Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pickaxe" data-source="post: 3589761" data-attributes="member: 10812">That would depend on the abilities, no? For instance, fighters can climb, an ability that was exclusive to thieves in 1e.Actually, examples of precisely this would be helpful. I suspect my list of archetypes is inadequate, but I couldn't think of a pre-D&D character of a stature sufficient to become the "thief" of D&D.Examples of archetypes that preceded that D&D version would make this point.But is that simply due to "niche protection" as another poster put it?There are certain things in D&D that are class-specific; there are others that are not (although they may be easier for one class to do than another). Several classes can Spot well; only one has Wildshape. You say rogues need to be their own class because other classes can't do what they do. I'm asking, What if we got rid of rogues and either a) let other classes do what rogues do (e.g., universal trapfinding) or b) eliminated the ability altogether (e.g., sneak attack)?We'd still have all the necessary rogue abilities in the game, but would we still miss having the rogue class? Would we demand a class that matches some roguish archetype? Or would we just play fighters and rangers and bards that have a roguish flair?Let me put it another way. In 1e, assassins were a separate class; in 2e (as I recall), an assassin was just, say, a fighter who was good at assassinating people. Were players bothered by the elimination of a class? How would we feel if the same thing happened to the rogue? If 4e dumped the rogue, would any outrage be able to refute the claim that rogues are just sacred cows?I'm not actually out to get rogues, but this is a game design concept that I was interested in exploring.--Axe</blockquote>

Verification