Rogues were by favorite class in 3E, but not because of sneak attack etc. but because they were Jack of all Trades. In combat they were only second to Fighters and well prepared wizards and they also had a lot of skills to tackle out of combat problems (see here why this was important to me)
Why do players like rogues/thieves?
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
I can't comment too much on 4e
3e dex based fighter doesn't do the "lots of damage" bit very well. Which is part of what sneak attack provides. The other thing that Sneak attack does is make it feel like you're being clever in creating opportunities to do lots of damage, which fits well.
The lack of ability in one on one fights is a problem - though a traditional swashbuckling fight will include various moves which could be interpreted as attempts to get a sneak attack bonus.
The 3e Fighte also suffers from a chronic lack of skill points, and a lack of appropriate class skills too.
Ranger does quite well on the Swashbuckler archetype. Just has naturey baggage, which can limit it's applicability. And just plain wasn't all that good in 3e.
Three main reasons for me.
First, I prefer versatility to absolute power. I multi-class the heck out of many of my characters, even if it leaves them "crippled" in terms of character optimization. That's also why I like the 3e bard even when the DM doesn't allow charm and diplomacy to affect the game much.
Second, I like characters that shine out of combat rather than in combat. My rogues like to hide behind their stronger allies, only coming out to deliver a crippling blow when they are in little danger. Out of combat they expect others to rely on them.
Third, my characters often follow a "be prepared" mantra. They are rogues that choose the battlefield and find the right equipment for the job or Vancian spellcasters that make their strategic choices in the morning.
So yes, points 1 and 3 are things that spellcasters also do well. However, even my fighters are like that: they have high Int for skills and maneuvers (Improved Trip or Disarm), may have a level or two of other classes for breadth, and they choose their equipment - often carrying a few different weapons and swapping (Quick Draw) once they know what they are up against.
The second point is more the rogue's specialty among non-spellcasters.
First, I prefer versatility to absolute power. I multi-class the heck out of many of my characters, even if it leaves them "crippled" in terms of character optimization. That's also why I like the 3e bard even when the DM doesn't allow charm and diplomacy to affect the game much.
Second, I like characters that shine out of combat rather than in combat. My rogues like to hide behind their stronger allies, only coming out to deliver a crippling blow when they are in little danger. Out of combat they expect others to rely on them.
Third, my characters often follow a "be prepared" mantra. They are rogues that choose the battlefield and find the right equipment for the job or Vancian spellcasters that make their strategic choices in the morning.
So yes, points 1 and 3 are things that spellcasters also do well. However, even my fighters are like that: they have high Int for skills and maneuvers (Improved Trip or Disarm), may have a level or two of other classes for breadth, and they choose their equipment - often carrying a few different weapons and swapping (Quick Draw) once they know what they are up against.
The second point is more the rogue's specialty among non-spellcasters.
Tallifer
Hero
I do not know why many of you choose to play a Thief, but in all the games in which I have played there have been four main reasons for players to be Thieves:
1. To steal from the party or to steal the loot before the party even gets to see it.
2. To backstab or poison other party members.
3. To hide in the shadows when things get dangerous.
4. To escape the normal constraints on morality which prevent torture, murder and other crimes.
Perhaps there is a good reason for Wizards to have the Knock Spell.
1. To steal from the party or to steal the loot before the party even gets to see it.
2. To backstab or poison other party members.
3. To hide in the shadows when things get dangerous.
4. To escape the normal constraints on morality which prevent torture, murder and other crimes.
Perhaps there is a good reason for Wizards to have the Knock Spell.
Radiating Gnome
Adventurer
LOL. I play thieves/rogues all the time and I haven't backstabbed a fellow PC since middle school.*
(let's just say that was roughly 30 years ago)
(let's just say that was roughly 30 years ago)
I did once. Dominate.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
Ahhh, now we're getting into the crux of the problem with the systems: the mechanics have not adequately supported the archetypes. I agree completely with you here. It's unfortunate, but in an effort to make Rogues/Thieves more useful and contributary in combat, the mechanics have ended up making them the better martial character. That's just not right.
The Fighter should be the biggest damage dealer, bar none, period. The Ultimate Soldier. The Fighter is the one who's dedicated their life to martial mastery. They can base their prowess on their speed, ability, or strength - or a combination of all. They should have the greatest knowledge of and highest skill in the use of tactics, strategies, combat maneuvers, etc. They have risen above their common soldier roots to be a Hero. The one who stands in the vanguard and dares the enemy to face him. The one you cannot pass without dealing with. The one who keeps the hordes from getting to their weaker friends. The one who when faced, you find yourself facing Death Itself.
The Ranger should be the best scout, bar none, period. They should have comparable combat skill with the Fighter, but lack proficiencies with as wide an array of weapons as the Fighter has. They should have Stealth Skills, Tracking, and Yes: Sneak Attack/Back Stabbing. They should be knowledgable of Military tactics, structure, and formations, so they can proficiently scout on enemies and relay such information. They should be able to move through the woods, tracking their prey and scouting on their enemies in virtual invisibility. And they should be able to operate and survive independently. Able to avoid conflict when outnumbered and evade pursuit, but fight skillfully when necessary.
Rogues should be the masters of Roguish Skills. They've learned to fight either on the street or at the hands of a weapon master...but they have not undergone the extensive training of the Fighter. They haven't endured long forced marches, dug defensive ditches, learned military formations and tactics, and endured daily combat training with nearly every weapon known to man. They are Thieves, Thugs, Tricksters, Duelists, Swashbucklers and Pirates. They are the masters of Stealth, avoiding face to face fights as much as possible, and above all: the masters of Dirty Tricks. Their skills allow them to hold their own in combat, in a different way than the Fighter, but one that should never make them more lethal in a fight than the Fighter.
So, I think Back Stabbing/Sneak Attack should be a special maneuver, just like charging, or bull rushing, or grappling, etc. - one that any character can attempt regardless of class. But martial classes (all martial classes) should have the option of having a bonus to Sneak Attacks/Back Stabbing based on the way one wants to build the character, and also make such a focus available as a Feat for any other class to take also.
Now the trick is developing mechanics that support that, while keeping all classes useful in all situations (but only Masters in some).
It's a pretty tough job, but I think Monte and Company may be up to the task.
Unless you count those suicidal barbarian berserkers, but they should be much likelier to die.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
That's why I think it's important to get back to basics. The redefining has strayed so far from the archetypes that the mechanics are no longer able to adequately model them anymore. They may make for very fun, useful, and interesting characters within a game, but they don't make for as good of a character in an archetypal story sense.
I want to have both.
