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

[LightPhoenix]

If you look at the three design pillars WotC is fond of talking about (Exploration, Roleplaying, Combat), Rogue is the one that excels at the exploration pillar. They do have a foundation in the other two (and I'd argue are probably the most balanced in that light), but from day one they've been focused on getting the group where they need to go, overcoming obstacles without incident.

The real issue with the Rogue is that many of their abilities depend on the DM having an adventure that allows the Rogue to use and showcase their abilities. If that component of an adventure isn't there, then those abilities aren't used, and the Rogue feels out of place. I felt this was especially true in 4E, where the optimal strategy was to by and large ignore most traps since they took many resources to disable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

4e's DC and check systems offer enormously more flexibility and far better scaling and guidelines than lock quality, which only appeared in 2e to boot. 4e's system will also easily with no more work let you decide things like how easily the lock might be forced, magically opened, etc all in one nice simple uniform consistent package. There is indeed no comparison here. AD&D's system is primitive and awkward by comparison.

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.

I personally have yet to see another PC try to fill the niche of a rogue, but this very flexibility allows for many positive things. For instance if a campaign wants to focus on a group of stealthy 'thieves' for instance (lets say something a bit like 'Ocean's 11') it is not only possible but relatively easy to do.

I'd also like to observe that rogue's preeminence in the realm of thievery and related classically roguish pursuits is really not in that much danger of being challenged even in 4e. Rogues have MANY utility powers (far too many to enumerate) which give them advantages in doing their thing. They automatically get Thievery and Stealth as trained skills (basically for free, even with these 2 automatic skills they still get more picks than a fighter and as many as almost all other classes, so basically those 2 are 'free'). This of course opens up all the related skill powers. There are also a LONG list of rogue-only PPs (I count something like 20) which allow for additional specialized benefits.

So, yes, 4e's approach to these abilities is a good bit more flexible than that of AD&D, but it would be incorrect to reach the conclusion that this means rogues have in any way shape or form lost their niche. If you want to excel at 'thief abilities' you'll surely be far better off building a rogue than any other class. The next best classes would probably be bard and some ranger builds, and assassins. Since bards and assassins have always been effectively rogue sub-classes this isn't really surprising. 4e rangers are admittedly sneakier than they were in AD&D, but they always did have some skill in this area in outdoor settings, so it is hardly unprecedented.

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.

Again though, you seem to have ignored much of what I said. In 4e (and I'll assume in 3e as well) you can VERY definitely make a rogue who's focus is very heavily on the non-combat side of things. More so than the AD&D rogue, which has no flexibility in this regard whatsoever (maybe a tiny bit in 2e with NWPs, but really nothing significant). So, the 4e rogue in fact can fill 2 perfectly good character concepts, something like the Grey Mouser who has a very definite major combat aspect, and some more skill focused type who's combat capability is largely secondary. I'm a bit confused as to what exactly has been lost...

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.

Ummmmmm.... This wasn't about some kind of subjective observation. Nor was it about what you do or don't like. I stated the factual observation that a 4e rogue can be built as either a combat specialist with some 'thief ability', or as a specialist in 'thief abilities' with some residual combat capability. This is pretty much verifiable and was something you ignored. Pointing it out is not attacking your preferences. Your likes and dislikes are really not that much of a concern to me, nor am I criticizing them.

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.

4e's approach to this area of the game is more flexible, can reproduce (in a bit different way) practically everything that the 2e approach can, is simpler, offers tighter integration with other aspects of the system, and admits of IME many less corner cases and issues. It isn't a matter of preferences. Of course, again, what you like is purely subjective and beyond debate. I'm talking about rules and what you can do with them, not preferences. If I seemed to be making a personal attack on your preferences I'm sorry, that was never my intent. I'm just saying if you literally generate characters in 2e and 4e to implement particular character concepts I think you'd find that 4e does pretty good justice to all of them at this point, and can handle some that 2e doesn't. I think 5e can certainly tighten that up even more and make it even better, but IMHO going back to the 2e approach would not be an improvement.

 

[Guest 85555]

No your conclusions are opinions based on facts. You find the 4e rogue can do both. I dont believe it can replicate the 2e rogue. We are both dealing with the same facts but have different conclusions

 

[BobTheNob]

In response to the whole "you can do it in 4e" argument. Yes, this has come up time and again and continues to. People are not stupid or wrong for disagreeing with the 4e approach. For what it was worth it worked.

4e however was a very strongly focused on tactical play, with a plethora of cool crap you could do in the middle of a fight, from dancing this way to stabbing three guys at once, to expanding that fireball to wing-clipping one guy and teleporting to the other side of the battlefield. The amount of cool they injected into combat mechanics was phenomenal.

Then the non-combat side of things. You had skills you could roll. Yes, there was skill challenges (which our entire group grew to hate and was abandoned after a year) and the feats to boost a skill. Sometimes there was a non-combat utility or a feat that might change how a skill worked. But really, when you inject so much cool into battle dynamics and then say "and you can give some of that up for better odds at this rather drab skill resolution stuff" it doesnt really convince me that 4e had the solution to exploration gaming I was looking for.

Combat in 4e was like a Ferrari where skills were like a Ford Family Truckster. Yes, I could opt for the Ford and some prefer it that way, but when we turn around and 95% of the players are opting for the Ferrari are we surprised? Do we say the players are wrong for constantly taking the Ferrari and complaining that the Family Truckster isnt what they were looking for?

Saying 4e handled non-combat because the Ford existed is true. But for me, its just wasnt enough. I want rules where the non-combat/exploration aspects are a Lamborgine. Different to the ferrari, but no less cool. Just as attractive a play experience, and doesnt leave me feeling like I took a lesser option because I put my character together on perception rather than mechanics.

p.s. perhaps the fact that this keeps coming up again is evidence on its own that perhaps 4e didnt nail that one.

 

[mkill]

The whole idea of unbalancing classes along combat / exploration / interaction needs to go die in a fire.

Fighters only combat? Rogues only exploration? The Wizard laughs at both of you. Isn't it funny that Fighters and Rogues are supposed to sit around and watch if their non-special element comes up, but Wizards are never required to do that? WTF?

 

[Guest 85555]

,
So, yes, 4e's approach to these abilities is a good bit more flexible than that of AD&D, but it would be incorrect to reach the conclusion that this means rogues have in any way shape or form lost their niche. If you want to excel at 'thief abilities' you'll surely be far better off building a rogue than any other class. The next best classes would probably be bard and some ranger builds, and assassins. Since bards and assassins have always been effectively rogue sub-classes this isn't really surprising. 4e rangers are admittedly sneakier than they were in AD&D, but they always did have some skill in this area in outdoor settings, so it is hardly unprecedented.


Again though, you seem to have ignored much of what I said. In 4e (and I'll assume in 3e as well) you can VERY definitely make a rogue who's focus is very heavily on the non-combat side of things. More so than the AD&D rogue, which has no flexibility in this regard whatsoever (maybe a tiny bit in 2e with NWPs, but really nothing significant). So, the 4e rogue in fact can fill 2 perfectly good character concepts, something like the Grey Mouser who has a very definite major combat aspect, and some more skill focused type who's combat capability is largely secondary. I'm a bit confused as to what exactly has been lost...

I haven't ignoref your comments, i just dont agree with all of them. You can attempta 2e rogue in 3e and 4e, but on the whole IMO the end product remains different in a variety of ways. The fact that ONLY the thief can improve his thief skills in 2e, while other classes begin and end with minimal percentages in a few of them is a clear difference. I both 3e abd 4e other classes can invest poins in those skills and they can catch up in places. That really can't happen in 2e.

If you feel 4e solutions are close enough fine. But dont tell me I have to accept yout conclusions or I am wearing blinders and not looking at thesystems objectively i have played and understand both systems. In one, i love the rogue, in the other i dont.

Ummmmmm.... This wasn't about some kind of subjective observation. Nor was it about what you do or don't like. I stated the factual observation that a 4e rogue can be built as either a combat specialist with some 'thief ability', or as a specialist in 'thief abilities' with some residual combat capability. This is pretty much verifiable and was something you ignored. Pointing it out is not attacking your preferences. Your likes and dislikes are really not that much of a concern to me, nor am I criticizing them.

No you are stating facts then presenting your opinion that follows as factual (4e is more flexible, or nothing is lost). These are all opinions depending on how you analyze the mechanical results of your solutions. Even this last part where you sugfest 4e can build rogues as combat or non combat soecialists. How well it achieves that is very debatable and a matter of opinion. However i didn't disopute that point because as i told you, my interest isn't in flexibility. I dont want the ability to make the rogue one or the other or both. I want the rogue to be consistently about non combat stuff. Do not want him stepping on the fighter's toes with his strikers abillities.

4e's approach to this area of the game is more flexible, can reproduce (in a bit different way) practically everything that the 2e approach can, is simpler, offers tighter integration with other aspects of the system, and admits of IME many less corner cases and issues. It isn't a matter of preferences. Of course, again, what you like is purely subjective and beyond debate. I'm talking about rules and what you can do with them, not preferences. If I seemed to be making a personal attack on your preferences I'm sorry, that was never my intent. I'm just saying if you literally generate characters in 2e and 4e to implement particular character concepts I think you'd find that 4e does pretty good justice to all of them at this point, and can handle some that 2e doesn't. I think 5e can certainly tighten that up even more and make it even better, but IMHO going back to the 2e approach would not be an improvement.

I dont mind personal atracks. If you wanted to call me an idiot for liking 2e i would be fine with it. What i dont like is 4e defenders trying to win arguments by claiming others are just not objective enough to see how great 4e really is.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In response to the whole "you can do it in 4e" argument. Yes, this has come up time and again and continues to. People are not stupid or wrong for disagreeing with the 4e approach. For what it was worth it worked.

4e however was a very strongly focused on tactical play, with a plethora of cool crap you could do in the middle of a fight, from dancing this way to stabbing three guys at once, to expanding that fireball to wing-clipping one guy and teleporting to the other side of the battlefield. The amount of cool they injected into combat mechanics was phenomenal.

Then the non-combat side of things. You had skills you could roll. Yes, there was skill challenges (which our entire group grew to hate and was abandoned after a year) and the feats to boost a skill. Sometimes there was a non-combat utility or a feat that might change how a skill worked. But really, when you inject so much cool into battle dynamics and then say "and you can give some of that up for better odds at this rather drab skill resolution stuff" it doesnt really convince me that 4e had the solution to exploration gaming I was looking for.

Combat in 4e was like a Ferrari where skills were like a Ford Family Truckster. Yes, I could opt for the Ford and some prefer it that way, but when we turn around and 95% of the players are opting for the Ferrari are we surprised? Do we say the players are wrong for constantly taking the Ferrari and complaining that the Family Truckster isnt what they were looking for?

Saying 4e handled non-combat because the Ford existed is true. But for me, its just wasnt enough. I want rules where the non-combat/exploration aspects are a Lamborgine. Different to the ferrari, but no less cool. Just as attractive a play experience, and doesnt leave me feeling like I took a lesser option because I put my character together on perception rather than mechanics.

p.s. perhaps the fact that this keeps coming up again is evidence on its own that perhaps 4e didnt nail that one.

My feeling is this is mostly a matter of emphasis, presentation, and tuning. IMHO 4e's noncombat stuff is quite good. The game just tends to focus on providing gonzo tactical combat scenarios. That tends to distract people from spending much time considering the other half of the game. I'd like to at least playtest and see considered an iteration based on 4e which had more streamlined combat, less tactical emphasis on encounters, and a cleanup of some non-combat options like rituals. I think it would shine quite well in all areas. Particularly with a more sophisticated presentation of a lot of those options and a better discussion of them. My feeling is 4e is 90% of the way there in terms of system design. It is more in need of some fairly simple and straightforward adjustments, not wholesale surgery.

 

[Keldryn]

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.

I agree completely, and I think this is perhaps the major contributing factor to the whole "time in the spotlight" balance issue.

In AD&D or Basic D&D, combats were a lot faster than in 3e or 4e. At low levels, most battles are over in 10-15 min. If your character isn't very good in combat, that isn't too much time to be a minor contributor. When a typical combat encounter starts to take 45 min to an hour or more, you're getting into "20 minutes of fun spread over 4 hours" territory if your character isn't very useful in combat.

This goes for low-level wizards/magic-users as well. There are countless ways to actively contribute to the party's success outside of combat which don't involve casting spells. It just requires some creative thinking and a willingness to immerse oneself within the fiction of the game. When 80% of the session's time is spent in combat, one or two spells and an ineffective crossbow don't really add up to much fun for the player.

My feeling is this is mostly a matter of emphasis, presentation, and tuning. IMHO 4e's noncombat stuff is quite good. The game just tends to focus on providing gonzo tactical combat scenarios. That tends to distract people from spending much time considering the other half of the game. I'd like to at least playtest and see considered an iteration based on 4e which had more streamlined combat, less tactical emphasis on encounters, and a cleanup of some non-combat options like rituals. I think it would shine quite well in all areas. Particularly with a more sophisticated presentation of a lot of those options and a better discussion of them. My feeling is 4e is 90% of the way there in terms of system design. It is more in need of some fairly simple and straightforward adjustments, not wholesale surgery.

In a lot of ways, 4e is very close to what I want out of D&D. The focus on tactical combat scenarios is ultimately what ruins the experience for me. Nobody is forcing us to play it a particular way, but I find it to be a lot of work to not play it with a heavy tactical focus. Adventures presented in delve format are part of the issue, as I tend to read them as a sequence of important combat encounters and gloss over the connecting bits even though I know that I don't have to run it that way and that I don't like running it that way. When running an encounter, I get so caught up in reading power descriptions and making sure that I don't forget about monsters auras and triggered actions that I forget about things like checking morale. When the combat ends 45 min to an hour later, it's not uncommon to have a discussion about "so... what were we doing again?"

4e has a lot of fiddly bits that are directly connected to the tactical combat aspect of the game. I spend a lot of mental energy on tracking short-term conditions, applying floating minor bonuses or penalties, and shifting a square or two on the grid. Yeah, they are some neat tactical options, but I don't know that they make a big enough difference in the grand scheme to be worth what they cost in paying attention to other aspects of the game.

I love the streamlined core of 4e, and the skill system strikes a great balance of being playable without too much fiddling. One could build a pretty sleek modern incarnation of BECMI upon the core mechanics of 4e.

 

[Redbadge]

My fear is that if Skills are tied to Backgrounds and combat niches are tied to Themes, then you could have something like:

Class: Fighter
Background: Thief (basically skill money with pick pocket, disable device, perception, acrobatics, climb, etc. etc. etc.)
Theme: Lurker (stealth, light-weapons, sneak attack, etc.)

So then you build a Dex-based, light armor wearing, sneaky, evasive fighter who basically encompasses every angle of the rogue concept, except because he is the fighter class he automatically is more accurate, harder hitting, with better survival. Why do we have a rogue again?

Thus, I think the primary differentiator between Fighter and Rogue should be that the fighter has more survival, more rounded combat sense, but that the rogue has the potential for much more accurate, higher damaging, "burst" type combat.

I'm repeating myself, but this is what a rogue is:

Acrobat
Bandit
Burglar
Chameleon
Charlatan
Cutpurse
Driver
Investigator
Knife Master
Pirate
Poisoner
Rake
Roof Runner
Sanctified Rogue
Scout
Scroll Scoundel
Sniper
Spy
Survivalist
Swashbuckler
Thug
Trapsmith

Most of these have already been mentioned as potential Backgrounds/Themes, once again diminishing from the rogues niche.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree completely, and I think this is perhaps the major contributing factor to the whole "time in the spotlight" balance issue.

In AD&D or Basic D&D, combats were a lot faster than in 3e or 4e. At low levels, most battles are over in 10-15 min. If your character isn't very good in combat, that isn't too much time to be a minor contributor. When a typical combat encounter starts to take 45 min to an hour or more, you're getting into "20 minutes of fun spread over 4 hours" territory if your character isn't very useful in combat.

This goes for low-level wizards/magic-users as well. There are countless ways to actively contribute to the party's success outside of combat which don't involve casting spells. It just requires some creative thinking and a willingness to immerse oneself within the fiction of the game. When 80% of the session's time is spent in combat, one or two spells and an ineffective crossbow don't really add up to much fun for the player.



In a lot of ways, 4e is very close to what I want out of D&D. The focus on tactical combat scenarios is ultimately what ruins the experience for me. Nobody is forcing us to play it a particular way, but I find it to be a lot of work to not play it with a heavy tactical focus. Adventures presented in delve format are part of the issue, as I tend to read them as a sequence of important combat encounters and gloss over the connecting bits even though I know that I don't have to run it that way and that I don't like running it that way. When running an encounter, I get so caught up in reading power descriptions and making sure that I don't forget about monsters auras and triggered actions that I forget about things like checking morale. When the combat ends 45 min to an hour later, it's not uncommon to have a discussion about "so... what were we doing again?"

4e has a lot of fiddly bits that are directly connected to the tactical combat aspect of the game. I spend a lot of mental energy on tracking short-term conditions, applying floating minor bonuses or penalties, and shifting a square or two on the grid. Yeah, they are some neat tactical options, but I don't know that they make a big enough difference in the grand scheme to be worth what they cost in paying attention to other aspects of the game.

I love the streamlined core of 4e, and the skill system strikes a great balance of being playable without too much fiddling. One could build a pretty sleek modern incarnation of BECMI upon the core mechanics of 4e.

Fights for me have always been more about having fun and being part of the story. I'm not sure WHY people (and I really mean by the DMs to a great extent) feel compelled to throw fights at PCs all the time. I certainly have plenty of them, but they always have good story purposes. They are about fun situations and developing the plot and not really (usually) about ultimately challenging hacking. If the players are stupid enough and get into a bad enough jam, they'll know it hard, but they aren't just fighting nameless enemies very often or stuck with a goal of 'kill them all dead' either.

So, I see a lot of combat powers and whatnot for PCs to use, but MUCH of the action is just RP. In fact there hasn't been a fight in my 4e game in 2 weeks (though I definitely left it open for one or two to develop, the players were just as happy to keep their swords sheathed). All the PCs contribute effectively pretty much all around.

I would be good with a solid core game that can be as mechanically simple as playing Basic, and with a nice option to play with single digit starting hit points etc if you want that, or something a little higher, closer to 4e, tactical combat rules that you can roll back to quick fight mode and it works perfectly well. People can then fight out their preferences on just the things that matter. It will be tough, WotC will have to be willing to supply multiple versions of material though. I don't know if they can really pull that off... We'll see.