Do You Enjoy The Rogues New Role?

[Remathilis]

I'm curious.

To those that played pre 3e thieves,

Why single classed? You could multiclass with thief for any race and the xp scale meant that you were only a level or two behing your single classed compatriot....

EDIT : No cheating with broken kits...Many of those kits kind of eliminated some of the drawbacks for thieves...

I told you my reason; I didn't know better at the time. Even after he became obsolete, he was too dear to go start a ration shop, so I stuck with him.

If I was making the PC anew in 2e, he'd be a fighter/thief.

My 2nd thief was a mage/thief (tiefling, PS) and I LOVED him, but after a while he was more of a wizard who could open locks than a thief with magical power...

 

[Storminator]

What is this "great one-shot" damage you speak of?

So lets get this all straight:

Thief, 9th level, +1 longsword, 16 Str (+2 in basic, -/+1 in AD&D)

Basic: +4 to hit, 2d8+3 damage. (5-19, av dmg 12)
AD&D: +4 to hit, 4d8+2 damage. (6-34 av dmg 20)

Average damage from a fireball, 9th level caster: 9d6 (9-54, av dmg 31, save 1/2), affects multiple foes
Average damage from a flame strike, 9th level caster: 6d8 (6-48, av dmg 27, save 1/2) affects multiple foes
Average damage from a fighter: 18/01 str, specialized with +1 longsword: +3 to hit, 1d8+6, 2 attacks (if both hit: 2d8+12, 14-28, av dmg 21), usable every round.

You're totally doing it wrong. First add the extra damage, then multiply. Oh sure, it's against the rules, but I point you to my sophisticated arguments upthread.

Thief, 9th level, +4 Defender longsword, 16 Str +1
AD&D: +4 to hit, 4d8+20 damage. (24-52 av dmg 38)

And then he turns Invisible, so he can do it again next round.

I mean sure it's not as good as the +6 Dancing Vorpal sword... but then what is?

PS

P.S. (didn't everybody play that way?)

 

[Mad Mac]

P.S. (didn't everybody play that way?)

Backstabbing was one of those things that was either totally awesome or totally lame depending on your DM. Or, how good a mood your DM was in, sometimes.

EDIT : No cheating with broken kits...Many of those kits kind of eliminated some of the drawbacks for thieves...

What? Those kits were totally balanced with serious Roleplaying restrictions like "Your character is so totally awesome that he is sometimes stalked by hot women looking for a piece of his awesomeness."

 

[Remathilis]

P.S. (didn't everybody play that way?)

My DM read the 2e backstab quite literally; if the monster saw one of my allies, I couldn't get a backstab in because he was now "in combat". The only way to Backstab was to be alone, which usually meant you needed to KILL that foe that round (or cripple him to within 1-2 rounds of combat) or you were carved up like a Christmas turkey while your allies ran to catch up.

and no, I don't take that into consideration when I rail on thieves, but I do mind the fact that the fact a rogue could backstab once, then he could leave the dungeon, grab a smoke, and come back when combat was over for all that he could do after that.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

With 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder branches, the thief has become the rogue and it's days as primarily a skill using class that got in a backstab once in a while are long dead and gone.

When poeple talk about the game supporting different types of play, this is often one of the things I think of.

The rogue, while it hasn't 'killed the fighter and taken his stuff', has certainly changed the utility of the fighter in many ways. The role of striker in many ways was a combination of 'striker/meat shield' as fighters were often powerhouses on an individual level or in earlier editions, against hordes. In 4e, their role of "don't ignore me" has increased but it seems the 'cool' kids are in many ways the strikers. The fighter also loses a bit of it's 'tank' in that it's not fully proficient with all armors like plate, unlike the paladin.

Without a skill system tailored for the thief, it needs to be the rogue. As the rogue, it's cutting into other classes' strichk's still.

Opinoins?

Is a Tank (in the literal tracked vehicle that terrifies infantry sense) defined by its cannon or its armour? A Rogue can inflict more damage in say, 3 rounds than the Fighter can with Sneak attack, as long as conditions are just right. But if the Rogue dies in 3 rounds and the fighter can hang in there for 10 rounds, the Fighter may have done more damage.

Getting away from the metaphors, I am of the mind that it is a bad idea to try to balance in combat abilities against out of combat abilities unless the rules of the game can guarantee equal importance of those aspects. That is not possible in D&D of any type because it is ultimately up to the DM how much of the game is combat based and how much of it is non combat. The Rogue / Thief needed to be able to contribute meaningfully in combat.

And once you look at how things work in combat, I am satisfied that the Rogue and the Fighter do not step on each others toes. In 3.5, the Fighter has a clear edge in base damage per hit, number of attacks per round, and base attack bonus. Either the Rogue will hit with his primary attack about half the time and the Fighter will hit every time with his first two attacks, or the Fighter will be the only one able to land a hit in melee on the opponent. The fighter has more HP and better AC, so he will not die as fast. The Rogue is certainly able to lay a great deal of pain on his target, but there are also so many targets that can ignore Sneak attacks.

In 4th edition, the Rogue class is blatantly able to inflict more damage than the Fighter in any single round, provided with the means to use Sneak Attack. But again, the Fighter has more healing surges, better HP, and better AC, and it can Mark opponents and make them pay when they try to flee.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[SteveC]

I'd say I'm very pleased with the rogue from 3x onwards. In earlier editions the rogue's combat ability was entirely in the world of "mother may I," and I think that's a horrible way to balance a class. In 3x and later you know what you need to do in order to score a sneak attack, so you can prepare.

I enjoy the roleplay and skills aspects of the rogue a lot, but earlier editions made them anything but fun in combat. Not having anything interesting to do in combat (without GM fiat) makes for some looooong D&D sessions.

--Steve

 

[Felon]

With or without the Swashbuckler kit?

The swashbuckler kit for the fighter was the one with all of the sweet bonuses. The SB kit for the rogue got nothing besides using a fighter THACO with a rapier and main-gauche.

The kit book for thieves was basically the gimpiest of the series, with most of the kits just being flavor text and some +5%/-5% adjustments to thief skills. Even most of the equipment was garbage: the rules for grappling hooks, for instance, made them insanely unusable, as they only had a 1 in 3 chance of working properly, otherwise they would either miss, or come loose once you were halfway up the wall. And they were defined as producing an audible noise that could be heard from 100 feet away, IIRC. Between that nerf to backstab and the kit book, I really got the impression that 2e's designers really hated that class.

3e was the best thing that ever happened to thieves/rogues.

 

[Felon]

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.

Oh, there are lots of things to both laud and mock in 4e. But the rogue surpasses its 3e predecessor in that you're not feeling like a 2e rogue whenever you fight undead...or constructs...or plants...or elementals....

Having said that, I am very much convinced the class would be better suited to the role of controller than striker. I mean, when fantasy works with roguish characters comes to mind, they're rare;y treated as some big gun--"OMG, it's a big, nasty monster--where's the guys with the dagger? Step aside and let him through!"

No, those rogues tend to be harassers and spoilers. In battle they try to trip up the bad guys (sometimes literally). I'd love to have seen a rogue who drops caltrops, smoke bombs, and pre-made traps (like that PrC in Complete Scoundrel that escapes recollection).

When I see rogues played now in 4e, they've usually dropped the component of sneakyness altogether. Why be sneaky and clever when you can just run into a flanking and do hellish damage?

 

[NilesB]

The kit book for thieves was basically the gimpiest of the series,

Please, the cleric book was the gimpiest of the series, it actualy suggested nerf the PHB cleric to help the option therein look less worthless.

 

[Mad Mac]

Having said that, I am very much convinced the class would be better suited to the role of controller than striker. I mean, when fantasy works with roguish characters comes to mind, they're rare;y treated as some big gun--"OMG, it's a big, nasty monster--where's the guys with the dagger? Step aside and let him through!"

Oh, I dunno, the superspy/assassin/ninja archtype tends to produce characters who excel at killing big dudes dead with very small blades. You are right that such characters tend to be more subtle though, and often use violence as a last resort. They usually fight alone, as well, either as the protaganist or a side character who works mostly "off-screen".

Alternately, there's the swashbuckler archtype that the rogue can pull off pretty well.

I'd say 4e rogues have the potential to be more tricky than most strikers, but the big damage attacks will see more use with many players, sadly.

But yeah, the "Rougish Trickster" dude is rarely a killing machine. I have to wonder how much of that is cyclical though? Most of the rogue/thief archtypes in fantasy books I've read are probably ripped straight from D&D, frankly.