Do You Enjoy The Rogues New Role?

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

This and every other edition-war thread from the past year.

 

[Remathilis]

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

Now, why don't I see this attitude more often expressed about the "d8-HD, 2nd-best-Thac0, heavy-armor-wearing military-chaplain" that D&D affectionately calls "cleric?" If there was EVER a class that got unneeded combat potential, its them.

Personally, I always thought the cleric class should have been replaced with a combination of the cloistered cleric and the MHB healer; light armor, d6 HD, simple (or blunt) weapons, 2nd worse thac0/to hit. That might have made up for all the divine spells that rock on toast.

Then again, I've always preferred the "white mage" idea to the "knight templar" one.

(BTW: I'd have given thieves the clerics former d8 HD 2/3 Thac0. A thieves life is dangerous by nature, they deserve the little better survival skills).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not a fan of rogues being exclusively ninjae stabbing machines, which is mostly what they are in 3e, and ENTIRELY what they are in 4e.

They can have that element, and they do need to be effective in combat, and that's a good way to make them effective in combat.

However, combat as the exclusive method of conflict resolution is dull as toads to me, so I'd like a rogue to have some depth in solving other kinds of problems.

FWIW, I'd like the fighter and every other class to have that, too. I don't MISS it for them, because they never really had it in the way that wizards and rogues did, but I think they deserve it, as much as wizards and rogues do.

4e desperately needs a more robust noncombat system.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't 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.

And yet people defend to the death that a ranger needed 2d8 at first level to live in the woods...

Personally, I never liked the "you must suck at combat to be good outside of it" and vice-verca argument. Too many classes (monk, ranger, druid, bard, cleric, magic-user) just ignored it. If your going to go that route, only fighters (and paladins, and barbarians) should be good at combat. Rangers, thieves, clerics, bards, and druids should all suck at combat (low HD, weak armor, medium-poor babs) and the wizard and monk either need to lose combat ability to keep the "cool toys" or lose the cool toys to rock at combat.

Of course, you could go the other way and allow every class something to do in combat; but that brings us to 3.0 and its successors...

 

[Tuft]

4e desperately needs a more robust noncombat system.

Agreed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Personally, I never liked the "you must suck at combat to be good outside of it" and vice-verca argument. Too many classes (monk, ranger, druid, bard, cleric, magic-user) just ignored it. If your going to go that route, only fighters (and paladins, and barbarians) should be good at combat. Rangers, thieves, clerics, bards, and druids should all suck at combat (low HD, weak armor, medium-poor babs) and the wizard and monk either need to lose combat ability to keep the "cool toys" or lose the cool toys to rock at combat.

Of course, you could go the other way and allow every class something to do in combat; but that brings us to 3.0 and its successors...

I'm with you on this, Rem. I see the logic of the theory, but it breaks down pretty quickly in practice. I think that the different classes need to all have their own unique strengths both in combat and out of it. I'm more annoyed with the loss of 3e's mild toying with a robust skill system in 4e than I am with the ninja-rogue, who is OK, as long as they have stuff that also makes them good at challenges that don't involve stabbing things in the kidneys, too.

I also think "fighters" should be able to do more than "fight."

 

[roguerouge]

In my experience, 3e rogue was one of the best designed classes of its editions. You had something to do in combat and outside of combat. You had the spotlight at times, but depended on your comrades. Single-classing worked, unlike the fighter, but you could multi-class if you wanted to just have a bit of skills with your other class.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Copied from a old post back in March, I can't see how someone can say that the Rogue has nothing special to offer non-combat, with stuff like this:

Powers:

• Quick Fingers: Utility 2
• Fleeting Ghost: Utility 2
• Master of Deceit: Utility 2
• Double Take: Utility 2
• Great Leap: Utility 2
• Chameleon: Utility 6
• Nimble Climb: Utility 6
• Dangerous Theft: Utility 10 (Requires Combat, but I would say a "shove" to "initiate combat" isn't much)
• Brisk Stride: Utility 10
• Foil the Lock: Utility 16
• Grasshopper Leap: Utility 16
• Magpie Filch: Utility 16 (requires a melee attack, but again works like Dangerous Theft)
• Shadow Stride: Utility 16
• Hide in Plain Sight: Utility 16
• Hide From the Light: Utility 22
• Scoundrel's Epiphany: Utility 22
• Wall Crawl: Utility 22
• Dazzling Acrobat: Utility 22
• Cloud Jump: Utility 22

Paragon Path Options:

• Master Infiltrator: Skillful Infiltrator
• Master Infiltrator: Impossible to Catch
• Cat Burglar: Acrobatic Action
• Cat Burglar:Athletic Master
• Daring Acrobat: Acrobatic Action
• Daring Acrobat: Flawless Stunt
• Guildmaster Thief: Thieving Crew (in this case by making everyone else better at Stealth and Thievery it can help you too)
• Master Spy: Cover Action
• Strong Arm Enforcer: Implied Threat
• Tiefling Hellstalker: Devil's Sight

So by just going through Rogue Utility Powers and Paragon Paths I have gained this amount of Powers that be useful for non-combat situations focused toward Roguish things. I think this is a fairly good show. I am sure many Combat Powers could also be useful, as well as Epic Destinies, Feats, Backgrounds, etc. I have probably missed a fair amount too as well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I can't see how someone can say that the Rogue has nothing special to offer non-combat, with stuff like this

The reason is that utility powers are mostly combat powers, and that paragon paths are mostly full of combat abilities. That mobility is COMBAT mobility.

This isn't about fluff, this is about non combat mechanics (and I know that's an oxymoron for a lot of people, but it really isn't for me).

The reason is that 4e in general has very little to offer non-combat. How can the rogue be expected to give what nothing else in 4e can really give? It was designed fine for combat, but it can't offer anything special in non-combat, because it's hard for ANYONE in 4e to do that.

Skill challenges can't support extended play.

Rituals are limited in scope.

Both skill challenges and rituals lack options to contribute in a diversified manner (by intentional design).

Utility powers are combat powers, by and large. Paragon paths have combat abilities. I'm talking about things that are not combat.

 

[Drowbane]

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

There are some that might say that 4e already did this for you (ok, failed my Will save)