The problem with rogues.

[Enchanter Tom]

The problem with rogues is that they defy the traditional adventuring party. When it first started out, D&D had three classes: the fighting man, the magic-user, and the cleric. Each of these classes interacts with the game world relatively simply. The rules for them revolve around combat and the characters as dungeon explorers. Then comes along the rogue/thief class and he throws a fat wrench in the works. Suddenly, there are specific rules for things like sneaking, listening at doors, picking pockets, and climbing walls. The unstated implication of these specific rules is that those who lack these them can't do them, and given how poorly written, edited, and explained older editions of D&D were, the rules weren't much help.

This introduces the question of how skills should function within the game. Should skills be special abilities that are tied to class? Should skills be training that anyone can gain access to? Should skills be narrow or broad? Should certain classes get a bonus to certain skills, or should they be entirely separate to allow concepts like wizard thieves and fighter scholars?

My belief is that skills and class should be separate. This should function in three ways.

1. Basic tasks that come up in games frequently should be handled as general abilities that anyone can try. Hiding, sneaking, listening, climbing, jumping, and so on.

2. Specialized tasks that reasonably require training should be handled as archetypes. You might have the thief archetype that offers skills like picking pockets and disarming traps, whereas the ranger archetype might offer wilderness survival. These archetypes would be a part of the social/exploration pillars (to use 5e parlance, though you could apply this to any edition).

3. Character classes should be how characters function as a combat role. The rogue would no longer be the weird mix of thief and assassin; instead, you could have the assassin class who emphasizes sneak attacks and poisons, while the thief portion would be encompassed by the thief archetype. This would allow for greater character diversity while simultaneously solving the issue of "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" because you wouldn't have to deal with trying to write a game that handles a character whose defining abilities are "steals thing" into a game next to a cleric who can summon angels.

 

[pemerton]

When it first started out, D&D had three classes: the fighting man, the magic-user, and the cleric. Each of these classes interacts with the game world relatively simply. The rules for them revolve around combat and the characters as dungeon explorers.

<snip>

Character classes should be how characters function as a combat role.

<snip>

This would allow for greater character diversity while simultaneously solving the issue of "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" because you wouldn't have to deal with trying to write a game that handles a character whose defining abilities are "steals thing" into a game next to a cleric who can summon angels.

I think the last paragraph here shows the problem with the first: the way a cleric or MU interacted with the gameworld was never very simple. Spells like Gate, Invisible Stalker and Aerial Servant are far more than simply combat or even dungeon exploration options.

Even at low levels there are spells like Charm Person or Speak with Animals, which give the casting classes options beyond fighting and dungeon delving.

 

[Dandu]

Character classes should be how characters function as a combat role.

Agreed.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My belief is that skills and class should be separate.

Why just skills? After all, where is it ordained that wizards aren't as tough as barbarians? Maybe hit points and class should be separate. And while we're at it, why are prayers only answered by the cleric class? Everyone should be able to try to use divine magic. And why can't wizards attack as effectively as fighters? After all, did you see Gandalf in those LotR movies. Everyone should have the same combat mechanics.

Or not.

If your point is that classes are unnecessary, I could get on board with that. If your point is that skills are less a part of classes than combat roles are, that I don't agree with.

 

[RSKennan]

I take issue with the philosophy that classes should only be about combat role. The game is more than just combat. Classes should be about setting role, if you ask me.

I recently read a good series of articles on roles in RPGs, starting with this one.

In my ideal D&D, Fighters Fight, Wizards Make, Clerics Talk, and Rogues Take. Each class can also take on other roles, but should never be as good at that role as the class designed for it.

 

[Mistwell]

Why have clerics, while you're at it? What's the point of two magic-using classes, when you can just have the wizard. Want a holy knight? Make a fighter, and have him be holy.

 

[Starfox]

I am with the OP here - I feel skills should be separate from combat role, and I feel the rogue has never worked very well in DnD. Which more or less extends to include what Mistwell says - a paladin is essentially a fighter with the "holy" skill set. However, this is not how DnD works. Versatility in and outside of combat has always been trade-offs and a part of the skills. I felt hopeful this would change in the early iterations of the 5E playtest, but I can understand it if they don't go that way. It is a big change to make and the current trade-off has worked for many years. In the end, I guess I'm most comfortable with classless systems.

 

[howandwhy99]

I agree with points 1 & 2. For point 3, classes aren't about combat. That's more about 4e roles. In 3e they were simply trying to recompose earlier editions class abilities. In Next I believe classes are a collection of abilities applying to a range of activities of which combat is only one. That's actually more akin to earlier D&D, even if it hasn't defined the activities yet.

Thieves (not 2e rogues) were a big problem in D&D as they didn't have a realm of play to explore. They revolve around a single tactic, not field to be learned. Fighter players needed to master how combat worked as it increased in difficulty each level. Magic-User players needed to master the underlying arcane laws of the universe so they could better interact with it. And Cleric players needed to master how to interact with monsters as NPCs, people.

People playing Thieves didn't have characters designed to do any of those things well, but instead could do each capably when acting covertly. Subterfuge and subversion was how they gained XP. If anything, Thief is more of an NPC class than a PC class. And skills and "checks" don't really have a place at all in D&D.

 

[TerraDave]

The problem with rogues is that they are--by far-- one of the most compelling archetypes for players, but the mechanics for them are often not so compelling.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The problem with rogues is that they are--by far-- one of the most compelling archetypes for players, but the mechanics for them are often not so compelling.

On that level, I agree. The class doesn't reward improvisation or cleverness the way it should, and sneak attack/backstab has never been an adequate basis for a class by itself.