Do you make changes with 3e Rogues?

[WizarDru]

While I'm looking forward to all the HoHF books, I feel like I should point out that this is one of the things that the generally forgettable Song & Silence did right - the feats Arterial Strike (give up 1d6 for wounding) and Hamstring (give up 2d6 to halve their move).

Personally, I thought that these were a nice idea, but too little, too late. By the time a rogue gets high enough up the feat chain to get them, they're not terribly useful. Or at least, not as useful as they need to be for anyone to actually want them, IME. I may just not be seeing them in full context, though.

 

[Piratecat]

Why should rogues, especially if they are thieves, have this assassin-like "sneak attack" bonus, for instance?

Because without it, they pretty much stink in combat. Combat is a big part, and a fun part, of D&D; if the rogue can't hold his own when fighting (so to speak), they're going to be a lot less fun.

 

[Rhael]

Before my opinion, some points (and I'm going to largely ignore this stuff about sneak attacks and so-on).

Meepo - I believe that cross-class skills are used more often than you may realise. Especially for those players aiming for Prestige classes and those after a bit of a roleplaying experience rather than a power-playing experience.

Green slime - it always amazes me the way people stick to what is in the books all the time and want other people to take note of the fact that you changed the price of some items and capped the abilities. Take note, people - the book is not gospel, it is merely a good base to work from.

Now, in answer to the original question. I agree with many of you, the 3e rogue is the best incarnation of the class to date because it gives the greatest flexibility. The 'Thieves' of old were always too limited, but now the rogue can be a large number of things and the huge number of skill points are the greatest asset (hence, Int is v. important).

Alternate classes are all over the place, but you have to be careful about applying a change where it is not necessary. My GM used an alternate ranger class (by Monte Cook) and it works pretty well (because the standard one was so slanted towards the Drizzt-style two-weapon combat that it was pointless being a ranger unless that was what you wanted to do), however things can go awry.

You showed that you hadn't given sufficient thought to the question before asking it via your ignorance of the ins and outs of the class (eg: Use Magic Item).

Hook.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Because without it, they pretty much stink in combat. Combat is a big part, and a fun part, of D&D; if the rogue can't hold his own when fighting (so to speak), they're going to be a lot less fun.

In addition, Thieves have always had the sneak attack special ability. It's just now that it's actually worth something. Consider it a sacred cow that's been given better food.

 

[LostSoul]

I completely disagree. Your plan works well right up until your Rogue goes up against an NPC rogue that's kept skills maxed and is using similar items; the NPC will far outstrip your rogue in ability. In our parties we've found it's better to keep the skill-enhancing items with the characters who are already experts in those skills, since it just makes them that much better.

The difference here is that your NPC who keeps those Skills maxed + Skill items isn't as diverse as your Rogue.

With Skill items, you can be kick-ass in one Skill and be decent in many other ones. Or you can be really kick-ass in one Skill. It's up to you.

 

[starkad]

One of the truly coolest things I like about 3E is the ability for rogues to break the mold.

Almost every single one of my characters is a unique concept, as I try to shie away from stereotypical characters. Being able to play a spy, or a tracker, or a bounty hunter, or a thief, or a thief-taker (a-la Wheel of Time), or any other number of nonstandard types... The rogue fills the role perfectly.

One of my more memorable characters wasn't a sneaky bastard, he was a foreign diplomat, but doubled as a spy, and was quite the fawning glut. Diplomacy, Gather Info, Intimidate, Innuendo, Sense Motive, Bluff... Those were his meat and potatoes, and honestly, no other class could have pulled it off... Much less with as great a level of style and flair.

I detest the old stereotyped 2E thieves. I don't miss them at all. Before 3E, they were probably the single least played class in every game I ever ran under that rules set... But if we switched rules to a different system, everyone wanted to be a sneaky bastard.

It works out well now. You can still play the sneaky thief type... Or any other of a myriad of ideas. Your thief is not my rogue, and vice versa.

 

[Henry]

With rogues, now you can have everything from adventurer archaeologists (da-dadaDAAAA-da-da-DAAA), to swashbucklers, to your standard sneak thieves and professional beggars.

Before, only the last one was very do-able without massive tweaking. If someone comes out with feats available at first level, to let these mold-breakers exchange sneak attacks for other useful things, then you can have some really powerful concepts, without constraining them to one specific thing.

My only beef with the 3E rogue, is the fact that sneak attacks, like the two-weapon fighting for rangers, are built-in, and cannot by the rules be traded out easily. Sure, you can as DM alter these in conjunction with your players' desires, but it would have been nice for several alternate suggestions for these to have been listed in the DMG.

 

[starkad]

Henry, invest in AEG's Mercenaries book... It has some really great alternatives to sneak attacks, and some alternative abilities that are really cool.. And their classes are considered 'core' classes, in that they are 1-20 progression, and are not prestige.

 

[Desdichado]

Because without it, they pretty much stink in combat. Combat is a big part, and a fun part, of D&D; if the rogue can't hold his own when fighting (so to speak), they're going to be a lot less fun.

That was a rhetorical question, really. I know why they included it. Still, a game in which combat is the only way to have fun, is the DMs problem, not the game itself. The courtier class from AEG, for example, is a fun, balanced class that doesn't rely much on combat at all. But it's fun and balanced only in a setting that doesn't depend on dungeon crawls and the like to create all the excitement.

 

[Vanye]

I'd like to see feats and PrC's that take a certain amount of sneak attack damage and turn it into something else.

Such as Arterial Strike and Hamstring from Song and Silence? If you're not familiar with them, Arterial Strike allows you to sacrifice 1d6 points of sneak attack damage to give someone a "bleeding wound", ie they lose 1 hp per round until they receive some sort of healing.

Hamstring allows you to sacrifice 2d6 points of sneak attack damage to cut somethings land movement rate in half-it doesn't work if they have more than 4 legs, and you can't cut their movement rate by more than 1/2. Still, it's potentially useful. It's one my rogue/fighter has, but hasn't had a chance to use yet...