Well? What should it do? How should it be special? Should it exist at all? How traditional or radical should it be?

RPGPundit

I was hoping you'd just ask the title question.  Then I could point out that the rogue/thief should have an eye patch.  

But in all seriousness, the rogue/thief should not be a skill specialist - everyone should be able to learn mundane skills like how to find and remove traps.  A combat style that focues on taking advantage of opponent's distraction and misdirection would certainly be appropriate.  Effectively, while a rogue and a fighter should be able to 'fight' on equal terms, the fighter should be more skilled, with the rogue able to acquire advantages that sometimes make him more effective, but sometimes make him noticeably less effective.  

If the Fighter is a constant, the rogue should sometimes be .5 and sometimes 1.25.

Unless they make significant changes, it's no longer needed, as just about every "skill" can be replicated by any other class.  Why waste a level and loss of a primary class's feature advancement (like getting another CS dice) to multiclass into thief when I could just choose a background that gave me the thief skills I wanted anyway?

What I mean by that is why have a fighter 2/thief 1 (who only gets 1d6 CS dice) when I could be a fighter 3 with a bounty hunter, spy, or thief background and have 2d6 CS dice, as well as higher hp?

The thief will never go away, but they need to add some more class-specific abilities to make it worthwhile, IMO.  Like being able to use magic items again, or maybe having an ability that adds damage reduction (a mechanic to reflect the lucky factor rogues usually have).

Personally I've never really got the "Rogue as skill monkey" idea. Just doesn't fit with what I think of as a D&D Thief. Rogue as melee DPS is barely any better.

So I'd just go with the lightly-armoured opportunistic fighter type with some "supernatural" abilities related to thievery - in other words, back to ideas like Hiding in Shadows, climbing sheer walls, and the like.

Quote from: Grymbok;591769So I'd just go with the lightly-armoured opportunistic fighter type with some "supernatural" abilities related to thievery - in other words, back to ideas like Hiding in Shadows, climbing sheer walls, and the like.

Which, funny enough describes a fighter class with either a spy or thief background who maybe is a dualist or archer or lurker (depending on your flavor) specialty in next.

All the thief is, as currently stands in Next, is "get a few extra skills and a bonus or two".  To me, that does not justify a core class.  Gotta give him more unique stuff.

It should be a thief not some dude with flashing blades and twirling leaps. Create a swashbuckler option for fighter if you want a fighter like that.

D&D is more than just about combat and the thief should be one of the classes that can do various non-combat activities better than any other class.

Just read the Thieves Guilds series by Gamelords for the potential of having interesting campaigns involving thieves.

Just a few things I think that could be added to the thief class to make it a unique class that justifies its existence:


* Use magic item.  Maybe you have to make a DC check based on rarity of the item, but get bonuses as you level up so that a higher level thief would always be successful in using common or uncommon magical items and scrolls normally only used by arcane casters
* treasure finding.  At low levels you know the general direction.  At higher levels you know distance and direction, etc to find whatever treasure you're looking for
* Evasion (a damage reduction ability to reflect the uncanny luck thieves have)
* Rogue's luck.  Once every 3 or 4 levels per day, can take advantage on any skill check (that's sort of there already).

Anything a rogue can do, a fighter should be able to do, and vice-versa; they're two parts of a general "adventurer" career type, which is more interesting than either type on it's own.

I'm not sure I like condensing all the physical-type people into one class, though.

I really like how thieves worked in AD&D. Having a list of seperate thief skills that others either cannot really access or cant get that good at works. But this does hurt believability for some. Still, it is a class-based, not a skill-based game...so I think the medium struck between classes and NWPs worked just fine (giving theives their own set of class skills that are not available to other characters---though others may be able to perform them at a greatly decreased rate).

The whole rogue as commando, or as much of a combat specialist just doesnt work for me. Having a place for a class that excels at non-combat challenges is important to me.

I'll start off by saying I don't have a copy of the Next playtest and am only going off of what I've heard but if specialties and backrounds are stealing the rogues thunder than perhaps it's those that need to be changed instead of ditching the the rogue class altogether.

Anyway, what I'd like to see in a rogue;
 
 1)  Good fighters but obviously not as good as the front line fighter types and definately not the heavy damage dealers of 3E.

 2)  Rerolls on any rolls X times per day due to their uncanny luck.

 3)  No magic ability.  It just doesn't make any sense....  

 4)  The ability to use their theif-like skills in ways others simply can't and to get a better bonus when using those skills in the traditional fashion.

 5)  Maybe faster movement and/or the ability to disengage from combat easier for using hit and run tactics.

 6)  Change backround/specialties if needed so as to not infringe on step on the rogues toes.

 7)  Maybe a 'danger sense' ability?

Quote from: Ladybird;591783Anything a rogue can do, a fighter should be able to do, and vice-versa; they're two parts of a general "adventurer" career type, which is more interesting than either type on it's own.

I'm not sure I like condensing all the physical-type people into one class, though.

That sort of suggests it though; and I tend to agree. If all skills are available to all characters, then that makes sense.

I haven't participated in D&D Next either, but Id think that any class should have something that significantly differentiates it, otherwise then, what's the point of having them - assuming that a class is more than just a skills package.

In my Majestic Wilderlands campaign I am using an ability system (not a skill system) where any character can attempt anything. Any character can pick locks, stealth, try to figure out a magic item, etc. Some classes happen to be better at some abilities than others.

And it works well and the burglar, my version of the thief, still the person that is tapped to pick locks or to search for traps. The magic-user is the first person to get a crack at identifying a magic item with his INT and Thamautology bonus.

And I am also running a GURPS campaign in which  mechanically is 180 degrees from the S&W campaign.

Running them side by side I have to say what matters the most with older edition D&D is that I run an interesting campaign. And that is more than sufficient to keep players coming back. I have no other choice because even with my MW house rules there just isn't a lot mechanically going on like there is with GURPS. And if I did add that detail I might as well be playing a different game because it no longer the older edition game.

And that the choice D&D Next is facing. is it going to be this abstract game that simple to learn and run that will depend on the referees stepping up and run an interesting campaign. Or it going add detailed mechanics and attempt,to make an interesting system like 3.5 or 4.0?

My feeling is that D&D Next needs to be a simple game mechanically. It needs to get away from combat being the main mechanical focus and put the non-combat game on a equal footing. One of the virtues of both versions of AD&D is they both gave sense of a larger world beyond the fighting. 1st edition with the outstanding DMG and 2nd edition with the kits and settings.

And this ties back to the thief is that it was and needs to return to being THE non combat specialist that it was in older editions. As one of the core classes it will send a clear message to the reader that "Hey! It not all about fighting and kewl powers. There is a world to explore and to interact with."

A return to the 1st ed. AD&D implementation. No bow or crossbow proficiency either.

Quote from: estar;591825As one of the core classes it will send a clear message to the reader that "Hey! It not all about fighting and kewl powers. There is a world to explore and to interact with."

I fully agree...but how should 5e differentiate the Rogue and the Bard? Both those classes should be about non-combat encounters.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;591771Which, funny enough describes a fighter class with either a spy or thief background who maybe is a dualist or archer or lurker (depending on your flavor) specialty in next.

All the thief is, as currently stands in Next, is "get a few extra skills and a bonus or two".  To me, that does not justify a core class.  Gotta give him more unique stuff.

I don't agree - the point I was trying to make is that I would go back to the AD&D style of Thieves having abilities that no-one else can access. I'm not fussed whether these are implemented via skills or a different system, but I liked the old approach whereby anyone can hide, but a Thief can hide in just a shadow. Anyone can sneak, but a Thief can move silently. etc.