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

[RHGreen]

Rogue

Primary: Dexterity
Secondary: Intelligence or Charisma

Combat Specialties: Light Weapons (Dex Weapons, Rapiers, Daggers, Parrying Dagger, Blackjacks, Blowguns), Stealth Attack, Backstab, Rapid Movement, Crossbows (Sniper), 2 Weapon Fighting (Dex Weapons), Evasion, Escape, Acrobatics, Climbing, Knockouts/Sapping, Poisons, Feints, Distraction.

Out Of Combat (DEX): Pick Pockets, Sleight Of Hand, Climbing, Stealth.

Out Of Combat (INT): Traps, Locksmith, Casing, Following, Blending In (Going Grey).

Out Of Combat (CHA): Bluffing, Information Gathering, Bartering Deals, Sensing Motive, Diplomacy, Disguise.


That's plenty to be getting on with. I would say the Rogue is the easiest out of the classes to flesh out.

The Assassin is just an NPC Rogue with emphasis on one shot kills that players knicked from the DM Guide.

 

[RHGreen]

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.

FIGHTERS: Attack 10/10 , Defence 10/10
CLERICS: Attack 7/10 , Defence 10/10 , + Spells
ROGUES: Attack 15/10, Defence 7/10

 

[hafrogman]

I was actually thinking about this just this morning, because I found myself musing along the lines of "If lurker is a theme, and criminal is a background, what IS a rogue?"

And so basically in the DDN idea of the basic choices modeling older editions with the standard choices, the "standard" rogue is your criminal, lurker rogue who ends up looking much like a Thief or a 3.X rogue. However, to figure out what the rogue is, it needs to be distilled further in order to get something more generic.

And so perhaps the rogue's niche IS the skill monkey. What skills he has come more from his theme and background, but he's either got a broader base of skills or perhaps something like skill knacks or tricks. The effort to flatten math seeming to be that a character in their element isn't necessarily better (a higher skill check) but can simply do more/multitask better than a character out of their element.

But then in an effort to make sure the rogue isn't useless in combat, the base rogue's idea I came up with is these two points:

a) A rogue focuses on skills over specific combat training or magic and
b) A rogue uses skills in combat to attempt to gain an advantage over an opponent.

This gives us the lurker rogue who uses stealth skills to try and sneak attack opponents, but it can also give us a swashbuckler who uses social skills (bluff, etc) to try and dazzle, distract and taunt opponents into dropping their guard, the thief-acrobat who uses movement skills (tumble, jump, climb) to dart and flip around the battle field to strike from unexpected directions, and the scholarly adventurer type who uses knowledge type skills to find and exploit weaknesses of the monsters he meets. All are rogues.

 

[griffonwing]

Well, I guess I'll clarify a bit--it's not that the idea bothers me (in fact, it's something I'd like to play, and have done so in systems like Mutants & Masterminds), but that the balancing point would be ridiculously hard to do in a class-based system, and I'm not convinced that it could really be successfully balanced. I think, for D&D, action points as they were introduced and used in Eberron or in 4E (although I'm not sold on milestones) is about as much as I'd want to see in D&DNext.

But HackMaster (not 4e) has done it, and done it very well. There are Honor points, Luck Points, Chivalry Points (for knights and paladins). So, yeah, it can be done, IF the developer of the system will include it from the beginning, and not tack it on at then end.

 

[variant]

I think Rogues can be various things, swashbucklers, con-artists, thieves, etc. Getting the class away from the concept that they always need to be the hide in the shadows, stab you in the back, type would be a good start for laying out what a 5e Rogue should be.

It does seem that skills come from your Background, not your class which I think will allow for people to actually play other types of rogues without feeling like they aren't utilizing the full class.

 

[Gold Roger]

I must say, there have been many interesting points here so far.

So. Reevaluating:

1. I remembered the thief class from Iron Heroes, which was an interesting one. I don't have the book anymore, so forgive when I misremember anything. In a d20 based game almost entirely on "fighters" of all colours, it was the weakest combatant (excepting the token arcanist). It had a sneak attack but not as prolific as 3rd editions rogue. As skill monkey, it not only had more skillpoints than others, it also was allowed a higher skillrank by level than usual.

2. I certainly don't want to do away with sneak attack and skill monkery. Never did.

3. It's amazing how much "luck mechanics" has become synonimous with action points, fate points etc. I did dig my own grave referencing them though><. Let me be clear, I was brainstorming for actual mechanics (really, without publik playtest, all we can do about DDN is brainstorm and speculate).

So, new question (not that the old one has run its course): how would you feel about giving the rogue optional class features based on luck in name, but not comparable to known "luck mechanics"?

 

[BobTheNob]

It's only important if combat takes up the bulk of game time, like it does in 3e & 4e. If 5e takes a large chunk of combat time and redistributes it to exploration and roleplaying, then sacrificing combat ability for better exploration and roleplaying skills makes sense.

Prior to 3e, thieves were pretty ineffective in combat. If you chose to play a single-class thief you had to accept that you weren't going to do a whole lot in fights. You could, however, play a fighter/thief and be decent in combat and still be an effective "skill monkey". The thief had such a low XP cost to level that it wouldn't slow down level gain too much.

This this and this. The whole "should a rogue be an adventurer or a combatent" really boils down to this. It fights take up 90% of game time, yea, play the fighter in leather, if combat is 50% of the time, you could easily play the combat support/adventurer and still have an interesting experience.

I feel that through 3e and 4e progress the dial has got heavier and heavier in favor of combat. Keep going in that direction and we will end up with plot and narrative being a 1 paragraph lead in to "this sessions fight". I am in favor of stepping back from that a bit, allowing the rogue and all classes to be less of a combat role and more of a adventurer (except the warrior classes...fighting IS their adveturing role).

Note, I dont say "skill monkey". Its completely the wrong term. I have been going over FantasyCraft a bit and have seen that it is entirely possible to create interesting non-combat classes. We just have to learn, as adventure designers, to treat combat as a highlight, not the sum of the purpose.

 

[howandwhy99]

A rogue is a loner, an offshoot, so it isn't the best fit for a team focused game.
A Thief is a lawbreaker ultimately, so it doesn't fit well in a game leaning towards the lawful side of things, which again includes team play. "There is no honor among thieves" and all that.

Skill lists usually refer to games without systems. Having a game that includes system play as well as non-referential skill list play is contradictory in design IMO. However, characters with both system abilities and skills is de rigueur. Rather than a particular system defining a class we get equal helpings for everyone.

A skill monkey would simply be a character that was statistically superior in the skill game and weaker in one or any of the system games. I don't think thief or rogue is the appropriate name for this though. Perhaps Jack of All Trades could work?

While I'm not a huge fan of it, the Thief class can function in a kind of NPC class come adventurer sort of way. It simply doesn't address any single class defining system in the system game. It's more of a collection of abilities focusing on a single tactic in every one of them: covert action.

The Thief is solidly D&D-focused, but definitely more on the "and take their stuff" side of things. They are good at sneaking in order to steal. Treasure, combat, magic, dealing with NPCs (alliances, info, etc.), all of it is done covertly due to their class abilities increasing the odds. They often act against the law in lawful societies. They are tend to be loners because of their work, but often ally with others of like character and/or class. Their profession, how they make their living if NPCs, is taking other people's stuff without payment. The class philosophy is basically, "if you can take it, it's yours", so they usually end up as Neutral on the alignment chart no matter how many virtuous or vile acts they commit.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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).

There are NUMEROUS problems with this though. Really though boil down to the fact that there was zero scaling in that system (pick pockets had its own special rule here). Even a simple lock would defeat a low level thief, even in 2e unless he sank a big chunk of his points into that skill. The 4e system by contrast is great, it lacks all the scaling problems. A low level 4e rogue is reasonably effective in the situations where he SHOULD be and not in those where he shouldn't be. I could go on, but the AD&D thief skills subsystem was a hot mess.

The 4e system also allows for pretty much the same level of focus on different aspects of 'thievery' as the AD&D system did. You can put more points into CHA, DEX, WIS, or STR in various proportions, pick somewhat different skills, and then focus on building up different things. In fact in many ways you can make a more diverse set of rogues than you could in AD&D. There are a few counter examples of course, but overall you have no less diversity now than you did then. So what does going back to this old system gain us? IMHO nothing.

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

Which of course now means that the player's choice of character concept dictates that I have to arrange my game in a way to accommodate that lopsided skill set. In 4e I don't have to worry about it, I know that the rogue will do fine in combat. If the player wants to focus more on other things, he's perfectly welcome to arrange his ability scores and spend his feats, utility powers, etc on things that help him in other areas. Worst case he's still at least as good as the old 1e thief at fighting. AD&D offered you no such choices at all. You just sucked at fighting, period end of report.

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.

This argument cuts both ways, so what's the point of even stating it? I'm NOT going back to the 'dark ages' of D&D. If you don't want to be a 'striker rogue' in 4e then play a different class, keep your DEX up (plenty of classes can use a high dex) and pick appropriate skills. Or just pick non-combat options instead of combat ones for your rogue. He'll still be a 'striker' and can probably still get in SOME good hits in a fight, but he's also unlikely to be appreciably better at doing damage than most defenders, which should suite you fine. I think you're putting on blinders here and not really looking at the 2 systems objectively side-by-side IMHO.

 

[Guest 85555]

There are NUMEROUS problems with this though. Really though boil down to the fact that there was zero scaling in that system (pick pockets had its own special rule here). Even a simple lock would defeat a low level thief, even in 2e unless he sank a big chunk of his points into that skill. The 4e system by contrast is great, it lacks all the scaling problems. A low level 4e rogue is reasonably effective in the situations where he SHOULD be and not in those where he shouldn't be. I could go on, but the AD&D thief skills subsystem was a hot mess.

If by scaling you mean adjustable DC that was handled by the old system. You simply used penalties and bonuses for easier or harder tasks. Yes a simple lock will be somewhat hard for a thief who isn't good at picking locks. But that is kind of the point

But check out page 36 of the dmg. Lock quality was a factor. A "wretched lock" bestows a +30% to the roll. A master lock bestows a -60.

The 4e system also allows for pretty much the same level of focus on different aspects of 'thievery' as the AD&D system did. You can put more points into CHA, DEX, WIS, or STR in various proportions, pick somewhat different skills, and then focus on building up different things. In fact in many ways you can make a more diverse set of rogues than you could in AD&D. There are a few counter examples of course, but overall you have no less diversity now than you did then. So what does going back to this old system gain us? IMHO nothing.

I wasn't arguing for more diverse rogues. The 3e and 4e system takes thief skills away as the main province of the rogue and opens them up to other characters. In 2e everyone had a very low base of many of these skills that couldn't be improved, but only the rogue could really do this stuff, giving hima strong niche.

Which of course now means that the player's choice of character concept dictates that I have to arrange my game in a way to accommodate that lopsided skill set. In 4e I don't have to worry about it, I know that the rogue will do fine in combat. If the player wants to focus more on other things, he's perfectly welcome to arrange his ability scores and spend his feats, utility powers, etc on things that help him in other areas. Worst case he's still at least as good as the old 1e thief at fighting. AD&D offered you no such choices at all. You just sucked at fighting, period end of report.

I guess if you only like combat games or want all encounters to flow like a well coordinated football play, then its a problem. For me it remains a good thing and suits my gming and pay style.

Again, i think it is important to the thief concept that they not excel at fighting. The whole striker thing turns the thief into a commando for me. Ijust don't see them in that light at all. The kind of games you end up with in 3e and 4e make the thief a lot less interesting and fun to me.

This argument cuts both ways, so what's the point of even stating it? I'm NOT going back to the 'dark ages' of D&D. If you don't want to be a 'striker rogue' in 4e then play a different class, keep your DEX up (plenty of classes can use a high dex) and pick appropriate skills. Or just pick non-combat options instead of combat ones for your rogue. He'll still be a 'striker' and can probably still get in SOME good hits in a fight, but he's also unlikely to be appreciably better at doing damage than most defenders, which should suite you fine. I think you're putting on blinders here and not really looking at the 2 systems objectively side-by-side IMHO.

So we are back to this tactic. Even if I take the striker out of the 4e rogue i am still left with the fact that the skills are part of the general skill system available to everyone (which i don't like). So no that solution doesn't suit me fine at all. Plus there remains the problem of the 4e powers system (which i also dont like). Perhaps instead of attacking other peoples' objectivity you should take people at their word when they say they don't share your preference for 4e mechanics.

Yes, it cuts both ways because discussions are a two way street, which is why i have never told you 4e is bad design or that your prefernces are bad.