What edition had the ideal version of each class?

[Infiniti2000]

Fighter: 4e (Essentials builds)
Rogue: 4e (Essentials builds)
Cleric: 2e with spontaneous casting
Mage: hasn't been done right yet

This. And, it bears repeating.

 

[Hassassin]

After awhile he does more damage, but he is crippled by the fact that he sneak attacks with light weapons, which means if he is doing x2 or x3 sneak attack, he's just getting parity with the fighter or barbarian's greataxe or two-hander and they can do that damage every round. Even at higher levels fighters have many feats which can also match the damage output of a rogue, without all the inconveniences of sneak attack.

There are four ways to get off your sneak attack in 3e. 1) Flanking, which is difficult to pull off sometimes. 2) Feinting, which can be done once per encounter on a successful bluff check and 3) being hidden or invisible and 4) catching the opponents flat-footed with an initiative roll.

Light weapons cost 1 damage average compared to one-handed. Rapier even less (higher threat range). You can sneak with TWF, which gives you more than two-handed damage.

Feinting doesn't have a per encounter limit. Invisibility is pretty easy to get once you are high enough level that 3/4 BAB starts to show.

In contrast in 4e, you can get bonus damage for doing a cheap shot when you have combat advantage, plus several combat maneuvers that allow you to gain combat advantage (ie. throwing dirt in their eyes).

The 4e version seems both better from a balance standpoint, and matches the flavour of how a rogue would actually fight better as far as I can tell.

In not saying 3e rogue is more powerful than the 4e one. It just didn't suck and was IMO great in other ways. We have to disagree about which is more flavorful.

I dislike the 3e skills system the most. A lot of book-keeping without the advantage of having unique skills like you could with 2e's proficiencies system. With level-based DC's for skills as well, there was no point in putting less than full points in any DC system, so why not just do what 4e did and just have them considered maxed out with training?

3e skill DCs were not level based. Except in (some) opposed rolls, of course. Many skills (e.g. climb, jump, tumble, ride, swim) didn't really need more than ~5 ranks to cover 90% of what you wanted to do.

It's easy to have a hybrid system, where the default is +level to N skills but you can buy N ranks per level instead. I know many played 3e by just maxing a few skills.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In not saying 3e rogue is more powerful than the 4e one. It just didn't suck and was IMO great in other ways. We have to disagree about which is more flavorful.

Great in what ways out of curiosity? I'll grant it makes a better assassin than the 4e thief (or rogue). And can create some serious monster sushi*. But as a skillmonkey it's waaay behind the PF rogue. And the PF rogue is about on par (IMO slightly behind but it's fairly close) the 4e PHB Rogue, which is singnificantly behind the 4e thief.

* rice not included

 

[Hassassin]

Great in what ways out of curiosity? I'll grant it makes a better assassin than the 4e thief (or rogue). And can create some serious monster sushi*. But as a skillmonkey it's waaay behind the PF rogue. And the PF rogue is about on par (IMO slightly behind but it's fairly close) the 4e PHB Rogue, which is singnificantly behind the 4e thief.

* rice not included

It's more versatile overall than the 4e one.

The PF one is even more so, especially in the Beginner Box where they removed some more skills. The PF one would be my favorite if the talents weren't so many and complex. (That's my problem with the whole PF system. They added complexity when they should have removed some.)

In our games we use the PF skill system with 3.5, so we get the best of both worlds.

 

[Harlekin]

It's more versatile overall than the 4e one.

The PF one is even more so, especially in the Beginner Box where they removed some more skills. The PF one would be my favorite if the talents weren't so many and complex. (That's my problem with the whole PF system. They added complexity when they should have removed some.)

In our games we use the PF skill system with 3.5, so we get the best of both worlds.

Just out of curiosity, in how many sessions have you played either a 4ed rogue or a 4ed thief? In how many sessions have you seen either one of the classes being played?

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's more versatile overall than the 4e one.

That's strictly and provably false.

The 3.5 Rogue gets 8+Int Mod skill points per level out of 36. The 4e Rogue gets 6 trained skills out of 17, including stealth and thievery. Yes, it appears the 3.5 rogue has more skill points. But let's look at those 4e skills.

Stealth: Does the work of both Hide and Move Silently.

Thievery: Does the work of Open Locks, Disable Device, and Sleight of Hand.

So the two automatic skills the 4e rogue is trained in do the work of five 3.5 rogue skills. And that's five pretty essential ones to the rogue's ability to be a rogue. Let's add two more textbook roguish/scouty skills to the list.

Perception: Does the work of Spot, Listen, and Search. Essential for any scout so the rogue had better be trained in at least two of them in 3.5.

Athletics: replaces three skills. Climb, Jump, and Swim. Assume you didn't care about swim. Not that it matters. Climb and jump are both on the physical rogue skill list...

And my 4e rogue still has two skills left over, some of which (due to the condensing of the skill lists) have multiple functions in 3.5 or even Pathfinder. The 4e rogue simply has more skill versatility than the 3.5 one. And that's before you get into utility powers. At heroic tier you get three utility powers - one at level 2, one at level 6, and one at level 10. And I will happily pit three utility powers against five rogue tricks from Pathfinder. Also I can pick up ritual caster for a feat, or another skill for a feat (which I will only do after getting multiclass feats which normally grant me a skill and another ability). The thief gets a seventh trained skill, and can choose tricks in addition to utility powers - one of which makes him a better sneak than simply having maxed out stealth would, and another gives him a climb speed (making climb walls redundant).

The 3.5 rogue is better than the 4e rogue at one thing. Combat. The way Sneak attack scales and can be used with TWF they can make monster-sushi in a way the 4e rogue can only dream of. As for being a skill monkey, the 4e rogue is up there with the PF Beginners Box rogue - without there being quite such vast roguish areas outside the rules like picking pockets (unless it's filed under Disable Device - I don't have my PFBB players rulebook to hand).

That's unless by versatility you meant fine detail customisability. That having a rogue who can't pick pockets effectively is meaningful to you, or one who can spot but can't listen when scouting.

The PF one is even more so, especially in the Beginner Box where they removed some more skills. The PF one would be my favorite if the talents weren't so many and complex. (That's my problem with the whole PF system. They added complexity when they should have removed some.)

In our games we use the PF skill system with 3.5, so we get the best of both worlds.

Keep going and you'll approach 4e. Fewer, simpler skills, and some skill monkey classes. 4e has 17 skills, all of them useful for adventuring.

 

[Hassassin]

Just out of curiosity, in how many sessions have you played either a 4ed rogue or a 4ed thief? In how many sessions have you seen either one of the classes being played?

There was a rogue in the only 4e campaign I played in, but it wasn't mine. Around ten sessions that the rogue was present. I've created a couple of rogues that I never got to play, because we switched back to 3.5. I've only read through Essentials, never played, so I can't say much about the Thief.

 

[billd91]

That's unless by versatility you meant fine detail customisability. That having a rogue who can't pick pockets effectively is meaningful to you, or one who can spot but can't listen when scouting.

I'd say that's quite important for versatility. A rogue in 3e covers a lot of territory, not always including picking pockets when other "thievery" skills are called for.

 

[Harlekin]

I'd say that's quite important for versatility. A rogue in 3e covers a lot of territory, not always including picking pockets when other "thievery" skills are called for.

I don't think that's versatility. A rogue in 4ed is more versatile, because he can always disarm traps and pick pockets. The process of building rogues may be a little less specific to some concepts than the 3e process.

 

[Hassassin]

That's strictly and provably false.

I meant overall, as in the kinds of combat styles the rogue can use, the freedom to focus on combat or exploration or interaction, and yes skills.

The main difference in skill versatility is skill points vs. trained skills. A 3e rogue gets to learn new things every level if he so chooses. That means the 4e rogue cannot be "strictly" more versatile. Which you consider more versatile depends on what you mean by it.

This is also the difference between PF (again esp. BB) and 4e, which otherwise have quite similar short skill lists.

That's unless by versatility you meant fine detail customisability. That having a rogue who can't pick pockets effectively is meaningful to you, or one who can spot but can't listen when scouting.

The automatic skills of 4e aren't an issue to me, since you can always ignore them or ask the DM to swap them to something (although I didn't see the point of them either).