Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5888602" data-attributes="member: 82106">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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification