What is a rogue to you?

[Kzach]

After thinking on this a bit more, I think what my main problem is, is that there is no distinction between combat and non-combat roles. In AD&D, this wasn't a problem because combat abilities weren't a huge focus. But as systems advanced, so too did the focus intensify on combat ability.

I think a problem then stems from their being a mental rather than mechanical division in systems. Sure, you can make a 'skill-monkey', but you do so at the sacrifice of combat ability, or vice-versa with a combat-wombat. The notion of a fighter having few non-combat skills because they focus on combat is at the centre of this mental divide as much as the thief is on the opposite side of that.

Instead, what we need is a system that divides combat and non-combat abilities EVENLY throughout the classes and have two different systems for both where ALL classes have a 50/50 split between combat and non-combat effectiveness. By separating the systems entirely, you no longer have a situation where someone can focus every available option on getting the maximum combat effectiveness out of a character, or vice-versa. Instead you have feats and skill points (or whatever is used) for non-combat abilities that are entirely separate from the feats and skill points used for combat abilities.

This way you could make a sly and sneaky combatant or a heavily armoured cavalier using the same base class and neither would overshadow the other, in terms of gross potential ability, in either combat or non-combat arenas.

 

[Quickleaf]

So, I would like to see rogue as "the improvisor".

I think the genius in your idea is that the "improvisor" is a perfect example of taking the play-style of players who like rogues (beside described as "instigation") and building it into the mechanics of the class.

That's something I hope works it's way into all the core classes.

 

[BobTheNob]

After thinking on this a bit more, I think what my main problem is, is that there is no distinction between combat and non-combat roles. In AD&D, this wasn't a problem because combat abilities weren't a huge focus. But as systems advanced, so too did the focus intensify on combat ability.

I think a problem then stems from their being a mental rather than mechanical division in systems. Sure, you can make a 'skill-monkey', but you do so at the sacrifice of combat ability, or vice-versa with a combat-wombat. The notion of a fighter having few non-combat skills because they focus on combat is at the centre of this mental divide as much as the thief is on the opposite side of that.

Instead, what we need is a system that divides combat and non-combat abilities EVENLY throughout the classes and have two different systems for both where ALL classes have a 50/50 split between combat and non-combat effectiveness. By separating the systems entirely, you no longer have a situation where someone can focus every available option on getting the maximum combat effectiveness out of a character, or vice-versa. Instead you have feats and skill points (or whatever is used) for non-combat abilities that are entirely separate from the feats and skill points used for combat abilities.

This way you could make a sly and sneaky combatant or a heavily armoured cavalier using the same base class and neither would overshadow the other, in terms of gross potential ability, in either combat or non-combat arenas.

When I first heard about themes in 4e this is what I was hoping for, that themes would add the love to non combat that combat had received. They were a smashing success for what they did, but they werent really what I was hoping for, as all too often they just became variant combat capabilities (with some exceptions).

Makes it kind of exciting the talk about themes in 5e. Give a way of bundling up background with variant capabilities to back it up and bake it directly into the core rules rather than an after thought

This "third pillar" of class generation is quite exciting to me.

 

[avin]

Rogue > Thief.

 

[outsider]

Rogues to me are non-magical combatants that fight with agility, trickery, and stealth rather than brute force. I'm far more likely to play an assassin, swashbuckler, ninja, or even ranger than a thief. I have little to no interest in being a skill monkey. The only skill I consider a must have for this type of character is stealth. Disable device, Perception, and Acrobatics are nice too, but I can live without them. I don't care at all about reading languages, picking pockets, thieves cant, scroll use, bluff, etc, and I'm -not- willing to sacrifice combat ability to have them thrust upon me.

 

[GSHamster]

Part of this is the focus on combat that both 3e and 4e brought to the table but also it seems to have a lot to do with newer gamers bringing in newer concepts of the class, most of which seem to be born of video games like World of Warcraft. Now... I know that's a contentious issue and I don't subscribe to the theory that 4e is a WoW clone, however I do understand it to be a well-documented fact that WoW and other video games did have an influence on the development of both 3e and 4e.

Umm. The rogue class in WoW sneaks around in stealth, pick pockets, disarms traps, uses poisons, backstabs, knocks people unconscious with a sap. I don't really see where this paragraph is coming from.

The problem with "thief" is that it is very restrictive on a moral outlook, and leads to some weird, non-intuitive results.

For example, let's say I want to stat out a thief-taker, a detective who investigates crimes and hunts down those responsible. By and large, the single best class to use for a character like this is the rogue. If that class is called a thief, it seems very weird.

A better way to look at it is by comparing D&D classes to d20 Modern. The Strong hero and the Tough hero are covered by the Fighter class. But there needs to be a class to cover the Agile, Smart or Charismatic hero, and that's the province of the Rogue.

 

[Tallifer]

A rogue, a scoundrel, a thief and a panderer: he must be horsewhipped and put in the stocks for his first offense and hanged from the neck until dead if he proves to be a constant nuisance. Of course he is always welcome in the typically lawless company of freebooting adventurers.

 

[Libramarian]

A thief is a bit too narrow of a name to be a class.

The other side of this argument is that "thief" is too broad, given that all characters in D&D steal treasure.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

a class I don't play

I got my brother to play his first game of D&D back in the day by telling him the thief was the class Han Solo would be. He's doing good, but there will be a few expenses involved. Even more if there are to be no questions asked and you want to avoid certain "entanglements." It also helps to be funny and charming.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I like the distinction between the mobile combatant (4E and lesser extent 3E) and the out-an-out stealer/sneak (0&1E). IMO 2 different classes. In 3E I always allowed my Rogue PCs to drop sneak attack for more skill points and improvements in trap finding etc.

However all this is moot because it depends on how WotC are going to run the classes in DnDNext. Are they going to have a small number of classes and a large amount of customisation within them? Or more specialised classes covering each area. Both directions have their pros and cons.
In regards to this question you could have the 'thief' 'assassin' 'rogue' swashbuckler' etc etc as classes or customisation of the core class like PathFinder's Archetypes (which are pretty cool TBH)