What is a rogue to you?

[Kzach]

In 3E I always allowed my Rogue PCs to drop sneak attack for more skill points and improvements in trap finding etc.

This is part of the problem. The notion that you have to drop combat ability to gain non-combat ability, or vice-versa. It's... silly.

If you simply say that every character has 5 non-combat 'slots' and 5 combat 'slots' and separate feats or whatever mechanic is used into combat/non-combat and not allow swapping, then everyone is on an even playing field and can choose what direction they want to go in. You could still have classes but the classes just give bonuses to certain things rather than pooling combat/non-combat together and adjusting the ratio between the two for balance.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Why is it silly? It was an option for players who wanted to be much more out-of-combat focused (and allowed them to max on social as well as exploring skills). You don't have to be all equally effective in combat as long as you are equally effective over the course of the game. The problem is everyone's games has a different amount of the '3 pillars' so making that happen is really hard.
I thought that making everyone equally effective in combat and out was a noble goal, in practise (4E is close) it means a lack of character in the game IMO. Although admitedly 4E never achieved the stated goal - a 4E Rogue is better out-of-combat than a fighter but just as effective in a fight for example.

 

[Grydan]

I'm really unclear on what the issue is here. What, precisely, did the Thief have that isn't available to the Rogue? What things could he or did he do that any appropriately put-together Rogue can't do just as well (or even better)?

As far as I can tell, the Rogue killed the Thief, took his stuff, and then added more stuff.

He's Superthief. Thief Plus.

Or, depending on your choices, sure, he can be a thug, assassin, swashbuckler, con-man, spy, or any of dozens of other concepts. If the fighter is to be expected to cover a variety of vastly different concepts, why should the rogue be restricted to one?

 

[Yora]

That's the problem. Rogues are too good.

If we would want a fighting thief, we would make a fighter/thief. But he should not be as good at thief skills as a pure thief.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm really unclear on what the issue is here. What, precisely, did the Thief have that isn't available to the Rogue? What things could he or did he do that any appropriately put-together Rogue can't do just as well (or even better)?

As far as I can tell, the Rogue killed the Thief, took his stuff, and then added more stuff.

He's Superthief. Thief Plus.

Or, depending on your choices, sure, he can be a thug, assassin, swashbuckler, con-man, spy, or any of dozens of other concepts. If the fighter is to be expected to cover a variety of vastly different concepts, why should the rogue be restricted to one?

The old ad&d thief had more exclusive access to climb, detect trap, etc. Those were thieves skills. Other characters had very low base rates in them but could never compare to a thief. 3e turned those into skills others could take ranks in.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The old ad&d thief had more exclusive access to climb, detect trap, etc. Those were thieves skills. Other characters had very low base rates in them but could never compare to a thief. 3e turned those into skills others could take ranks in.

So, your issue is that if anyone else has even a small chance of succeeding at stealth and pick pocketing then the "Thief" sucks?

I mean, in 3e a fighter with a 10 dex who put no ranks into Pick Pocketing had a 10% chance of succeeding in a DC 19 check. Where a Rogue with 20 Dex who maxed his ranks at first level had a 55% chance. Which is about the same difference as what you got in previous editions. The difference is one point larger in 4e.

I love the idea of a "Thief" character. One of my first D&D characters ever was a Thief....but he was a Fighter/Thief because I didn't want to be bad at fighting. Playing a character who is bad at combat is just no fun for me at all.

I don't really understand how being good at something is a bad thing either. It sounds like for a lot of people that giving Thieves the ability to fight makes them no longer Thieves. I submit to you that if you make a class that does everything the Thief does AND can fight, they are only better.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I guess we just disagree. The thief not being good at fighting is both important to the concept for me and important to the game play. I would take the AD&d thief over the 3E or 4e rogue anytime. But if you prefer the later, more power to you. Ymmv

 

[Minigiant]

I'm in the "all adventurers can kill goblins" group. I believe any character who routinely does what D&D PCs do, go into monster filled dungeons, should be able to slay the lurking little stabber that jumps out at him while the armored warrior is busy or they'll never get to level 3.

 

[Hassassin]

I would like to see a rogue be almost as good as fighter in a one-on-one situation. The fighter has more skill, but the rogue cheats. However, while the fighter should be able to stand in the middle of four enemies and hold for at least a while, that sort of situation should be much more lethal to a rogue.

In practice, that's not how it works in D&D. The rogue has both a lower AC and fewer hp. Any combat advantage the enemies get from flanking will hit the fighter harder. (+2 to attack will increase your average damage more against high AC.)

One way to make it work like that would be to give the rogue a higher AC than fighter, but significantly fewer hp. However, I'm not sure that would go over well with players. After all, it's called the armor class.

Another way would be to have a large part of a rogue's AC work like the 3e dodge feat - against one opponent only. Dodge is one of those annoying things that you have to remember, but it could work the other way around. Give the rogue a "distracting strike" - every time he hits the target gets a -X attack penalty for a round. As a side effect, the rogue becomes a mobile defender who can move to protect the mage if one enemy has slipped past the fighter.

 

[Minigiant]

I would like to see a rogue be almost as good as fighter in a one-on-one situation. The fighter has more skill, but the rogue cheats. However, while the fighter should be able to stand in the middle of four enemies and hold for at least a while, that sort of situation should be much more lethal to a rogue.

In practice, that's not how it works in D&D. The rogue has both a lower AC and fewer hp. Any combat advantage the enemies get from flanking will hit the fighter harder. (+2 to attack will increase your average damage more against high AC.)

One way to make it work like that would be to give the rogue a higher AC than fighter, but significantly fewer hp. However, I'm not sure that would go over well with players. After all, it's called the armor class.

Another way would be to have a large part of a rogue's AC work like the 3e dodge feat - against one opponent only. Dodge is one of those annoying things that you have to remember, but it could work the other way around. Give the rogue a "distracting strike" - every time he hits the target gets a -X attack penalty for a round. As a side effect, the rogue becomes a mobile defender who can move to protect the mage if one enemy has slipped past the fighter.

Distracting Strike?

Bah.

A real rogue:
- Stabs the opponent with Spider Venom and jacks up the enemy's Str Score
- Lights a smokestick and Inflicts Hidden Stabby Death
- Dumps a vial of Alchemist's fire on the enemy and laughs at the poor sap flailing around.
-Tosses a tanglefoot bag and pulls out his bow
-Caltrops
-Caltrops with spider poison
-Caltrops with spider poison hidden in smokestick smoke and arrows flying in