The Return of the Sneaking Man

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree..... but thats central to the whole archetype of what a theif IS. D&D has always had times when:

the bard having the fun charming a princess to get some vital info while the party lounges

the rogue is having fun, slicing throats while the party waits

the fighter is having fun, charging straight at the big boss, or intimidating weaklings in the tavern while the party supports and heals him

the wizard rains fire down on the enemy minions, while the party waits and stays away from the fireball

This is central to D&D. Sure there are times when thats annoying but its the DMs job to MANAGE it. There are sooo many ways to manage it. Maybe you invite the theif player to come an hour early one night, or maybe you tell the party, he guys, this is his moment to shine, have some nachos, dont worry theres some you moments soon. Or maybe you "timeslice" and make sure theres some thing interesting for everyone.

What you DONT DO is completely change a central tenant of the game by
making everyone equally useful at all times, and rejig the game based on assumptions that its a miniatures game that everyone can autoheal to stay in combat. We tried that it was ok, but it didn't feel like D&D to a lot of people.

Again, show me the rules that don't let you do all of those things in 4e. They don't exist, and we do all these things all the time in our game. Every one of them is included in 4e, so I just don't get what it is you guys want to bring back that doesn't already exist, except maybe for very specific mechanical implementations. I'm honestly just stumped.

I mean, I'd be fine if the 5e rogue's sneak attack works a bit differently and is harder to set up but does more damage in one shot for instance. I think that could be engineered and it sounds fine to me. Likewise I'm all for there being some mechanism to say one PC is especially good at picking a pocket and another guy is especially good at opening a lock. I just don't see where there's a really significant difference between editions overall on the main points of being a rogue/thief/whatever.

 

[Incenjucar]

Depends on your definition of meaningful. If you mean comparable to the fighter, then none. If he opened from surprise, the thief should do a ton of damage the first round. After that, he should do decent damage, but poor compared to the fighter.

Okay, so, once. You want a martial version of the original 4E assassin, which could do wonderful opening damage if it dropped all four shrouds before the encounter started, but was kind of meh during the fight.

You also seem to want the fighter to be what 4E would call a striker, so, a 4E slayer-type fighter.

 

[ferratus]

So you want rewards on a success yet no penalty for a failure. Is that fun for the other players? Why not just tell the DM you auto success?

There is a penalty for failure. You just don't get any intel, which was the point of the scouting in the first place.

Remember, I'm not a big fan of save or die. A thief who gets caught while trying to scout is usually a dead thief.

Then being an equal or better than a fighter. Why would fighters exist if Thief could best them one vs one?

A thief can't outfight a fighter head to head. A thief can however outfight a fighter when the fighter doesn't know a fight is coming, and is prevented from fighting back. Sometimes you need a soldier, other times you need a b*stard. I want mechanical support to be a b*stard.

I found that the thief who goes solo then returns to the party has fun, but every other player at the table get very bored.

Hence the single roll. If the DM and the player have a significant reason for playing it out, they can play it out. But most of the time when the thief splits from the party it is a waste of time, and just results in the thief getting pounded into paste.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Rogue was to me an interesting NPC Class concept, but it was far too ambiguous and ineffective a character class, in my opinion, as either a Team Member, or as a Lone Operative. I am hopeful that 5E will herald the return of the Thief.

Which Rogue and Theif are we talking about, here. The AD&D theif was pretty pathetic, the Essentials thief is a pretty heavily specialized striker. The 3e rogue was skill monkey with a once-in-a-blue-moon nuclear damage boost that could occassionally be abused, but more often was just a tease (no, sorry, he has retains his dex bonus, no, sorry, it's dark, no, sorry, it's undead, no, sorry, it's a construct, no, sorry, you can only reach it's limb, no, sorry, it's unflankable, no, sorry, it has tremorsense, no, sorry, CoDzilla ate it while you were trying to sneak into position...). The 4e rogue was a rock'n striker, stealthy, but paradoxically lacked he ability to /find/ traps nearly as well as he disarmed them (an artifact of combining search, spot, & listen into perception).

I very much look forward to the rebirth of the Sneaking Man. The Rogue to me was more of a dandy, and a sort of silk-laced bad boy.

I'm glad you're not prejudiced or anything. 3.5 rogues could be quite good at sneaking. 3.5 monsters were even better at automatically spotting them with special sense, but that's another matter. 4e Rogues are pretty sneaky, there's a build specifically for that emphasis, and have consistent ways of getting CA (and thus SA) using stealth. Really, starting with 2e a Rogue was what you made of him - dashing swashbuckler or military scout or greedy footpad, or whatever elsed - your choice.

 

[hanez]

Again, show me the rules that don't let you do all of those things in 4e. They don't exist, and we do all these things all the time in our game. Every one of them is included in 4e, so I just don't get what it is you guys want to bring back that doesn't already exist, except maybe for very specific mechanical implementations. I'm honestly just stumped.

I mean, I'd be fine if the 5e rogue's sneak attack works a bit differently and is harder to set up but does more damage in one shot for instance. I think that could be engineered and it sounds fine to me. Likewise I'm all for there being some mechanism to say one PC is especially good at picking a pocket and another guy is especially good at opening a lock. I just don't see where there's a really significant difference between editions overall on the main points of being a rogue/thief/whatever.

Good point. Let me clarify. Its not that 4e stopped these situations from happening (although in some it did). But rather its extreme focus on combat and tactical balance gave players less of a reason to go it alone. They are MORE similar to eachother then they used to be. They are equivalent in powers in more situations.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]
Oh I wasn't knocking 4e or any edition of D&D, nor was I implying that you can't run such scenarios and have fun in any edition. I was reflecting on the ample Internet dialogue out there about Stealth being a bit of a sticking area for many groups. I thinly thats been regardless of edition.

I tend to agree it often comes down to a play style issue, not a rules one. HOWEVER, I would like to see the rules actively support reconaissance style stealth with some interesting options. There's plenty of tactical language under the Stealth skill in 3e & 4e, but no "ways this works at the table" section.

That's what's "missing" (read: would make a fun game more fun).

 

[Incenjucar]

I expect that the reason you don't see more bonuses for information is that it adds lots of "fiddly'" bits to the game. Not to mention that you'd start building a leader out of a striker. You also have the issue of doing this with Every. Single. Encounter. Forever. It can get really tedious really quickly.

 

[Stormonu]

Exactly how many times per four-round encounter should the thief deal meaningful damage? Once? So, like the 4E assassin?

If the thief does things right, there shouldn't be a second round.

If there is a second round, (and he's not smart enough to beat feet), a lone theif should be okay, but more likely on the defensive.

Except if he's working in numbers - say flanking with the fighter.

In my eyes, the rogue's tactics should be hit and run or ganging up on foes. Drawn out, knock-down one-on-one combats for the rogue should be bad juju.

 

[Incenjucar]

If the thief does things right, there shouldn't be a second round.

In what situations? Against a mook? Against a significant threat? Against a boss? Against an entire room?

If there is a second round, (and he's not smart enough to beat feet), a lone theif should be okay, but more likely on the defensive.

Why should a lone anything be okay in a team game? What is the purpose of the rest of the party?

Except if he's working in numbers - say flanking with the fighter.

In my eyes, the rogue's tactics should be hit and run or ganging up on foes. Drawn out, knock-down one-on-one combats for the rogue should be bad juju.

You need to quantify this more. I don't see how this differs from the 4E rogue or thief.

 

[Stormonu]

In what situations? Against a mook? Against a significant threat? Against a boss? Against an entire room?

At the least, against any single, unaware target I see the rogue be the one-hit, one-kill wonder. I don't think any opponent should feel safe with a theif sneaking about. But that's also true for just about any character type - whether the wizard blasts you with magic, the fighter wades in and chops you up into hamburger or the cleric smites you with a bolt from the blue - each should be deadly in their element.

I can also see a decently high level rogue/thief doing the ninja flip-out and taking out a room full of enemies.

Why should a lone anything be okay in a team game? What is the purpose of the rest of the party?

It's called scouting ahead or solo play.

You need to quantify this more. I don't see how this differs from the 4E rogue or thief.

I didn't say that it does differ from 1E-4E. In fact, I don't really see a problem with any edition of the thief, though race-you-can crit limitation of 3E caused problems for my players because I like undead.

Let's also not forget the rogue's most powerful combat ability - his ability to sneak past an opponent and never start a fight in the first place.