multi-classers...

 

[Mouseferatu]

Count me among those who don't feel that the rogue in 3E/4E is a "new role" at all, but simply an expansion on an existing role.

The rogue is still the skill monkey, at least where the classic "thief shticks" are concerned. It's just also useful in combat. I reject any argument that says for a class to be good at the former, they have to be bad at the later, or that making all classes able to contribute in combat somehow makes the game less RP-focused.

The only thing new about the rogue is that it's no longer a sub-optimal choice in groups that do choose to include a decent amount of combat.

 

[Nikosandros]

Personally, I'm not too fond of the "commando" rogue introduced from 3.0 onwards.

Admittedly, thieves in AD&D are too weak, but this can be amended with some smaller tweaks (mainly improving the skill percentages).

Of course, it's also true that in games like 3e and 4e in which combat is highly tactical and takes quite a bit to resolve, it's almost imperative that all classes be quite effective in combat.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I dont know, but some posts in this thread seem to imply that the combat-ability-less thief/rogue somehow led to better/more organic/more creative play.

How about going a step further? Lets create a class called the Sock. The Sock is a sub-class of the thief. Short overview:
- 10% chance to backstab someone out of combat if said person is facing away, completely unaware, and wearing armor with backstab-able spots (DM decision. 20% if the person is sleeping or dead. Useable once per week.
- Allowed weapons: Blackjack, short club, long club, blunt sword, dead cat.
- Allowed armor: none.
- HD: d4

See? This avoids
a) the tactical-ness of modern editions
b) combat-heavy play
and allows smart players to think about cunning tactics to fail with. I think this one will be a winner.

Next week: we increase roleplaying potential by creating a wizard that sucks at magic.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I don't play 4e, so can't comment on that game. But with 3.x, we've houseruled away the ability of the thief to backstab during combat. He gets one, and he has to be moving silent/hiding and get surprise to get it. And it can't be in the middle of combat. After that he gets his low HP ass out of there, and maybe plays sniper from a distance.

As for those who say it makes him a useless class if he can't fight--it doesn't the way we play it. We don't have a 15 minute adventuring day. The day lasts until we are all out of hp, spells, and charged items. And I mean totally depleted. Or until the mission is completed. Whichever comes first. That prevents the wizard from stocking up on thief-clone spells because his other spells are needed so much that he would be stupid to try and mimic a thief through spells.

Well, what if the wizard just brought along a bunch of scrolls with spells like Knock, Detect Secret Doors, and Passwall--and some 1st-level Summon Monster scrolls for setting off traps. That seems to be the way it plays out in most games, in my experience.