The Return of the Sneaking Man

[mmadsen]

I am hopeful that 5E will herald the return of the Thief.

So, you miss the proto-Rogue who almost always failed at his (percentile) skill rolls?

More seriously, it sounds like you simply prefer the name Thief to Rogue. And I prefer to call Halfling Rogues hobbit burglars.

 

[Jack7]

Just wanted to say that I can't respond to much of anything right now. The wife is having medical testing this week so we're gonna be busy with that.

Appreciate the comments, not ignoring them, but busy at more important things right now. Back when I can.

Jack.

 

[Elf Witch]

I love the concept of a fighter/scout who is sneaky gets out there and gets the information and gets back in one piece.

I also enjoy the idea of a character who can sneak up in a fight and do some nasty damage to a foe who is not expecting it.

What I don't enjoy is all the baggage that comes with the whole rogue/thief class.

It has always been my experience that it is the rogue/thief that causes the most issues at the table. So many players take it as right to steal everything that is not nailed down including from the other members of the party which always leads to bad feelings. If they are not stealing from the party they are stealing from every shop keepers in town or worse from the patron of the party.

I cringe when ever someone brings a rogue into the party with a background as street urchin and member of the thieves guild.

There should be a way to build a more party oriented character that has the skills needed without the assumption that they are a criminal.

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

It's called scouting ahead or solo play.

So... you want rogues to be a single-player experience. While I'm aware of the old solo adventures, that's kind of a different kind of game entirely. D&D isn't Assassin's Creed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

@AbdulAlhazred
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).

Yeah, I think we pretty much see it the same way. I think the AD&D thief was a bit anemic overall, though they would now and then have their day in the sun, but in general we're on the same page.

I think the 4e guys relied a bit too much on just assuming people would understand ways to leverage the SC system and the skills in general, but didn't say a lot about 'granularity'. So they never said for instance "it's a good idea sometimes to have a skill check resolve a whole scene" like that.

OTOH my approach is generally to have an SC where a bunch of stuff can happen. It isn't all focused on the rogue though usually. Maybe the goal is 'gather enough info to learn about X', and the wizard goes and studies, the cleric prays for insight, the rogue sneaks around (or uses streetwise maybe), and the fighter... (yeah, 4e screwed the fighter, pathetic). So the rogue does his thing, and it might be the most key part of the operation, but chances are at least he's not the sole focus for too long. This sort of SC is actually a really good one and works well too. Other types are harder to pull off, but the gathering info jig works well with the SC structure.

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.

I think part of it may be that 4e has short rounds. Actually a rogue using a daily, AP, encounter from SA DOES have a pretty good shot at insta-ganking an at-level enemy. Even if he doesn't, the guy turns around, takes a shot back at him, probably with some condition on him and assuming the rogue is still standing there he may not even get a shot off in round 1 (IE, Dazing Strike followed by Sly Flourish and a 1 square shift, follow in round 2 with another at-will, you've about finished most standard opponents). Total elapsed time a few seconds. AD&D's 1 minute rounds kind of worked it out differently. Once you hit high heroic you can actually take out most elites this way, though it is a good bit more dicey.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think part of it may be that 4e has short rounds.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9jBiosg1x4&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Short Round gets PWND. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[underfoot007ct]

I just want the core class to be called a Thief, not a Rogue.

Who'd the Rogue's Guild pay off in 3E to get the name changed?

Why was changing the name wrong? Thief sound so dirty & maybe a little evil. Rouge sound so much more "heroic", more fun. Why should such a small change matter.

What's in a name? That which we call a "Thief", By any other name would smell as "stealthy".

 

[KarinsDad]

Aren't all PC, most of the time, thieves? I rarely see a PC respect the property rights of a dead orc!

No. All PCs are trespassers, murderers, and thieves. Don't short change them.

And, the Thief is the King of these other PC thieves. None of them can break in, murder, and steal as well as he can.

 

[KarinsDad]

Why was changing the name wrong? Thief sound so dirty & maybe a little evil. Rouge sound so much more "heroic", more fun. Why should such a small change matter.

What's in a name? That which we call a "Thief", By any other name would smell as "stealthy".

Yes because all of those trespassing, murdering, and thieving PCs have to have heroic sounding names. snort

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes because all of those trespassing, murdering, and thieving PCs have to have heroic sounding names. snort

There's plenty in a name though, and I don't see why the use of the name 'rogue' isn't more generally thematic for PCs who are generally living a bit on the shady side of life etc. 'Thief' is a profession. It is a much narrower concept and doesn't convey the full range of concepts that the rogue is meant to support. IMHO rogue is a pretty good name for the class. I'd rather something like 'thief' as a narrow concept was something like a theme.