Was the rogue really updated?

[Wiseblood]

Looking back at pre-3e D&D being a rogue was very dangerous. IME the highest mortality rate of any class. Some things never change. When 3e came along the expectations for the rogue remained the same but skill mechanics didn't do them any favors. Suddenly clerics have the same attack bonus and anyone can use skills that used to be their domain only. All potential foes have more hit points than in previous editions. Sneak attack gets more use than the old backstab but doesn't do more damage when you consider the escalating armor class and exponential increase of HP. It seemed like they were still playing an older version of a class in a pumped up game.

4e seems to gloss over a lot of the things that used to make rogues an interesting character class. Some of their old shtick still hangs in there like a rusty fish hook. Sneak attack once again rears it's less than adequate head. HP get a boost but this still gets left behind.

Making the rogue work is a lot of work espcially when the worlds they inhabit continue to evolve while they get rehashed and nerfed versions of thier old abilities.

Have I become the victim of a confirmational bias or were rogues really left behind?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Looking back at pre-3e D&D being a rogue was very dangerous. IME the highest mortality rate of any class. Some things never change. When 3e came along the expectations for the rogue remained the same but skill mechanics didn't do them any favors. Suddenly clerics have the same attack bonus and anyone can use skills that used to be their domain only. All potential foes have more hit points than in previous editions. Sneak attack gets more use than the old backstab but doesn't do more damage when you consider the escalating armor class and exponential increase of HP. It seemed like they were still playing an older version of a class in a pumped up game.

It seems you devalue sneak attack and emphasize skills as being more important.

3.x:

I've seen fighter/rogues specifically use Improved Feint and sneak attack essentially every round for hideous damage. Even with the loss of sneak attack dice (due to spending levels on fighters) they were still the most dangerous glass ninjas out there. A "pure rogue" would simply dish out even more damage. Don't forget to tumble and therefore flank every round. Once combat breaks out, monsters or NPCs often focus on the rogue first due to the damage they're dishing out.

Unlike a monk, a rogue's attack bonus isn't nerfed. You "only" get 3/4 BAB, but you only need to focus on one stat: Dex. Take Weapon Finesse at 3rd-level; this isn't 2e and you don't need to have a lame attack bonus.

As for skills, I don't have a problem with them. Other than Trickery clerics, no one else can find and disable traps like a rogue. This is a big deal if you design traps "properly" (making them part of a combat encounter or a complicated encounter where everyone can participate). When you enter a trap-filled hallway with the control panel at the other end while it shoots lightning bolts every round, you suddenly appreciate the lightly armored character with (Improved) Evasion and the skills to put an end to that. (Especially a big deal when the hallway traps the PCs in it. Or worse, half the PCs.)

4e seems to gloss over a lot of the things that used to make rogues an interesting character class. Some of their old shtick still hangs in there like a rusty fish hook. Sneak attack once again rears it's less than adequate head. HP get a boost but this still gets left behind.

While the effect of sneak attack is slightly blunted in 4e due to higher hit points, rogues are strikers and still deal more damage than fighters. Also, their hit points aren't nearly as weak as in 3.x.

Skills are the same as in 3.x; only rogues can or should focus on Thievery, and your Stealth skill will usually be your highest skill. Even opponents with trained Perception scores (eg NPC rangers) will spot you less than half the time.

Have I become the victim of a confirmational bias or were rogues really left behind?

Seems that way. Are you looking for a thief or a rogue? Despite the similar name, they actually have a very different role in the game.

 

[Victim]

Didn't clerics have something like 2/3rds attack bonus while thieves had 1/2? That would make having the same attack bonus as the cleric a significant buff to the rogue/thief.

 

[Wiseblood]

Didn't clerics have something like 2/3rds attack bonus while thieves had 1/2? That would make having the same attack bonus as the cleric a significant buff to the rogue/thief.

You're right. Clerics and mages gt a boost too. AT 20th level the rogue had a THAC0 of 11 the cleric had a 7.

 

[Nagol]

Didn't clerics have something like 2/3rds attack bonus while thieves had 1/2? That would make having the same attack bonus as the cleric a significant buff to the rogue/thief.

Yep.

 

[Wiseblood]

Thanks. I suppose the sneak attack/Backstab discrepancy must be in my mind. Backstab always seemed devastating sneak attack never impressed me. I would say because of HP totals.

Now if only their surviveabilty were adressed.

 

[Nagol]

In many ways, their survivalbility is addressed through the hit point inflation that happened in 3.X.

A Rogue who make Con a secondary/tertiary stat ends up with a lot of hit points compared to 1e/2e. Spell damage stayed the same or went down. Melee damage went up -- especially for professional fighter types.

One Dwarven Rogue in my 3,5 group had 100+ hp by 10th level.

The only really unfortunate survival gap is the Reflex save is the only favoured. As a saving type, it arguably is the weakest for character survival.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Thanks. I suppose the sneak attack/Backstab discrepancy must be in my mind. Backstab always seemed devastating sneak attack never impressed me. I would say because of HP totals.

Now if only their surviveabilty were adressed.

Backstab could rarely be used more than once per encounter. It also multiplied the damage of low-damage weapons, and rogues rarely had high Strength scores to back them up.

I'm thinking this is a case of rose-colored glasses.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Also, in 3e, can't only rogues actually find traps above dc20 using trapfinding?

Not to mention class skills versus cross class skills...rogues get more class skills and better ones (including the heavily required, but underavailable spot/listen).


I'll also add, from what I remember (and hated) about rogues/thieves in 2e was that adventures would often require a thief skill roll if a thief versus a dex check if not.

Often times our thief would have, say 45% in a skill, but the highest dex in the party. Their skill often made them LESS likely to succeed at these checks. (We houseruled this silliness away, allowing thieves to roll their skill first, and if that failed to roll against dex...but that was a houserule.)

 

[billd91]

Gaining evasion was a significant addition to the rogue in 3.x as well. Now, not only do their saves vs dragons not completely suck as they did in 1e/2e, but now that dragon's probably lucky to affect the rogue with his breath weapon at all.