Rogue Design goals . L&L May 7th

[ForeverSlayer]

Basically a rogue is not the "in your face" kind of character. Rogue's are going to rely more on skill and advantage over brute strength. They are looking for that hole in the armor, or that shoelace that has been left untied.

You could, in theory, have a cowardly rogue type who still manages to do something during combat, Regis for example.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well if the rogue is a first rate combatant in head to head fighting, where does that leave the fighter?

This is exactly why I want the Fighter class to die.

It's bad enough when you have one class whose sole purpose is to "be the best at fighting" and cast a shadow over any other martial character. It gets even worse when said class is the one that no one wants to have any supernatural or magical abilities and to remain the mundane guy that beats things to death and walks place to place even at epic levels when other classes can teleport and fly and alter the fabric of reality.

If grognards want their weak crappy class that can never do more than get a big AC and roll melee attack and damage, fine. But don't try and strangle other classes trying to actually remain balanced with casters by that noose!

Rogue should be a "dodge tank" just as fighter is a "traditional tank," and also put out good single target damage and have out of combat skill use. Does that make fighter seem pointless from a mechanical/optimization standpoint? YES! The Fighter class most people on this forum seem to want SHOULD feel worthless compared to other classes!

 

[Ellington]

#2, not sure I totally agree with this either. Why can't a ranger be a better swimmer than a rogue? Why can't a fighter be a better mountaineer than a rogue? How does the rogue gain better knowledge of nature than the Druid, or better arcana than the wizard? The rogue is better at thievery than everyone else, sure I'll buy that, but not every skill.

He's not better at every skill. He's better at every skill he focuses on.

While the fighter spends most of his time mastering combat, the rogue spends most of his time mastering skills. Sure, the fighter may be athletic and a good natural climber, but the rogue has a knack for mastering climbing to the point of perfection.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm91hh9SqXs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm91hh9SqXs[/ame]

Here's an example of how a high level rogue would be climbing walls and mountains. Not every rogue is going to be a good climber, however, since some of them might focus on other skills such as diplomacy or stealth. The naturally capable fighter would outskill those rogues any day.

Rogues are all about skills, just like fighters are all about fighting and wizards are all about magic. I don't see you getting angry that rogues aren't as good as magic as wizards are, so why should you be angry that wizards can't be as good as skills as rogues are?

 

[sheadunne]

I would like the rogue to be the wizard mundane equivalent. Everything (to a certain extent of course) a Wizard can do with Magic, a Rogue can do with skills.

Wizard - Cast Featherfall
Rogue - Uses cloak as a parachute

Wizard - cast magic missile
Rogue - throws crossbow bolt

Wizard - cast fireball
Rogue - throws Molotov cocktail.

Wizard - Summons a creature to help
Rogue - talks a creature into helping

Wizard - Goes invisible
Rogue - Hides in shadows

The idea being, if there's a mundane version of magic, the rogue can do it. But just like a wizard, in straight up hand to hand, they'd best make a run for it.

 

[Dausuul]

A bit of #1 concerns me: "If a rogue can't attack from behind or with some other key advantage, he or she might be better off withdrawing or remaining out of sight until the opportunity for a surprise attack presents itself." This just fails the 4e action economy lesson. A character is *almost never* better off not attacking. You can't have a two weapon ranger attacking twice a round, and a rogue attacking once every other round, and balance those two against each other.

If the ranger hits for 1d8 damage per weapon, and the rogue hits for 4d8 damage with an every-other-round backstab, they're balanced.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is exactly why I want the Fighter class to die.

It's bad enough when you have one class whose sole purpose is to "be the best at fighting" and cast a shadow over any other martial character. It gets even worse when said class is the one that no one wants to have any supernatural or magical abilities and to remain the mundane guy that beats things to death and walks place to place even at epic levels when other classes can teleport and fly and alter the fabric of reality.

If grognards want their weak crappy class that can never do more than get a big AC and roll melee attack and damage, fine. But don't try and strangle other classes trying to actually remain balanced with casters by that noose!

Rogue should be a "dodge tank" just as fighter is a "traditional tank," and also put out good single target damage and have out of combat skill use. Does that make fighter seem pointless from a mechanical/optimization standpoint? YES! The Fighter class most people on this forum seem to want SHOULD feel worthless compared to other classes!

Umm.. No. The thief, if any class at all, can take a hike. The notion that all classes should be equal in combat can die along with him.

If the fighter goes away so does D&D period. The thief is an add on class that may be subtracted at will. If it comes down to thief or fighter, the fighter wins.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I feel like I should just re-post my post from the Fighter thread, but here's the central nugget:

People are getting way too hung up on the combat part of this.

This game is a lot more than attack rolls and HP values. A well-played thief probably avoids many more combats than they ever get into, and those he DOES get into, he probably tries to escape as soon as possible.

Three pillars, folks. Fighters fight. Thieves do not (unless they have an unfair advantage, perhaps including "knowing a fighter").

 

[Mengu]

He's not better at every skill. He's better at every skill he focuses on.

I understand that, I just don't understand how a rogue that focuses on something like nature is going to be better than a druid, at nature. This all inclusive statement just doesn't work for me. Even in skills that are more natural to the rogue like climbing, I don't understand why a goliath fighter who grew up and was trained in the mountains couldn't be the rogue's equal.

If the ranger hits for 1d8 damage per weapon, and the rogue hits for 4d8 damage with an every-other-round backstab, they're balanced.

Four chances to hit, verses one chance to hit is a big difference, even if the damage expressions were the same. And if damage expressions are somehow the same after calculating in all the math for static modifiers and multiple chances to hit, there will be an awkward balance for monsters this time, because of the disparity in amount of damage that can be done during an action. It is not a simple matter. Perhaps I should have said "would be challenging to balance" rather than, could not be balanced.

If the fighter goes away so does D&D period. The thief is an add on class that may be subtracted at will. If it comes down to thief or fighter, the fighter wins.

I would say the opposite. Rogue is the ultimate adventuring class, and is indispensable as such. Fighter is just a dude with a weapon and armor, and could be replaced by practically anything. Not that I would want to, because dude with a weapon and armor is a very basic archetype.

 

[pauljathome]

#2, not sure I totally agree with this either. Why can't a ranger be a better swimmer than a rogue? Why can't a fighter be a better mountaineer than a rogue? How does the rogue gain better knowledge of nature than the Druid, or better arcana than the wizard? The rogue is better at thievery than everyone else, sure I'll buy that, but not every skill.

This is the part that I hate with a fiery passion. While the rogue should be good at many things, there is no way in all the planes that he should be the best at Knowledge - Arcana no matter how much he concentrates on it. And there is no reason that he should be better at something like Sense Motive.

I like my characters to be skilled. Sometimes broadly skilled, sometimes narrowly focused. I really, really, really don't want to find out that in order to be very good at some skill then I HAVE to take a rogue.

#3, is a good thing. They should keep literary rogue characters and their deeds in mind, when building the class. It's also kind of a given.

I think that they could easily go way over the top here, at least for my tastes

If a rogue specialized in diplomacy can automatically cause a King to become his ally (as could be done by the rules in 3.x) then there is a problem.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Makes "skills" interesting, involved, and varied enough, then I don't have any issues with the article. OTOH, if the rogue turns into guy who occasionally rolls a d20+mod and either quickly nullifies something or rapidly gets hosed (because he failed the roll), then that's not enough to build a class around.

You want skill monkeys, then make skills worth monkeying with. This is one I'm still waiting to see.