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: 5889011" data-attributes="member: 82106">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 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.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...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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.</blockquote>

Verification