Do You Enjoy The Rogues New Role?

[Aus_Snow]

Now, the question is, has D&D thieves always been fighters in gimp costumes?

. . .

It's oh so tempting. . .

But no, I will resist posting that two letter answer. Again.

I'd have to say, no, IME. That should do it.

 

[Remathilis]

. . .

It's oh so tempting. . .

But no, I will resist posting that two letter answer. Again.

I'd have to say, no, IME. That should do it.

Fair enough.

I've always liked the class, but (as some have said) the class lacked something for a long time. Too often magic (esp. MU spells & magic items) could trump a thief's skills, the latter often rising too slowly to keep up. Add to it a general lack of combat ability (as compared to a cleric's "second fighter" role or a wizard's "boom magic" role) and you have a recipe for a class that has "built in obsolesces" written into it UNLESS the DM specifically gimps magic to keep the thief viable in higher (7+) levels.

Then again, if I had made a D&D game, I'd've switched the thief and cleric's combat potential so that the thief was slightly better at combat/surviving traps and the cleric more the "ultimate defensive magic/healing" class without the warrior-priest baggage. To cherry on top, I'd remove, move or redesign some wizard spells that either are too defensive in nature (stoneskin), trample thieves in thief skills (knock) or do a fighter's job for him (finger of death). Wizards would be good at large-scale damage (fireball), offensive boosts (haste, strength), charms, illusion/misdirection, some transportation magic at HIGH level, summoning (fiends & elementals), and necromancy/undead magic. Clerics would get healing, defensive boosts like energy resistance and shield of faith, anti-undead magic, anti-outsider magic (banishment), a few summons (angels & demons) and travel/convenience magic (create food, rope trick, secure shelter). Then, the classes would be better balanced against each other in their niches.

And you don't need to give the fighters "dailies" to do it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Don't worry, I can't reproduce them either. Maybe we can make a club.

Don't we already have one? I know, it's secret and all...

 

[Nikosandros]

Now, the question is, has D&D thieves always been fighters in gimp costumes?

In my opinion, absolutely not... but I'm firmly in the minority.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Wizards would be good at large-scale damage (fireball), offensive boosts (haste, strength), charms, illusion/misdirection, some transportation magic at HIGH level, summoning (fiends & elementals), and necromancy/undead magic.

And you don't need to give the fighters "dailies" to do it.

But Large-scale damage is inefficient at higher levels because of increase hps everyone has (compare hps in earlier D&D's).

You need to use multiple of those damage spells vs one or two save or dies (they will fail one every now and then but less likely two unless something is qrong with your DCs)

Save or dies help save on spell slots.

 

[amysrevenge]

I also think the skill challenge system for dealing with traps during combat is probably the single worst system in 4E.

I'm one of the biggest 4E fans in the land, but I agree with this statement. After trying it out (or watching other people try it while DMing) three times, I've never done it since. Now all traps are treated as immobile extra combatants, and dealt with accordingly (very infrequently someone will use Tievery to delay a trap for one round, but never to go for an actual Success for the skill challenge).

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I'm not much of a fan of the nouveau-Rogue that tries to be a Fighter with stealth just so it can be "balanced" in combat, and in the meantime has mostly forgotten how to steal.

This is simply insane. There is absolutely nothing in the new Rogue classes that prevents one from actually developing the skills necessary for stealing. Indeed, they remain the classes that have the easiest access to the required skills.

 

[Storminator]

This is simply insane. There is absolutely nothing in the new Rogue classes that prevents one from actually developing the skills necessary for stealing. Indeed, they remain the classes that have the easiest access to the required skills.

In fact, they are required to take them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see no difference between 4e rogues and the thieves we used to play. In our games "backstab" meant any time a combatant turned its back on you, you got the multiplier. I believe our sophisticated rationale was "anything else would be stupid."

So our thieves backstabbed at least every other attack, and sometimes more if they could slip thru the scrum. Hide in Shadows? now that was difficult! It required shadows! But we've been playing with deadly ninja thieves since 1979.

So it's no different to me.

PS

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But Large-scale damage is inefficient at higher levels because of increase hps everyone has (compare hps in earlier D&D's).

You need to use multiple of those damage spells vs one or two save or dies (they will fail one every now and then but less likely two unless something is qrong with your DCs)

Save or dies help save on spell slots.

That's why he'd remove the save or dies and retain the damage area spells. That allows the fighter to be the one ruling combat. The Wizard will just "soften up" the opposition.

One of the biggest advantages of using damage spells is that wizard and fighter can actually complement each other. Hit Point damage stacks. Save or Die and hit point damage does not.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Now, the question is, has D&D thieves always been fighters in gimp costumes?

Not really. 1E and Basic D&D thieves were not close to the fighter in
general combat ability. Take a look at the 1E "to-hit" tables for thieves. They lag
behind the fighter quite a bit. Another thing to consider is the exceptional strength
rules. A single classed thief couldn't roll on the % table even if he/she had an 18 STR.

In combat, the thief had the potential to do some great one-shot damage to certain
targets if the conditions were right. I wouldn't classify that as making the thief a
consistent combat performer. The thief was never intended to be a strong combatant.
This was all well and good because the system wasn't balanced around the round to round
combat utility of each character.

The original D&D game had 3 classes that were all useful in and out of combat.
There were no class specialized skills. Any character could try and jimmy open a lock,
be sneaky, or make a difficult climb. One the specialist was introduced suddenly nobody
else could manage such things and the adventuring party had to carry the weight of
a weak combatant just to perform mundane tasks that the rest of the group used to
be able to perform without him.