Do You Enjoy The Rogues New Role?

[Doug McCrae]

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.

That's true of every edition.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

All those Utility Powers are usable in non-combat. Hell, same with Combat Powers my players have had a hell of a good time using Combat Powers in non-combat.

Skill Challenges, well one can form whole other threads on those who like it, and those that don't. Personally, I love them, and have run whole games just using them.

Same deal with Rituals.

I just don't see what makes the pre-4e Rogue better at non-combat, when besides Skills and Trap Finding/Trap Sense they have no special abilities for non-combat. While just the brief list in my previous post shows a whole bunch of abilities.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

World of Warcraft does clerics better than D&D. They heal well but can only wear cloth armor.

D&D suffered from class crossover for a long time. Magical classes and thieves. Clerics and paladins. The problem is there were only three classes in OD&D - fighting men, magic-users and clerics. There wasn't room for new classes, those three were supposed to be able to do everything. But thieves and paladins got added due to the same market forces that drive the splat book treadmill today.

That's why D&D has been broken from 1975 thru to 2008.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I just don't see what makes the pre-4e Rogue better at non-combat, when besides Skills and Trap Finding/Trap Sense they have no special abilities for non-combat. While just the brief list in my previous post shows a whole bunch of abilities.

For 3e, they could take talky skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, etc if they so chose.

Of course, they didn't have to.

Not sure how they did stuff in 2e or earlier. I remember skill percentages involving property theft, but that's pretty much it. Perhaps because they had such crappy tools the player had to be creative?

Brad

 

[Mouseferatu]

For 3e, they could take talky skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, etc if they so chose.

And so they can in 4E. Bluff, Intimidate, Insight, and Streetwise (which includes the old "Gather Information") are all on the rogue's skill list in 4E. The only "talky skill" that isn't is Diplomacy, and that's fixable with a single feat if it's truly necessary for the character concept.

Which brings us back to this: Is it true that the 3E and 4E rogue are better in combat than the 1E and 2E thief? Yes. Is it true that the 3E and 4E rogue have less to do out of combat than the 1E and 2E thief? Not at all.

 

[Remathilis]

D&D suffered from class crossover for a long time. Magical classes and thieves. Clerics and paladins. The problem is there were only three classes in OD&D - fighting men, magic-users and clerics. There wasn't room for new classes, those three were supposed to be able to do everything. But thieves and paladins got added due to the same market forces that drive the splat book treadmill today.

That's why D&D has been broken from 1975 thru to 2008.

Its one of the few reasons 4e is both lauded and mocked; they decided to break the old ways and build the game with more than three classes in mind. They reigned in cleric combat potential, wizard "do everything" potential, and upped rogues "do something cool" potential and gave fighters something more than "full-attack every round" potential.

Which brings us back to the point; rogues might just be another name for fighter, but at least now I get a feeling of a lightly armored fighter jumping and dodging, driving nimble blades into foes to weaken and harass them, and the spring back to safety. Do that in 1e/2e and you get a thief who does 2d4+ Str damage to his foe (if he even hits) and is then squashed like a grape.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Its one of the few reasons 4e is both lauded and mocked; they decided to break the old ways and build the game with more than three classes in mind. They reigned in cleric combat potential, wizard "do everything" potential, and upped rogues "do something cool" potential and gave fighters something more than "full-attack every round" potential.

Which brings us back to the point; rogues might just be another name for fighter, but at least now I get a feeling of a lightly armored fighter jumping and dodging, driving nimble blades into foes to weaken and harass them, and the spring back to safety. Do that in 1e/2e and you get a thief who does 2d4+ Str damage to his foe (if he even hits) and is then squashed like a grape.

I mostly agree with this, the classes are now balanced within the combat round. However 4E requires a lot more sacred cow slaughtering to make sense. Fighter should be Man-at-arms, rogue should be swashbuckler, or something. HP should be hero points or whatever.
The problem now is that, within combat, Rogues are as good (though different) in a fight as a ftr. But now they are also a ton better outside a fight. The old 'balance' of being poor at combat but good outside has left us with rogues and rangers that have more skills for no reason. Every class should have the same number of skills and a class list of ALL.

 

[Remathilis]

I mostly agree with this, the classes are now balanced within the combat round. However 4E requires a lot more sacred cow slaughtering to make sense. Fighter should be Man-at-arms, rogue should be swashbuckler, or something. HP should be hero points or whatever.
The problem now is that, within combat, Rogues are as good (though different) in a fight as a ftr. But now they are also a ton better outside a fight. The old 'balance' of being poor at combat but good outside has left us with rogues and rangers that have more skills for no reason. Every class should have the same number of skills and a class list of ALL.

Eh, I consider the extra skills a trade for being a melee class in light armor and only having 12+con/5 hp per level hp (and less surges).

 

[mach1.9pants]

Eh, I consider the extra skills a trade for being a melee class in light armor and only having 12+con/5 hp per level hp (and less surges).

Fair enough, I consider those as balance for the fact the rogue averages around twice the damage of the ftr in our group.

 

[JoeGKushner]

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.

Problem with that arguement is that the skill system in 4e is broken no? Skill challenges and other actual uses of skills have been sub part.

It's a good thing that the rogue is useful in combat because that skill monkey role isn't really supported by the skill system in 4e.