The problem with rogues.

[ExploderWizard]

The original thief class was a solution in search of a problem. Any adventurer could sneak, search for traps, and so forth depending on circumstances and whatnot. Wearing clanky noisy armor made things more difficult but not impossible depending on the situation. Everyday adventurer functions were governed by everyday common sense.

Enter the thief. All of a sudden competent adventurers became bumbling boobs because a specialist had been created. Even though the thief's abilities were supposed to be above and beyond what every adventurer could still do, the common interpretation was that everyone else now sucked at this stuff so the thief could shine.

Things got even worse in 3E when, in addition to being specialist guy, the rogue became equal to or better than the fighter at fighting. This problem became worse in 4E with the rogue clearly designed as a damage dealing machine.

I find skill systems to be at odds with the archetype class system. The thief class is a perfect example of this. Archetypes need to be broad enough to accomodate multiple character types. Introducing skills, even class based ones, has the effect of not only defining what a particular class is good at, but also at the same time, defining what other classes cannot do. The more of these specialized classes you create, the narrow the range of characters will be. I much prefer a game with only a handful of classes than one with dozens of one trick pony options.

[Offical rant begins]
This problem, the one of exhaustive character options which lead to tightly focused builds, and over-specialization results in characters which excel in their niche, but ultimately due to lack of vesatility become boring rather quickly. The thief was the start of all that.
[end rant]

 

[Ahnehnois]

Things got even worse in 3E when, in addition to being specialist guy, the rogue became equal to or better than the fighter at fighting.

Wait, what? I mean, I agree with a lot of the rest, but I've yet to see this happen (and one of my better characters was a combat-heavy rogue).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Wait, what? I mean, I agree with a lot of the rest, but I've yet to see this happen (and one of my better characters was a combat-heavy rogue).

Your combat heavy rogue never gets to deal fireball level damage while flanking, round after round?

Sword & board fighter hits about 1d8+ 8 or so while the rogue "sneak attacking " with a 2 hander is dealing 6d6.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Your combat heavy rogue never gets to deal fireball level damage while flanking, round after round?

Oh yeah, I totally maxed out on damage. But it's not like I could wear armor or take a hit like a good tank, and sneak attack doesn't always work. The reason my rogue worked was that there was a super-powerful tank character with various DM-granted perks, who served as a flanking buddy and did more damage than me and kept the enemies occupied.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Oh yeah, I totally maxed out on damage. But it's not like I could wear armor or take a hit like a good tank, and sneak attack doesn't always work. The reason my rogue worked was that there was a super-powerful tank character with various DM-granted perks, who served as a flanking buddy and did more damage than me and kept the enemies occupied.

Yeah there were situations where sneak attack wasn't viable ( 4E closed that limitation). Tanking is something I don't accept as part of non-computer rpgs. Taking damage as a "job" is applicable to a sucker not a warrior. A warrior does unto others before they can do unto him.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yeah there were situations where sneak attack wasn't viable ( 4E closed that limitation). Tanking is something I don't accept as part of non-computer rpgs. Taking damage as a "job" is applicable to a sucker not a warrior. A warrior does unto others before they can do unto him.

I agree that trying to make the rogue into a "striker" is not a good idea. It is better served as a generic archetype for people who aren't fighters but find ways to contribute.

As the concept of "tanking"; dislike the terminology if you choose, but I find that being able to avoid or survive attacks is a very useful attribute, and has not been a real strength of the rogue/thief in any incarnation. I think defense is just a big a part of being "good at combat" as offense.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Yeah there were situations where sneak attack wasn't viable ( 4E closed that limitation). Tanking is something I don't accept as part of non-computer rpgs. Taking damage as a "job" is applicable to a sucker not a warrior. A warrior does unto others before they can do unto him.

Tanking isn't so much about taking damage as it is about protecting the squishies in the party from taking damage. In video games that's usually handled with taunts, which 4e emulated in some ways, but there are other ways -- including just being the guy in the front rank that the mages and clerics can hide behind.

Is that guy a sucker? Maybe to you, but that doesn't make the class unplayable or not viable.

4e broke things down by power source - Martial, Arcane, Divine (then added more in later books) -- that sounds like what you're looking for in your original post -- a version that treats the power source as your main class, and then the class as a subclass?

-rg

 

[Minigiant]

The problem with the rogue/thief is that from the beginning of its creation, there was no emphasis that nonrogue could do those rogue actions. It was the same as rangers and other "class for skill" classes.

If thief skills was originally handled like attack rolls with a nice chart for each class and modifiers for race, the precedent might have not been set. This issue eased with time but an inkling of "rogue classes only" always remained.

 

[Starfox]

[Offical rant begins]
This problem, the one of exhaustive character options which lead to tightly focused builds, and over-specialization results in characters which excel in their niche, but ultimately due to lack of vesatility become boring rather quickly. The thief was the start of all that.
[end rant]

I call this the splatbook syndrome - the game company releases a new book with new themed nifty skills/classes/magic/cyberware,and suddenly everyone who was already doing this now suck at it next to these new specialists.

Shadowrun was particularly notorious for this. Never thought as the thief as the first splatbook character... Maybe they were.

 

[howandwhy99]

I find skill systems to be at odds with the archetype class system. The thief class is a perfect example of this. Archetypes need to be broad enough to accommodate multiple character types. Introducing skills, even class based ones, has the effect of not only defining what a particular class is good at, but also at the same time, defining what other classes cannot do. The more of these specialized classes you create, the narrow the range of characters will be. I much prefer a game with only a handful of classes than one with dozens of one trick pony options.

The answer to this last sounds like the class/subclass issue being discussed in another thread. Core classes define the broad focus of play for you, but doesn't stop you from being capable at other class's specialties. Subclasses are more tightly defined setting specific classes largely overlapping their core class's scope. Maybe they add a little of their own niche to the game, maybe they borrow a little from a nearby core class/subclass. It's all okay. It's about focus not powers suites anyways. Allowing non-proficient characters to still remain competent at play outside their class keep the game from devolving into "trade off playing the DM" play and allowing for more teamwork oriented designs.

Also, skills led to players min/maxing during character generation, also not a point in the Thief's favor. Not to mention how it's a class which gains XP for leaching off of communities, which includes the party.