Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gold Roger" data-source="post: 5887691" data-attributes="member: 33904">Well, <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/321822-almost-good-fighter.html" target="_blank">this thread</a> 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?</blockquote>

Verification