What's a rogue to you? Question on the relevance of a class.

[Gold Roger]

Well, this thread got me thinking, there's really a big question mark on how the rogue could be an interesting and relevant class in the new edition.


All rogue, thief or scoundrel classes I've seen throughout games (tabletop and video) and editions boiled down to a mix of two basic principles. One is the skillmonkey and the other is light fighter who sneak attacks. And it always falls flat.


The skillmonkey falls flat for two reasons.

First, it's worth very little in combat. That is not a problem for everyone, but I think it matters to enough people that a baseline of "combat contribution balance" is needed.

Second, shouldn't every class be able to skill monkey out by sacrificing other abilities? The Loremaster wizard, the fighter with a knack for picking up useful skills, the warrior equally at home at court and battlefield all need a broad range of skill. Don't even get me started on the many, many skills a Priest might be required to have. And it seems with the new editions backgrounds and themes, exactly this will be possible. With a thief (background) lurker (theme) I can propably have a thives guil mage, fighter or cleric. Rogue aren't the resident sneaky guys anymore. Themes and backgrounds for other skillsets should do similar to trapfinding, lock openening, etc.


So what about mister sneak attack? Well, this is really more of an assassins or light acrobatic fighters, than the lovable (or not so lovable) rogue archetype. In the thread linked in my introduction a number of people say the rogue shouldn't be comparable in melee to a fighter. Heck, many say the Cleric should be a better melee fighter (and that before spells). And the worst thing is, I agree. Whatever comes to my mind when I look at the rogue class in 4e or Wow (just examples and no jab at either game), it's nothing like the archetypal rogue, thief or scoundrel. It's a glass cannon fighter.


Really the two above concepts never presented a strong archetype to me, the way the execution of other core classes always have (well, warlock and warlord technically where core in 4e, but I don't count them). I'd be happy to see them strongly disempathised.

But where to go from there?

One possibility is to just make the rogue an almost noncombatant. The class for those strange people who play weak, sidekick and comedy characters intentionally. I would hate it, but I see how this idea could have charm for some.

My personal solution would be to empathise what all those rogue and scoundrel protagonists in stories seem to have: absurd amounts of luck!

For me, that's a rogue, the person with an insane ability to get themself in and out of troube. I'd give rerolls, "luck stunts" and some kind of "plot armor" to the rogue. Heck, I'd even make him a lucky charm for the entire party!

But that's just my take.

What's your thoughts on this issue? Or is it a non issue to you?

 

[Yora]

I actually like it very much if combat is the part of the game where the warriors really show. If a fighter is as much worth in combat as a thief, wizard, and priest combined, I think that's a very good balance.
Thieves should support the warriors in combat, but not really be people who really make a great difference in a fight. Thieves can shine when it's about leading the party through dangerous environments and setting up ambushes, or they leave for a short time to scout ahead. In a 1 on 1 fight, thieves, and no other characters as well, should have any chance to win against a dedicated warrior.

 

[steeldragons]

Non-issue here. The boiled down rogue/scoundrel archetype's of skill-monkey or fighter-lite that, for you, "fall flat" have never been a problem for me or anyone I've played with who wanted to play a rogue/thief...and I think there are multiple other "boiled down rogues" that could be noted. But that's neither here nor there.

I think the niche of "non-warrior cunning, sneaky guy who goes treasure hunting" is just fine and dandy, and steeped enough in the game's history, to warrant/sustain a class of its own.

The introduction of a "luck point"/mechanic into D&D is definitely not something I would like to see...maybe, maybe as an optional module thing to add in if desired...but maybe not even then.

--SD

 

[griffonwing]

I really like how HackMaster handles it.

Thief class: Core thief skills (trap skills: disarm, identify and design), pickpocketing, sneaking, hiding, climbing/rappelling. Stealth, Increased initiative bonus, back-stabbing, coup-de-gras bonus. Luck Points (used to offset bad rolls of the dice.

The Thief is nimble-fingered and light-footed, hiding in shadows and robbing you while you sleep or are away.

Rogue class: Core Rogue Skills: Acting, Diplomacy, Fast-talk, Glean Information, literacy, languages, salesmanship, seduction, appraisal, disguise, forgery. Luck Points.

The Rogue is silver-tongued and cunning. He will charm the necklace from you, weaving lies and deception. Barring that, he is not opposed to seducing you and taking it while you are otherwise occupied.

So, same fundamental class, from 2 different angles. Sneaky Dex or Charming Charisma.

They also have the Assassin class. Not "sneaky ninja killer from the shadows". Think more along the lines of James Bond, Al Capone, Hitman, Leon the Professional. Combing a few skills of both Rogue and Thief, with Fighter thrown in. A killer who specializes in tracking down his target and eliminating him quickly.

 

[Gold Roger]

I think the niche of "non-warrior cunning, sneaky guy who goes treasure hunting" is just fine and dandy, and steeped enough in the game's history, to warrant/sustain a class of its own.

Most definitely. The guy you describe is not onlyfine, but required to me. I just don't feel the mechanical representations I've seen ever represented him well.

The introduction of a "luck point"/mechanic into D&D is definitely not something I would like to see...maybe, maybe as an optional module thing to add in if desired...but maybe not even then.

--SD

Fair enough. I'll admit that a "luck powersource" is a bit of a pet idea of mine.

I just feel that in a game where fighters tear of dragonheads and paladins pretty much literaly have a halo, the insanely lucky guy has his place as well, but it would be an entirely new addition to the core of D&D.

 

[Guest 85555]

Non-issue here. The boiled down rogue/scoundrel archetype's of skill-monkey or fighter-lite that, for you, "fall flat" have never been a problem for me or anyone I've played with who wanted to play a rogue/thief...and I think there are multiple other "boiled down rogues" that could be noted. But that's neither here nor there.

I think the niche of "non-warrior cunning, sneaky guy who goes treasure hunting" is just fine and dandy, and steeped enough in the game's history, to warrant/sustain a class of its own.

The introduction of a "luck point"/mechanic into D&D is definitely not something I would like to see...maybe, maybe as an optional module thing to add in if desired...but maybe not even then.

--SD

I agree these are not really problems I have had. Personally I feel AD&D handled rogues best. They were not really big on combat but they had a strong edge on the thief abilities. For me this worked well.

I see a lot of threads trying to fix perceived problems with dungeons and dragons. That is all well and good, but it seems like we already have an edition (4E) designed for folks who were never satisfied with the core game, and that just ended up splitting the base. Do we really want them to retool core elements again and risk losing even more players?

 

[griffonwing]

The introduction of a "luck point"/mechanic into D&D is definitely not something I would like to see...maybe, maybe as an optional module thing to add in if desired...but maybe not even then.

That is where the death of the game comes into play, When you have an optional mechanic that wasn't built for system. Either the system (DnD5e, for example) has to be built to use the luck-point mechanic, or you don't use it at all. It can't be both (optional). If it's not made to handle it, then the luck-point mechanic will be over-powered.

Think back to how many 3.x character there were that only had 1 level of Rogue at first level, in order to gain the skill points. The same will happen as well if you include an optional Luck Point rule for games.

Personally, I like the idea of luck points, honor points, action points, etc. These offset the randomness of crappy rolls, or when the dice just aren't on your side. It also allows for a greater chance for RP situations. Using a luck point, and then telling the GM exactly how the luck manifested.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I thought AD&D rogues were pretty anemic myself. They had such crummy thief skill % at all but quite high levels that you could never COUNT on being able to pull anything off. At 9th level you had a 70% PP chance, no pick pocket on earth could get away with being that pathetic, you'd be strung up inside a day! 2e at least let you specialize enough to be credible at a few things, but then the other stuff was left hanging, which was just as big a problem. Then to top it off you were really pretty miserable in any kind of fight.

I thought the 4e rogue worked well. In practice they're quite effective at their traditional non-combat functions and I thought they worked well in combat, working around to get the jump on enemies and then doing substantial damage.

Personally I'm happy to have the 5e rogue modeled on the 4e version.

 

[Guest 85555]

I thought AD&D rogues were pretty anemic myself. They had such crummy thief skill % at all but quite high levels that you could never COUNT on being able to pull anything off. At 9th level you had a 70% PP chance, no pick pocket on earth could get away with being that pathetic, you'd be strung up inside a day! 2e at least let you specialize enough to be credible at a few things, but then the other stuff was left hanging, which was just as big a problem. Then to top it off you were really pretty miserable in any kind of fight.

Cannot speak for 1e but 2e simply didn't have this issue. Thieves started out with base percentages with possibility of bonuses/penalties for race 5-15%) and bonuses/penalties for abilities (5-20%). each level they got 30 points to spend and could spend up to 15 in each group, with a max of up to 95% for any thief ability. Cimb walls starts at base 60% while the others mostly start between 5-15 percent. So by 5th level if yiu divided the 30 points between two things you would already be at 75% minimum for both (not including your base percentage which probably tacks on another ten percent and not including dex or race bonuses). At this point you are free to invest in other abilities. Or you could spread them around more as you went. Yes the system doesn't let you be awesome at all of them, but them it probably shouldn't. You don't want thieves to all be the same and you don't want them to be good at all those abilities becuase they are actually pretty darn good to have (thieves can make a killing stealing for xp for instance). EDIT: my math omitted that first level theives start with 60 points to spend as they wish (up to thirty in each skill).

As for them not being great at combat, I see that as a feature rather than a bug.

I thought the 4e rogue worked well. In practice they're quite effective at their traditional non-combat functions and I thought they worked well in combat, working around to get the jump on enemies and then doing substantial damage.

Personally I'm happy to have the 5e rogue modeled on the 4e version.

if this works for you that is good. But if they model stuff on 4e, then it wont be a game I have any interest in playing. Particularly the striker rogue. Tis never reall worked for me at all.

 

[Guest 85555]

Not to mention, it is good to have room for growth. I dont want my rogues starting with 70% pick pockets out of the gate.