TheRPGSite

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.

Quote from: Spinachcat;591854I fully agree...but how should 5e differentiate the Rogue and the Bard? Both those classes should be about non-combat encounters.

Bard's skills/powers/whatever might be more oriented towards interacting with other people, and rogue for pure skill. Also bards should be more reliant on spells or other magical abilities, and rogues on doing things manually, perhaps with slightly more martial ability overall.

Quote from: Spinachcat;591854I fully agree...but how should 5e differentiate the Rogue and the Bard? Both those classes should be about non-combat encounters.

Rogues are thieves with the stereotypical skill set involved with thieving.
Bards are performers, adventuring sages and have some magic based on song.

So both would reasonably have legerdemain skills like pick-pocket. But a Thief would not have performance, increased skill in musical instruction, or spent much time studying legends and lore. While Bards doesn't have much cause to pick locks, stealth around, or practice climbing walls.

The basic trick is to define your setting, however loose it may be and design your classes to reflect. For D&D Next the "setting" would very loose and the classes need to encompass broad stereotypes to give maximum flexibility for referees adapting D&D Next to their campaigns.

I like the rogue as a skill monkey.

I have no issue with another class learning some of the skills a thief has, a ranger (or more likey a fghter with a ranger kit/theme/background) should be able to hide in shadows or sneak but a thief shoudl have more opportunity to be better.

I want the rogue , like the figther to be mundane at low levels. I don't mind that at high levels they get a unique power tied to a quest or an item or something. The AD&D 2e rogue is the best template as with the kits you can have a forger or a spy or a tumbler or a scout all drawn from the rogue template.

In AD&D the rogues main skills hide in shadows or climb walls were all mundane. they also had read languages and read magic which didn't makea lot of sense.

In my heartbreaker there are 3 classes. Casters specialise in magic, fighters speciaise in combat and Rogues specialise in Skills. To me these are the 3 main elements of the design space. If you have a robust skill system a robust combat system and a robust magic system you have a robust game. so keeping a class/level concept it makes sense to specialise one in each area. Now all classes get some access to all three and you can tailor your development so be a wizard that likes to fight or a ranger syle fighter with lighter armour and less combat skills in return for more skills. Those are choices within each template.

I certainly don't want to go the 'striker' route from MMOs and have rogues as specialist combat guys, those should be fighters.

Quote from: RPGPundit;591763Well? What should it do? How should it be special? Should it exist at all? How traditional or radical should it be?

RPGPundit

I think if 5e is going to be recognisably D&D it needs a thief or rogue class.

Maybe another class with the appropriate background should be able to attempt some thiefy stuff, but the actual thief should be in a whole different league, especially in his speciality area.

For instance, a regular character with a thief background can make a pickpockets roll. A mid-level thief can enter a tavern, size up immediately who's likely to represent the fruitiest or the easiest pickings and then only have to make a roll if (1) they really try their luck with what they're trying to steal or (2) the DM decides they've been exceptionally unlucky.

A regular character can make a stealth versus perception roll. A mid-level thief can just automatically hide in any reasonable cover and only have to roll if (1) a creature has a supernatural or virtually supernatural sensory ability [including being a mid-level thief themself] or (2) the DM decides they've been exceptionally unlucky. They can then automatically have a sneak attack for triple or quadruple damage with a dagger or short-sword, and only have to roll specially if they want to make an assassination attempt.

A regular character with thief background can roll to pick locks. A low-level thief can open any lock with lock-picks unless it's master-crafted to defeat specialist thieves, rusted shut or similar, and a mid-level thief can do so with their thumbnail.

OK, I might be over-egging the pudding here. I don't play a lot of D&D and haven't joined in the playtest.

Quote from: Grymbok;591866I 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.

But AD&D wasn't like that. the thief's skills were mundane. They can climb walls if there are handholds and cracks they can't scale a smooth obsidian tower. Likewise they can hide in shadows but they can't disappear from view like Nobody Owens or walk through shadows like Jack of Shadows. I have no problems with their being ways for theives to learn those sorts of skills though unique class development at high levels but they are basically mundane and should remain so.

The thing is, thieves were always competing with wizards who could cast fly and invisibility and telekinesis-style effects, but power creep over the ages has meant that where once wizards were struggling to even learn Levitate let alone have Fly memorised and ready to cast at the appropriate time, nowadays the players' expectation will be that wizards can do crazy stuff from early on in the game.

Where once thieves had relatively modest abilities, even TOO modest, now they're going to have to pack a lot more punch if they're going to remain as a viable option.

IF therefore they don't end up as DPS/Striker-type combat death machines, they're going to need to be in a league of their own for Kewl Skillz

My own view on that is they should also be reliable assassins at high levels, taking out one target, but then having to fight defensively or run away rather than taking on the remaining monsters once they've stepped out of the shadows. If they get to hide and sneak for 3-4 rounds before the fight they should be able to more or less choose one enemy and assassinate them, but they can't do that repeatedly during the fight itself as they've revealed their location and would need to run off, then sneak back, which takes time.

Quote from: jibbajibba;591899But AD&D wasn't like that. the thief's skills were mundane. They can climb walls if there are handholds and cracks they can't scale a smooth obsidian tower. Likewise they can hide in shadows but they can't disappear from view like Nobody Owens or walk through shadows like Jack of Shadows. I have no problems with their being ways for theives to learn those sorts of skills though unique class development at high levels but they are basically mundane and should remain so.

The difference is all in the implementation. A wall with just a few handholds and cracks might be climbable by anyone with appropriate gear. The thief can just climb it without such aid.

Likewise anyone can can try to move quietly( possibly with an opposed roll vs potential beings that could hear) but a thief who succeeds at a move silently attempt just does it, no opposed check, do not pass GO, just complete silence.

Anyone might be able to hide but a thief may be able to do so with only shadows for cover. It is still a mundane ability because even the thief cannot vanish while under observation.

The skills provided in any themes or backgrounds need to be far less effective than the core thief abilities or else there really is no reason for the class at all.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;591766I 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.

So your view is of the rogue as a less-predictable less-reliable fighter, who is otherwise unable to do anything special at all that any other class can't do too?

RPGPundit

One danger to modeling them after the old school thieves - the dungeons where those used to thrive don't necessarily exist any more.

Dungeons used to have traps that could kill you, and you need a counter to that, and only one or two sources were available.

Not only are the traps no longer that big of a threat, but they don't even seem to be utilized all that often in the first place.

So I think a design choice needs to be made - are there going to be such obsticales or not?

If not, don't make the rogue a skills monkey.  That gives them a trump card that they can never play.  If so, make them hard for players of other classes to bypass.

Quote from: mcbobbo;592031One danger to modeling them after the old school thieves - the dungeons where those used to thrive don't necessarily exist any more.

Dungeons used to have traps that could kill you, and you need a counter to that, and only one or two sources were available.

Not only are the traps no longer that big of a threat, but they don't even seem to be utilized all that often in the first place.

So I think a design choice needs to be made - are there going to be such obsticales or not?

If not, don't make the rogue a skills monkey.  That gives them a trump card that they can never play.  If so, make them hard for players of other classes to bypass.

This brings up an interesting point.  As you mention, traps were more plentiful.  And not only that, but more deadly.  Poison was save or die.  Having a thief who could disarm one was a lot more impactful than in later editions when you might take 1d4 Con damage from poison and that was it.  And if you were poisoned, wait until it wears off or have a cleric cure it.  The need for a thief to disarm these traps became less important.

Thieves should be able to do thief-like things better than others.  

I don't care if a fighter can climb a wall, a thief can naturally climb the wall better and faster than the fighter, and has a much higher chance of successfully climbing the difficult-to-climb wall.

I don't care if the cleric can shoot a crossbow bolt with a rope attached to it across a gap between two buildings and then tightrope walk across, as long as the thief has a much higher chance of succeeding at that.

And I'm cool if the wizard can hide in shadows to avoid detection, as long as the thief is much better at doing that.

There's no reason all of their abilities must be "unique".  Any class can hit things with a weapon and damage them, but that doesn't make the fighter non-unique because they can do it much better than the others.

I'd also like to see pickpocketing, and backstabbing/sneak-attacking, as part of the thief.

Quote from: RPGPundit;592014So your view is of the rogue as a less-predictable less-reliable fighter, who is otherwise unable to do anything special at all that any other class can't do too?

RPGPundit

Sure.  Basically a Rogue describes someone who fights in sneaky ways, right?  So if you're able to sneak, you can be more effective than a fighter, but if you're always more effective, what's the point of having fighters?  

There has to be a tradeoff.  

As far as what makes the classes unique - I don't think you have to build that much into it.  Let things like Feats drive that type of distinction.  Some classes can have built in features like better combat or better spellcasting, but something like feats should allow you to 'blend' the concepts.  Instead of a Fighter/Wizard make a Fighter with 'spell feats'.  Instead of a Ranger, make a Fighter with 'Wilderness Feats'.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;592182Sure.  Basically a Rogue describes someone who fights in sneaky ways, right?  So if you're able to sneak, you can be more effective than a fighter, but if you're always more effective, what's the point of having fighters?  

There has to be a tradeoff.  

As far as what makes the classes unique - I don't think you have to build that much into it.  Let things like Feats drive that type of distinction.  Some classes can have built in features like better combat or better spellcasting, but something like feats should allow you to 'blend' the concepts.  Instead of a Fighter/Wizard make a Fighter with 'spell feats'.  Instead of a Ranger, make a Fighter with 'Wilderness Feats'.

And instead of classes, have a generic single class.  Want a Fighter, add "fighting feats", want a Wizard, add "spell feats", and want a cleric, add "divine feats", right?

Blech.  I do not like green eggs and ham, and I do not like your idea for classes in D&D.  You're actually persuading me to want to support the opposite of your concepts.

I think there is room for unique classes.  

But in 1st edition, the Ranger and Paladin were 'Fighter Variants'.  The Rogue doesn't have enough to distinguish him from a 'sneaky Fighter'.  Just like the Barbarian doesn't have enough to distinguish him from a 'rage Fighter'.  

Trying to create different classes for the sake of having different classes gets silly - especially when a class feature is something that everyone should be able to learn to do - like finding traps.  There's no reason that anyone can't learn to find traps other than someone deciding that it needed to be a class protected niche.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;592195I think there is room for unique classes.  

But in 1st edition, the Ranger and Paladin were 'Fighter Variants'.  The Rogue doesn't have enough to distinguish him from a 'sneaky Fighter'.  Just like the Barbarian doesn't have enough to distinguish him from a 'rage Fighter'.  

Trying to create different classes for the sake of having different classes gets silly - especially when a class feature is something that everyone should be able to learn to do - like finding traps.  There's no reason that anyone can't learn to find traps other than someone deciding that it needed to be a class protected niche.

There is no reason that anyone can't learn any class ability.  What's the reason anyone can't learn to hit things well with a sword? Why protect the niche of fighting just for fighters?

Quote from: Mistwell;592201There is no reason that anyone can't learn any class ability.  What's the reason anyone can't learn to hit things well with a sword? Why protect the niche of fighting just for fighters?

In fact, D&D has recognized the concept of 'gestalt characters' for a very, very, very long time.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;592143This brings up an interesting point.  As you mention, traps were more plentiful.  And not only that, but more deadly.  Poison was save or die.  Having a thief who could disarm one was a lot more impactful than in later editions when you might take 1d4 Con damage from poison and that was it.  And if you were poisoned, wait until it wears off or have a cleric cure it.  The need for a thief to disarm these traps became less important.

You can't design a class based on some optional setting stuff. Make theives great at traps but then insist the DM has to use X many traps per square meter of dungeon and that the game has to be in a dungeon?

Who are the architypal theives from fantasy fiction.
Locke Lamora - a conman who is veery poor at fighting (arguably a cleric in a sense but meh)
Jack of Shadows - A master thief with demonic blood and powerful magic abilities
The Grey Mouser - the archetypal theif, quick and lightweight he wins through finese and learns litle magic on the way
Cugel the Clever - skilled at everything but good for nothing, the lazy inveterate trickster
Silk - Spy, Conman, swindler

Going further back we have
Brer rabbit (and of course his modern interpretation Bugs Bunny) - classic trickster diety stuff in folkloric hue
Loki - again fulfils a similar vien with but a more sinister and evil twist
Anansi - the spider trickster of african myth who gives us Brer Rabbit eventually

This archetype is critical to mythic tales across the world from Loki, to Anansi to Hermes and Monkey all mythic traditions have a trickster. Each one of these is a "skill monkey" in their setting.

If you remove the rogue class, or make him a sepcific thing that fits a specific sub-genre of fantasy, you impact the ability of D&D to tell mythic stories.

Quote from: jibbajibba;592286If you remove the rogue class, or make him a sepcific thing that fits a specific sub-genre of fantasy, you impact the ability of D&D to tell mythic stories.

Sure, sure, but you're making the point by means of missing it.

So he's a skill monkey, in a world where everyone has access every skill.  What do these skills DO exactly, that would justify making an entire class that revolves around them.

I believe that 3e changed the paradigm quite a bit, and take as evidence the voices like Mr. GC who flat out refuse to acknowledge there is a game outside of combat.

You can't have a successful skill monkey until you confront that.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;592195I think there is room for unique classes.  

But in 1st edition, the Ranger and Paladin were 'Fighter Variants'.  The Rogue doesn't have enough to distinguish him from a 'sneaky Fighter'.  Just like the Barbarian doesn't have enough to distinguish him from a 'rage Fighter'.  

Trying to create different classes for the sake of having different classes gets silly - especially when a class feature is something that everyone should be able to learn to do - like finding traps.  There's no reason that anyone can't learn to find traps other than someone deciding that it needed to be a class protected niche.

But i think the problem here is in a class based game the premise is each class can do things others cant or at least can perform them at a level that far exceeds others. D&D sort of has its foot in both skill based and class based nowandthere is some definite tension there. The more you alloweveryone to do anything anyone else can do the less meaningful the differences between classes are. I mean technically, anyone ought to be able to try to cast a spell. When you break it down each spell could really just be a skill.

Not offering a single solution to this problem, but it does look to me like the game needs to make some choices about the type of system it is while somehow remaining D&D but also appealing to fans across four editions (and this isnot a criticism, it is just the natural result of the game growing in new directions over time). That is tough. I definitely think its not as easy as people seem to think to have to hold all these things in balance.

Quote from: mcbobbo;592289Sure, sure, but you're making the point by means of missing it.

So he's a skill monkey, in a world where everyone has access every skill.  What do these skills DO exactly, that would justify making an entire class that revolves around them.

I believe that 3e changed the paradigm quite a bit, and take as evidence the voices like Mr. GC who flat out refuse to acknowledge there is a game outside of combat.

You can't have a successful skill monkey until you confront that.

You make skills central to the game. Like I said the game has 3 equal design spaces, Combat, Magic and Skills.
Skills covers everything from diplomacy through to exploration and its here the rogue shines.

I wrote a whole thing about 3 different rangers workign together. One as a fighter class with wilderness skills, one as a rogue and one as a caster ... but the page reloaded and was lost.
Suffice to say niche protection isn't about only x can do this its about x does this better than the other classes.

Quote from: jibbajibba;592296You make skills central to the game.

You've dismissed the example of mandatory traps.  Do you have any other ideas as to how you make skills central to D&D?

Quote from: mcbobbo;592309You've dismissed the example of mandatory traps.  Do you have any other ideas as to how you make skills central to D&D?

sure play it like a roleplaying game :)

if you create a genuine authentic world skills come up all the time. Shit most RPGs are entirely skills based they do a reasonably good job of reflecting the world.
If you get the D&D skills system correct so it sits along side the class level paradigm then it plays itself. I don't think 5e is goign to do this by the way.

Personally I woudl give thieves a list of classic skills like pick pocket, climb walls etcx, I would add a few others like forgery, bribery, information gathering, criminal subculture. then I woudl give them points per level to split
However I would use a d20 skill system. ths skill system would be the core of a whole skill system for the game. the GM could opt to toggle the skill system in opening up more skills to other classes or keep it toggled off and only theives had access to the skill system.
AD&D had this option but instead ran mutliple competing skill systems simultaneously. So you had theives skills and you have rangers tracking and you had NWP all runnign at once.
If you have a signel skill system then any new class that gets a skill like power, liek healing or herbalism, or tracking or whatever uses the same skill system and if you choose to open it up you can do so to all PCs. the nature of this  will probably mean that Rogues have far more skills. If we give a rogue 5 skill points per level and we give a fighter 2 and a mage 1 then the rogue will dominate the skill game. we coudl have course give every one more and just limit eqach class to a section of skills but then you get the why can't i learn to sneak issue.

Probably the most balanced option would be that there are class specific lists of skills but you can buy from other lists at a higher cost. then you allow certain templates to have certain skills at a 3rd cost point.

So fighters get 3 SP per level from a fighter list, with riding, athletics, armourer, etc and can buy appriasal from the theif list at 3SP a point. A rogue gets 5 but can buy spellcraft at 3SP a point etc etc ... If you create a magic inquisotor rogue class in a game where magic is illegal and persecuted by a judical class with a rogue template then maybe spellcraft is 2 or even 1

This is my prefered option and in my heartbreaker each of the classes has archetypes and each archetype gets access to the class list and an environmental list so a ranger fighter gets fighter + wilderness and a Rogue Scout gets Rogue + wilderness and a Hedge Mage gets caster + wilderness. Howeveer any one PC can buy any skill at a higher cost, so a mage can learn to track but it will take a lot of points and effort which other mages will have spent on spellcraft, languages, appraising magical artefacts etc.

Now I understand that 3e may use themes/backgrounds and skill checks are just appropriate ability checks. This is simpler for sure and puts the rogue class at risk. At this point all that is left is roleplay. A rogue roleplays differently from a fighter a PC that has picked the rogue class will tend to think, weedle, lie or backstab their way out of trouble whereas a fighter will tend to teach, bash, fence or lead his way out of it. that difference will always remain whatever is on the character sheet

(funny how the people that argues a fighter was not weaker than a wizard because of what they could do that wasn't on their sheets don't think that rogues can manage the same way)

I am with jibba that they really cant force traps on everyone. Even without traps thieves can have a lot to play with. They shine in urban adventures as much as dungeon crawls.

With the way Next is structured with backgrounds and specialties, a class needs to have something unique about it that other classes can't do.  Something significant and worthy of making it a different class.  Having a class that "just does what everyone else can do, only a little better" isn't a class.  It's one of the aforementioned backgrounds or specialties.

If they want to keep the thief, they need to have a core, significant unique ability that only thieves get.

Quote from: Mistwell;592201There is no reason that anyone can't learn any class ability.  What's the reason anyone can't learn to hit things well with a sword? Why protect the niche of fighting just for fighters?

Everyone already does.  Effectively, anyways.  

In 3.5 (my preferred edition) a 20th level Fighter has a +20 BAB; a Rogue has a +15; a Wizard has a +10.  They're all better at hitting with a sword than a 1st level Fighter.  They're all better at hitting things with a sword than a 10th level Cleric (+7 BAB).  That progression is tied to level, but some classes are better than others.  

Further, in 3.5 all the characters have options to increase their speciality in 'hitting things with a sword'.  You can be a strong character (since Strength adds to melee attack rolls).  You can also take related combat Feats (like Weapon Focus).  You can also focus your equipment on playing to that Strength.

Thus a 20th level Fighter not only has a +20 BAB, he has a +12 Strength modifier, a +4 weapon, and a +2 from feats for a +38 (without trying too hard).  The Wizard, on the other hand, is a +10 BAB, +2 Str, +1 weapon and has no feats (instead spending money and feats on things that increase spellcasting).  Thus the Wizard ends up somewhere around +13.  Again, still much, much, better than low-level Fighters, but much, much worse than high level Fighters.

In Next, they seem to think that the Rogue should be the 'trap monkey'.  The problem is, they're tying finding traps to 'stabbing people in the back'.  Why?  If you're a Dwarven TrapSmith, why do you also have to be a sneaky SOB who stabs people when they're not paying attention?  

Those are unrelated concepts that have been poorly welded together for no reason other than 'I need to make a class that deals with traps'.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being a sneaky guy that deals with traps but that's not the only archetype.  

D&D Next needs to be able to allow people to play a character like Robin Hood, Indiana Jones, Obi-Wan Kenobi (original trilogy) and the BeastMaster reasonably well.  If it can manage those characters, I'd have pretty good hope for it overall.  

If those characters are all impossible to play, well, that's a major failing.

Indiana Jones specifically, what is he in D&D terms?  If you say Rogue (and there's an argument for it) how do you explain that overall, he tends to fight mostly fair?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;592623Everyone already does.  Effectively, anyways.  

In 3.5 (my preferred edition) a 20th level Fighter has a +20 BAB; a Rogue has a +15; a Wizard has a +10.  They're all better at hitting with a sword than a 1st level Fighter.  They're all better at hitting things with a sword than a 10th level Cleric (+7 BAB).  That progression is tied to level, but some classes are better than others.  

Further, in 3.5 all the characters have options to increase their speciality in 'hitting things with a sword'.  You can be a strong character (since Strength adds to melee attack rolls).  You can also take related combat Feats (like Weapon Focus).  You can also focus your equipment on playing to that Strength.

Thus a 20th level Fighter not only has a +20 BAB, he has a +12 Strength modifier, a +4 weapon, and a +2 from feats for a +38 (without trying too hard).  The Wizard, on the other hand, is a +10 BAB, +2 Str, +1 weapon and has no feats (instead spending money and feats on things that increase spellcasting).  Thus the Wizard ends up somewhere around +13.  Again, still much, much, better than low-level Fighters, but much, much worse than high level Fighters.

In Next, they seem to think that the Rogue should be the 'trap monkey'.  The problem is, they're tying finding traps to 'stabbing people in the back'.  Why?  If you're a Dwarven TrapSmith, why do you also have to be a sneaky SOB who stabs people when they're not paying attention?  

Those are unrelated concepts that have been poorly welded together for no reason other than 'I need to make a class that deals with traps'.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being a sneaky guy that deals with traps but that's not the only archetype.  

D&D Next needs to be able to allow people to play a character like Robin Hood, Indiana Jones, Obi-Wan Kenobi (original trilogy) and the BeastMaster reasonably well.  If it can manage those characters, I'd have pretty good hope for it overall.  

If those characters are all impossible to play, well, that's a major failing.

Indiana Jones specifically, what is he in D&D terms?  If you say Rogue (and there's an argument for it) how do you explain that overall, he tends to fight mostly fair?

Good post and I agree with you which is why I give the rogue points and let them pick a path within a wide remit from Bounty Hunter all the way to bard.
Indy isa rogue i would say in D&D terms from his ability to deal with traps to his read languages and his climb. He chooses to fight fair , nothing wrong with that, but he isn't adverse to shooting a big guy with a scimitar or to using a whip to garotte a guy with a ceiling fan if needs be.

Skill monkey with distraction and evasion type abilities. DPS not necessary.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;592623In Next, they seem to think that the Rogue should be the 'trap monkey'.  The problem is, they're tying finding traps to 'stabbing people in the back'.  Why?  If you're a Dwarven TrapSmith, why do you also have to be a sneaky SOB who stabs people when they're not paying attention?  

Those are unrelated concepts that have been poorly welded together for no reason other than 'I need to make a class that deals with traps'.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being a sneaky guy that deals with traps but that's not the only archetype.

Fantasy Craft does something that might make people who think this way happy.

Stabby stuff is mostly in the realm of feats and optional class abilities (the scout does get sneak attack automatically, but that's because they are cast as a sort of stalker/hunter).

What would be a rogue or thief in D&D would map to either the burglar class or the explorer class. Explorer is actually a bit better for traps, not so good at being sneaky.

So it breaks from D&D roles, but it does to a pretty good job of catering to player tastes.

When I think about the distinction between Fighters and Rogues, I always go back to Conan as an example.  Or maybe Indiana Jones or Odysseus.  Archetypes that combine fighting with a broad range of skills.  Heck, Conan not only explicitly calls himself a thief in some of the original stories but he demonstrates classic rogue abilities like climbing walls.

As part of niche protection the warrior ends up being unskilled, which just seems wrong.  Nor does it make a lot of sense to model Conan as a rogue.  

That makes me wonder if the real division should be: user of magic and cunning warrior.  I dunno -- I could be really out to lunch here.

Quote from: Votan;592699When I think about the distinction between Fighters and Rogues, I always go back to Conan as an example.  Or maybe Indiana Jones or Odysseus.  Archetypes that combine fighting with a broad range of skills.  Heck, Conan not only explicitly calls himself a thief in some of the original stories but he demonstrates classic rogue abilities like climbing walls.

As part of niche protection the warrior ends up being unskilled, which just seems wrong.  Nor does it make a lot of sense to model Conan as a rogue.  

That makes me wonder if the real division should be: user of magic and cunning warrior.  I dunno -- I could be really out to lunch here.

But Conan is a thief in the same way that a wizard who kills people is an assasin. You need to separate Classes from Jobs.
In a game anyone can get hired as a mercenary. I have played rogues that get jobs as caravan guards and the like. After all as has been stated here a 7th level rogue is better at fighting than a 1st level fighter.

Fighters don't need to be skill-less because rogues have skills they rogue will just have more skills. Subotai the archer is also more of a fighter than a thief I would say but Malak in Destroyer is more of a thief.  the films and hte books are very different of course with Conan being more thieflike in teh books. But if there was a lock to pick, a document to forge or a trap to disarm it woudl be Malak doing the work.

So a figther with wilderness skills can join the Kings Rangers. The figther has tracking wilderness lore some stealth but primarily a fighter. A rogue with wilderness skills can also join the Kings Rangers they have less combat skills but more stealth, maybe a few other skills like animal lore or set snares. the point isn't exclusion its balance.

Sure, but at that point, do you even really need a different name?

It's like a 'variant Fighter'.  Reduce the hit die by one step, increase the skills.  Kind of like the 'militant mage' in 2nd edition.  Increase HD, decrease spells known...  iirc.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;592623Indiana Jones specifically, what is he in D&D terms?  If you say Rogue (and there's an argument for it) how do you explain that overall, he tends to fight mostly fair?

Say what now?

Would that be the Indiana Jones who casually shoots the guy 10 feet away who has challenged him to a sword fight? Or maybe the Indiana Jones who throws sand in the boxers eyes and then lures him into an airplane propeller? The Indiana Jones who surprise jumps into people making them fall off a cliff from a moving truck? The Indiana Jones who plunges a flaming shish-kabob into an unarmed man? The Indiana Jones who pretends to be mind-controlled before sucker punching his foe? The Indiana Jones who punches people off a racing motor boat? The Indiana Jones who startles animals to start a stampede and toss market goods onto his foes? The Indiana Jones who punches a guy off a zepplin? Lets a guy drink from a poisoned cup? Tosses a guy onto a tank tred to be run over by the tank, and then lures another guy off a cliff on that same tank? Punches a guy into a nest of man-eating ants?

Indiana Jones fights well, and he's of a 'Good' alignment, but he doesn't fight "fair".  He's pretty much your classic rogue.

Quote from: Mistwell;593248Say what now?

Would that be the Indiana Jones who casually shoots the guy 10 feet away who has challenged him to a sword fight?.

To be fair, that wasn't Indiana Jones the character.  That was Harrison Ford having the trots and ad libbed the scene because he needed it to end right away.

But I agree with the rest :)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;593250To be fair, that wasn't Indiana Jones the character.  That was Harrison Ford having the trots and ad libbed the scene because he needed it to end right away.

Well, it was Ford's IDEA, sure, but they let it into the film.  So someone must have decided it fit the character.

All of Indie's tactics are just that.  A trope of thief/rogue from 1st edition on is that they attack when people aren't prepared.  Specifically stabbing people in the back who don't know that the thief is there, or beginning in 3rd edition, feinting to make them flat-footed.  

Even when Indie shoots the scimitar wielding attacker, the attacker is fully aware that he is in combat.  Indie doesn't 'feint', and doesn't shoot him in the back.  How is what he does any different from what a 'classic Fighter' would have done?  The short answer is, it's not.  

And when you're fighting a much stronger man who is a boxing specialist, and you're not what does a Fighter do any differently than Indiana Jones did?  The answer is - nothing.  

Perhaps it is easier to illustrate with another example from the other side.  Take anybody in Professional Wrestling.  It'd be hard to claim that they're anything other than Fighters, right?  So how come the Fighters in the WWE are constantly attacking people who aren't aware of the attack?  Hitting people in the back of the head with a steel chair after the opponent was distracted by a female yelling at them?  Hitting someone in the back of the head while they're focused on something else is the rogue's schtick.  

So we have a situation where a rogue is defined by two things.  The first is a fighting style marked by stabbing people in the back.  Indiana Jones (a rogue) doesn't fight that way).  WWE wrestlers, (Fighters) do fight that way.  A rogue is also defined by their interaction with traps and widely useful skills.  Indiana Jones matches that definition while the WWE wrestlers fail.  

Essentially the two dimensions that have defined rogues are not strictly compatible.  The game will be better if they're divorced from each other.

If that were to be done, you could have the 'Honorable Dwarven Trapsmith' as a valid character - someone who fights fair but also deals with traps.  You could also have the 'tricky warrior'.  Many of the fantasy bad-guys are warriors that 'cheat'.  A back-stabbing Fighter should be a choice, to represent that classic option from stories and movies.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;593302WWE wrestlers, (Fighters) do fight that way.

WWE's actors are bards, plain and simple.  I don't think they're supposed to depict anything like adventuring.  It's just soap opera for men.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;593224Sure, but at that point, do you even really need a different name?

It's like a 'variant Fighter'.  Reduce the hit die by one step, increase the skills.  Kind of like the 'militant mage' in 2nd edition.  Increase HD, decrease spells known...  iirc.

Perhaps but its a class based system so you need classes and the path you specify leads to give up classes and just take options from a single list.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;593302All of Indie's tactics are just that.  A trope of thief/rogue from 1st edition on is that they attack when people aren't prepared.  Specifically stabbing people in the back who don't know that the thief is there, or beginning in 3rd edition, feinting to make them flat-footed.  

Even when Indie shoots the scimitar wielding attacker, the attacker is fully aware that he is in combat.  Indie doesn't 'feint', and doesn't shoot him in the back.  How is what he does any different from what a 'classic Fighter' would have done?  The short answer is, it's not.  

And when you're fighting a much stronger man who is a boxing specialist, and you're not what does a Fighter do any differently than Indiana Jones did?  The answer is - nothing.  

Perhaps it is easier to illustrate with another example from the other side.  Take anybody in Professional Wrestling.  It'd be hard to claim that they're anything other than Fighters, right?  So how come the Fighters in the WWE are constantly attacking people who aren't aware of the attack?  Hitting people in the back of the head with a steel chair after the opponent was distracted by a female yelling at them?  Hitting someone in the back of the head while they're focused on something else is the rogue's schtick.  

So we have a situation where a rogue is defined by two things.  The first is a fighting style marked by stabbing people in the back.  Indiana Jones (a rogue) doesn't fight that way).  WWE wrestlers, (Fighters) do fight that way.  A rogue is also defined by their interaction with traps and widely useful skills.  Indiana Jones matches that definition while the WWE wrestlers fail.  

Essentially the two dimensions that have defined rogues are not strictly compatible.  The game will be better if they're divorced from each other.

If that were to be done, you could have the 'Honorable Dwarven Trapsmith' as a valid character - someone who fights fair but also deals with traps.  You could also have the 'tricky warrior'.  Many of the fantasy bad-guys are warriors that 'cheat'.  A back-stabbing Fighter should be a choice, to represent that classic option from stories and movies.

I disagree with your premise none of these things define rougues at all. A rogue is defined by a role play approach to the character.
I played a tumbler rogue for years that neither backstabbed or could disarm traps instead being acrobats and master climbers and I have played conmen characters for years who focus on fast talking their way out of situations. Han Solo is as much as rogue as Indiana Jones.

Quote from: jibbajibba;593315I played a tumbler rogue for years that neither backstabbed or could disarm traps instead being acrobats and master climbers and I have played conmen characters for years who focus on fast talking their way out of situations. Han Solo is as much as rogue as Indiana Jones.

If you want to be a tumbler rogue (which should be an option), there's no good reason to give him automatic advancement in backstabbing.

On some level, characters need to be able to defend themselves in combat against appropriate enemies, but why do all rogues fight in basically the same way.  If you play an Indie rogue, you get sneak attack, even if don't want it and never use it.  Characters need access to character appropriate abilities.  The rogue fails for two reasons - trap guy could be someone else (ranger comes to. Mind with traps and snares) and backstabber could be anyone, especially evil fighters.

Quote from: RPGPundit;591763Well? What should it do? How should it be special? Should it exist at all? How traditional or radical should it be?

In a few D&D Next threads a while back (here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=22223) and here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=22702)), I made the following comments about Rogues/Thieves in D&D 5e, specifically because I oppose the idea of them being the system's "skill monkeys":

Quote from: John Morrow;537186I disagree [that rogues should be "the master of skills"].  I think all classes have justification for skills and would rather see all classes have decent skill acquisitions so that players can choose to have their characters have things to do out of combat.  A Fighter could learn how to fix weapons and armor, carouse, or deal with courtly etiquette.  A Cleric or Magic user could learn history or have investigation skills.  And so on.  And what I've seen the concentration of skill points in Thief do in 3.x is encourage players to take a few levels of Rogue just to get skill points, which is the tail wagging the dog.  I think this is the wrong way to go with Rogues.

I'd much rather see Rogues be master of movement and not getting hurt.  They should have the ability to move silently in shadows without being seen, move through combat without getting hit, roll with hits to lesson the demage, land from falls without getting hurt, flee from opponents chasing them, move across uneven terrain without penalty, and be able to use vertical surfaces to move.  I'm thinking less full-blown acrobat and more parkour (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parkour&oldid=477231254#cite_note-the-tree-46) (that page has a good list of maneuvers one could start with, too).  Stuff like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6xEkjeV60Q).  They should also have the ability to not only spot but dodge out of the way of traps that have been sprung.

Concerning the defense that "just to do their job Rogues needs additional skills":

Quote from: John Morrow;537534As someone who has played far more skill-based role-playing games than class-based role-playing games, I would argue that you are ignoring the fact that a fighter's combat abilities could also be considered skills, as can a wizard's casting ability.  All characters are a "collection of skills".  You have no problem with combat abilities of a fighter or the casting ability of a wizard being handled by a non-skill subsystem, but you insist that a thief's distinctive abilities be skills, which also implies that anyone could learn them.  The solution to keeping the Rogue's abilities distinctly Rogue abilities is to make them special class abilities rather than simply skills that anyone could learn if you didn't artificially starve them of enough skill points to be as good at it.

Later on, you argue that a 1e thief has essentially 4 skills.  Two of those skills are movement abilities of the sort I was talking about -- Stealth (the ability to move without detection) and Climb Walls (the ability to move up or across vertical surfaces).  The other two are not necessarily something every Rogue needs.

In response to comments about all of the different rogue archetypes in literature ("Sinbad, Aladin, Nift the Lean, The Grey Mouser, Locke Lamora, Cardinal Chang, Bilbo, Robin Hood, Dick Turpin, Silk, Jack of Shadows, Captain Jack Sparrow, The Scarlet Pimpernel, the list is endless and varied."):

Quote from: John Morrow;537534On the one hand, you complain about rogues being confined as a single narrow archetype out of many and then you turn around and confine fighters and wizards to single narrow archetypes, assuming that as long as they can hit things in combat or cast some spells, that's good enough and they don't need to do anything else.  I think that's nonsense.  What if I want to play a warrior scholar?  How about an investigative wizard?  How about a charismatic preacher cleric?  Without skills, I can't do that very well, so does it make sense that I'd need to dual class with Rogue to make those concepts work?  Or does everyone else have to one dimensional out of combat to carve out a niche for Rogues?

And not to put to much of a point on it but I would argue that several of your iconic Rogues look more like fighters to me, not Rogues.  By such an expansive standard, I would argue that the Three Musketeers would also be Rogues.  As for Bilbo, his "skill" is basically a magic ring.  He's about as much of a Rogue as any other random D&D peasant.

As for supporting the "fat greasy fence", I think that archetype is about as relevant to the typical D&D game as Friar Tuck would be as a Cleric archetype or David Copperfield would be as a Wizard archetype.  Nobody is taking a fat greasy fence into a dungeon.  In D&D 3.x terms, I'd represent the fat greasy fence maybe as an Expert, not a Rogue.  And if that's not convincing enough, I could provide you with dozens of potential Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard archetypes that your "they don't need skills" approach would also not support.

In short, since people seem to want Rogues with something to do in combat, I'd make the Rogue class the sort of action rogue that one sees surviving by movement and wits and overlaps a bit with the attempts to incorporate Dexterity-based Swashbuckers as a fighter subclass.  Make them about movement in combat -- moving without being seen, being able to get places where others can't get, and being able to slip past and away from enemies.  Give them some of the abilities seen in Duelist and Swashbuckler classes and prestige classes in 3.x.  They're not doing as much damage as others, but they're not taking as much, either.  And make all of the trap detection, trap disarming, appraisal, and so on skills that any character class could take.

Looking at that list of rogue archetypes of the source material above (given by jibbajibba) and adding in the Han Solos, Flynn Riders, Indiana Jones, and others commonly thought of as "rogues", very few are about picking locks or pockets.  Most are about sneaking in and running out without getting killed.  Movement.  

In fact, this all dovetails pretty well with the common euphemism for Rogues and Thieves in my gaming group.  They are called "quiet".  If a character is a "quiet" fighter or a "quiet" magic user, it means they have stealth and possibly other rogue skills.  And looking at this from an OSR perspective, maybe find and remove traps shouldn't be skills that you roll against at all but things that players have to describe and figure out on their own, perhaps with some sort of perception check to make some characters better at spotting unusual things like triggers than others.

Also, from the earlier threads:

Quote from: John Morrow;538225The problem is that skills and skill specialties doesn't define a Rogue.  It defines what D&D 3.x called an "Expert".  Sure, if you take Rogue skills you've got a Rogue but if you take knowledge skills, you've got a Scholar.  You could use skills to build anything, not just a Rogue.  So what you are really arguing is that there is nothing distinct about a Rogue that makes them distinctly special and so maybe Rogue shouldn't even be a stand-alone class.  Maybe it's just one collection of skills among many that a player could choose, or not, and a party might being along a lock and trap expert into a dungeon just like they might bring knowledge skill expert along for an urban investigative adventure.  They're like a carpenter, plumber, or electrician.  An expert you call in to solve a specific problem, perhaps best handled with an NPC.

Quote from: John Morrow;538228And if the weird stuff that a Rogue does is not separate enough to merit its own methodology, does the Rogue deserve a distinct class or is Rogue simply a flavor of a generic skill expertise class that could just as easily be a Scholar or Weaponsmith with a different selection of skills?

Concerning using skill rolls to resolve disarming a trap:

Quote from: John Morrow;538228But what about backstabbing?  What about scaling sheer surfaces?  What about moving stealthily without being seen or heard?  Sure, all of those things could be handled with skill rolls, but so could combat rolls and spell checks.

Part of what I have in mind goes back to the old GDW board game Asteroid (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1772/asteroid).  One of the characters in that game was a jewel thief by the name of Alex.  The rule with Alex was that if he began and ended his turn hidden from a sentry robot, the robot wouldn't spot him even if he was visible during the move.  A simple rule that requires no skill rolls and is better for it.  How could that translate to D&D?  At first level, a Rogue can cross 5 feet without being spotted.  At second level, 10 feet.  At 3rd level, 15 feet.  Or maybe a somewhat slower progression.  The same thing could be done with sheer surfaces.  The Rogue gets a free 5 feet at first level and more as they go up.  Also give them better saves to dodge out of the way of trouble.  All not skill rolls.  

Movement already has non-skill rules and limits, which is why I focused on it.  It's also something that most of your iconic examples have in common.

Again, concerning Rogue as "skill monkey":

Quote from: John Morrow;538228Why require them to take the Rogue class of skills, then?  What would be wrong with simply calling your class "Expert" and if a player chooses to be an expert in stealth, picking pockets, disarming traps, and opening locks, then they pick those skills.  If they want to be a Scholar, they pick a different set of skills?

Concerning what a Rogue should be in D&D and what niche the class is meant to fill:

Quote from: John Morrow;538228In AD&D, the description of Thief states:

"The primary functions of a thief are: 1) picking pockets, 2) opening locks, 3) finding/removing traps, 4) moving silently, and 5) hiding in shadows."

D&D originally had a very narrow niche.  In arguing against a fairly narrow niche, I think you are arguing counter to the spirit of character classes which are designed around niche archetypes, not vague broad types of characters.  I think what you are talking about has more in common with the broad Champions categories of "brick", "energy projector", "speedster", etc.

Quote from: John Morrow;538228Not "a musketeer".  I was talking about the titular iconic characters, who should be some sort of Fighter on the basis of their fighting prowess.  They illustrate my point that there are plenty of Fighter character concepts that include rogue-like skills and abilities as well as other skills.  Any character class can make an argument for skills, and if all that defines a Rogue is that they spend even more time on skills, does that really make Rogue a distinct class that warrants forcing players to take Rogues skills to justify its existence?

Quote from: John Morrow;538228Frankly, I'd rate Bilbo a Commoner.  What Rogue-like skills does he actualy display?

Quote from: John Morrow;538228Sure, and being used to skill-based and point-buy systems, I can think of dozens of character types that have nothing to do with the traditional D&D thief that I could build with a robust skill system and lots of skill choices.  What I don't understand is why you think Rogues should be distinctly blesses in that regard.

Quote from: John Morrow;538228The desire to multi-class is often simply the desire to play concepts that don't fit neatly into the single class paradigm.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;593454On some level, characters need to be able to defend themselves in combat against appropriate enemies...

I get what you're saying generally, but this quoted bit I take some issue with. I suppose it depends on what exactly you mean, but why does a Rogue/Thief have to be able to go up against "appropriate enemies" (whatever that means) in combat? They often couldn't pre-3.x, and yet they were an often played class. Part of this is no doubt down to them being key to Save-or-Die avoidance in TSR D&D, but I really don't think that's the primary driver behind people playing the class in earlier editions...

The problem is the change in how skills work; before, the Thief was the ONLY character who could pick pocket, move silently, climb stuff, etc.

As soon as everyone could do those things, the thief just became the guy who could do it a little bit better. And then when that turned out to suck, they had to turn him into the "guy who was at least as kick-ass in combat as the fighter", which in turn fucks up both the Fighter AND the Rogue!

The ONLY way for the Thief to matter at all in any future edition is if the Thief can go back to being the ONLY guy who can do some very essential skills. And I'm not sure I see that happening.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;593707The ONLY way for the Thief to matter at all in any future edition is if the Thief can go back to being the ONLY guy who can do some very essential skills. And I'm not sure I see that happening.

RPGPundit

But do you think it should happen?

Quote from: RPGPundit;593707The problem is the change in how skills work; before, the Thief was the ONLY character who could pick pocket, move silently, climb stuff, etc.

The Thief wasn't a part of the original core D&D books and was added in the Greyhawk supplement, after appearing in The Thief Addition (http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/gygaxs-thief-addition-1974.html) in the Great Plains Games Players Newsletter in 1974.  Everything I've seen from reading about descriptions of the earliest D&D games suggests that the players of those games largely dealt with things like traps and locked chests through the GM describing the situation and the players describing how their characters were going to deal with them.  

Reducing dealing with traps and locks to a thing that only a particular class can do is problematic because it restricts a core part of the traditional old school play experience, which is the players using their wits to evade and overcome traps based on descriptions provided by the GM and solutions devised by the players.  Several OSR blogs have commented on this (e.g., here (http://thedragonsflagon.blogspot.com/2012/04/thief-dilemma-traps.html), here (http://peopletobe.blogspot.com/2012/05/reading-up-on-remove-traps.html), and here (http://beyondthepalegate.wordpress.com/tag/player-skill/)).  In addition, it creates serious verisimilitude problems for some people when characters aren't even allowed to try to do something without a special skill or feat, which is why they tried to move away from that in D&D 3e.

Quote from: RPGPundit;593707As soon as everyone could do those things, the thief just became the guy who could do it a little bit better. And then when that turned out to suck, they had to turn him into the "guy who was at least as kick-ass in combat as the fighter", which in turn fucks up both the Fighter AND the Rogue!

The issue of "What does the thief do when combat starts?" has been a problem in D&D and other role-playing games for as long as I can remember.  Any game that spends a significant amount of the game's time in combat is going to leave all of the players wanting something useful or at least interesting to do during combat.  So if you want to point the finger of blame at something here, I would point not to letting everyone do thief-like things but to combat becoming more complicated and involved and taking up a bigger portion of the game session and I think that's the driving force behind making all classes reasonably combat effective.  I think that's actually fairly reasonable, but I don't think the solution should be to make everyone equally effective.  Instead, the solution should be to give everyone something interesting or maybe helpful do to during combat, not giving them the ability to deal the same damage.

Quote from: RPGPundit;593707The ONLY way for the Thief to matter at all in any future edition is if the Thief can go back to being the ONLY guy who can do some very essential skills. And I'm not sure I see that happening.

And I think that would be every bit as much of an "immersion"/verisimilitude hit as things like healing surges are because there is no good in-game reason why anyone couldn't learn to pick locks or pockets and as the list of rogue archetypes from movies and literature I listed in my previous reply, which came from jibbajibba, is full of characters who are not primarily defined by their ability to pick locks and find traps.

Quote from: Gib;593708But do you think it should happen?

Ultimately, yes, I do to a certain extent. I don't think there's a big problem with saying that everyone has a chance to sneak around, but that if you're wearing plate mail its damn near impossible, and if you're a regular joe you have no particular special talent for it; whereas someone who's very trained and experienced in it will do much better.  And likewise, I think anyone should be able to try to kick in or break down a door, but most people shouldn't have the slightest fucking clue how to unlock a door without doing those things.
Finally, anyone may have the ability to spot that something is suspicious in a room, and maybe realize where the trap is; and may attempt common-sense solutions to activating or avoiding it. But in a medieval world only someone who's been specifically trained in the tricks of these mechanisms should have a chance of disarming them.

RPGPundit

Isn't it about how you view classes?

I see classes as quite broad. Really I only want 3. Within those classes there is a lot of room for archetypes/kits/templates/background call them what you will.

So the way I see it at a primitive design level there is a Skills class a combat class and a magic caster class.

the templates just show you how to create certain character types within those broad classes.

So a thief created with the skills class will have lockpicking, climbing, etc a lot of skills to use in that space. The combat version has less skills but is tougher more of a mugger than a pickpocket, more of a thug than a conman, more Mr Blonde than Mr Orange. A caster thief uses magic to achieve the same goals. This would be the character than can literally melt into shadows, or walk through walls or turn invisible.

Now in D&D the classes can't be so pure and the magic stuff is at the top end of the power /level curve so you need to create a balance between the 3 elements for each class but the templates can play with that.

So the Ranger > Scout > Hedge Mage arte all wlderness characters but the ranger is an expert with the bow, the Scout can disappear into a clump of bushes or whatever but really has the flexibility of more skills, and the Hedge Mage can survive in the wilds but is perhaps not as adept at tracking and hiding.

Personally I would run the 3 core classes based on

Warrior - d10HD THACO +1/level  Skill points 3 + 1/2 levels
Rogue   - d8HD THACO  +1/2 levels Skill points 6 + 1/level
Caster - d6HD THACO +1/4 levels Skill points 3 +1/3 levels


I think the Class and Level paradigm is key to D&D and is one of its advantages over say Runequest. But I think that it needs to be broader and far more 2e than 1e or 3e where the desire for mulitple classes each with its own mechnical exceptions and special stuff became so cumbersome nad leads to teh reliance on system mastery we have been discussing of late.

Quote from: jibbajibba;593894Personally I would run the 3 core classes based on

Warrior
Rogue   
Caster

If you are saying there should only be 3 classes, then that is my view as well, but the current D&D game designers would never go for it because of tradition and 'sacred cows'.  Even though, for example, you could easily create a 'Paladin type' character by simply choosing the Fighter class and picking the appropriate backround/specialites, so many people will cry foul  they will end up with a dedicated Paladin class which then just blurs the lines of what the hell the difference really is between a paladin themed Fighter and the actual Paladin class.

With the proper ability score allocation, backround, specialty, and whatever other widgets 5E includes ( not to mention multi-classing too ), you should easily be able to create any charater concept with just those 3 classes.  They will, however, over complicate things and end up including all the sacred cow classes to appease the D&D purists.

Using the 3 classes only method, the 'Rogues' schtick should be being opportunistic, a jack of all trades, lucky, and emphisize maneuverabilty in combat ( NOT damage ).

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;593905If you are saying there should only be 3 classes, then that is my view as well, but the current D&D game designers would never go for it because of tradition and 'sacred cows'.  Even though, for example, you could easily create a 'Paladin type' character by simply choosing the Fighter class and picking the appropriate backround/specialites, so many people will cry foul  they will end up with a dedicated Paladin class which then just blurs the lines of what the hell the difference really is between a paladin themed Fighter and the actual Paladin class.

With the proper ability score allocation, backround, specialty, and whatever other widgets 5E includes ( not to mention multi-classing too ), you should easily be able to create any charater concept with just those 3 classes.  They will, however, over complicate things and end up including all the sacred cow classes to appease the D&D purists.

Using the 3 classes only method, the 'Rogues' schtick should be being opportunistic, a jack of all trades, lucky, and emphisize maneuverabilty in combat ( NOT damage ).

Exactly my point and I agree entirely with the addition that they won't do it becuase of profit more classes with their own mechnaics allows them to sell more books. How many 3e classes were there ?

I think regardless of the design merits or flaws of three classes, it can't happen. Too many D&D customers expect at least a solid number of core classes. If they reduce the number to three, no matter how good the game, i expect you would see a 4E level backlash from players.

They could pull it off by building a Paladin and other classes, but showing how they did it - ie, make the 'class builder' a major feature of the game.  If you can use 'blocks' to make a 'rogue' or a 'paladin' and they give you those as examples (along with some 'new' classes') people could really go for that.  Some people (especially those who like customization) would use the blocks to make unique classes; some people would only allow the 'example classes' that WotC released.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;593910They could pull it off by building a Paladin and other classes, but showing how they did it - ie, make the 'class builder' a major feature of the game.  If you can use 'blocks' to make a 'rogue' or a 'paladin' and they give you those as examples (along with some 'new' classes') people could really go for that.  Some people (especially those who like customization) would use the blocks to make unique classes; some people would only allow the 'example classes' that WotC released.

Exactly what I do in my heartbreaker and I show how you can can have 3 different 'pirate charcters' each built from a different class and you can call them Buccaneer, Corsair and Reaver if it makes you feel better :)
 but rather like my Monster builder and my race builder they are not financially viable because if you give a man a fish he keeps on buying fish but if you teach a man to fish your fish shop goes out of business quite quickly.
Doesn't matter to me but as a financial concern I can see if might.

Oh the key in my system of course is that only the GM gets to create classes. Ther setting demonstrates simply how each tool set can be used to generate a setting specific iteration of the rules. If you allow PCs to create their own classes then you 3x optimisers will have a field day :)

If thief is a sub-category of fighter, couldn't Cleric be a sub-category of Magic-User?  Those Magic-User sub-categories quickly become new sources of magic anyway (illusion, shadow, etc.), and it's only sacred cows that made "divine" magic somehow different from "arcane" magic.  

And then you get three base classes: Fighting-Man, Magic-User, and Fighter/Mage combo.  And then all others can sub-branch off all those.

Quote from: Mistwell;593919If thief is a sub-category of fighter, couldn't Cleric be a sub-category of Magic-User?  Those Magic-User sub-categories quickly become new sources of magic anyway (illusion, shadow, etc.), and it's only sacred cows that made "divine" magic somehow different from "arcane" magic.  

And then you get three base classes: Fighting-Man, Magic-User, and Fighter/Mage combo.  And then all others can sub-branch off all those.

Pretty much.  If they treat specialties as a sub class, and make them a bit more robust, they could very easily do this.  They won't.  Sacred cows and all that.  But they could.

What people like about a class-system is presumably that it gives you fleshed-out characters ready-built. It's like a package holiday. Instant gratification.


Either no classes, or lots of classes, that's my advice.

Quote from: Omnifray;593922What people like about a class-system is presumably that it gives you fleshed-out characters ready-built. It's like a package holiday. Instant gratification.


Either no classes, or lots of classes, that's my advice.

See a class builder lets the GM decide. They get get a seeting and it feels unique because it has half trolls and Gangerswipes and Dungeoneers and Sweepers. Or they can build their own using the toolkits or use the 10 default Rogue templates, 10 default Caster templates and 10 default warrior templates in the main book.

In answer to mistwell Clerics are just a flavour of caster but a fighter /caster is just a tailored caster or a tailored fighter. The 3 classes are skill, fight, magic called Rogue, Warrior, Caster for ease.

The problem with lots of classes, and 2e started to fix this but got scared and stoped because of all those hindu phantasmagoria, is you get unique mechanics and they make no sense. So you have a ranger with a tracking skill that is nothing like the thief's skill for climbing walls or picking pockets, the acrobats jump skill is different to the Barbarians jump skill and every class gets a unique set of 'feats' on a badly distributed non customisable basis. So druids get animal polymorph, fighters can build a stronghold, Assasins can learn any weapon like a fighter and paladins can cure wounds. The net result is too many rules competing for space and a complex and confused system.
If you have 3 classes and a set way skills work and a set number of class abilities that can be bought by the GM to become active at certain levels so the Beast man can ploymorph liek a druid , the cleric of a healing god can lay on hands like a paladin, the charasmatic preacher can charm crowds like a bard etc etc ....
Now Skills and powers tried to do this but .... they wanted you to be able to make the old classes from the pool of points and so Clerics had 200 points and fighters had 12 they didn't have the courage to strip it back to the core and provide a more coherent system.

the risk is optimisation and lack of flavour. But that is why you have GMs and you stress that class builders and race builders are tools for GMs to build their worlds. The worlds you then publish use the same tools and the same systems.

Quote from: jibbajibba;593894Personally I would run the 3 core classes based on

Warrior - d10HD THACO +1/level  Skill points 3 + 1/2 levels
Rogue   - d8HD THACO  +1/2 levels Skill points 6 + 1/level
Caster - d6HD THACO +1/4 levels Skill points 3 +1/3 levels

That is tricky to balance for two reasons, both related to the magic system.

The caster gets better at combat/hit points and skill (a measurable fraction of the skills of the Rogue).  But neither the Warrior nor the Rogue get magic as a class ability (or, if they do, it isn't mentioned).  So magic needs to actually be weaker than skills or combat ability.  

Skills are highly linear (+1 per level).  So unless high levels of skills allow for amazing results then, once again, exponential magic is problem.  Now you may be discarding the traditional D&D magic system, but it is rather the core of the problem if it remains.  

Consider yout 10th level Rogue versus a 10th level caster.  She appears to have 10 hit points (45 vs 35), 10 skill points (16 versus 6) and +3 THAC0 (+5 versus +2).  These are not huge margins unless magic is really unimpressive.  Cirica 3.5E a caster could easily be preparing spells like: Mage Armor, Magic Missle, Detect Secret Doors, Expeditious Retreat, Mirror Image, Spider Climb, Knock, Fireball, Improved invisibiltiy, Fly, Polymorph, and Teleport.

That is a lot to balance with such small differences in combat and skills, unless you balance magic some other way.  

That really seems to be the key here.  It's clear how to make a high level fighter competitive (aka Pathfinder) -- have them hit so hard that things tend to die immediately around them and they are much more reliably lethal than spells.  The trick to doing this with skills is to make the skills better than the magic, more reliable than the magic, or uniformly useful at a scale that spells cannot mimic.

This is totally doable (see Savage Worlds for an excellent example).  But the real redesign is in the magic system.

Quote from: jibbajibba;593894Personally I would run the 3 core classes based on

Warrior - d10HD THACO +1/level  Skill points 3 + 1/2 levels
Rogue   - d8HD THACO  +1/2 levels Skill points 6 + 1/level
Caster - d6HD THACO +1/4 levels Skill points 3 +1/3 levels

Why should Rogue, as skill monkey, be one of the three core classes?  It wasn't even in the 3 original D&D books.  If you really want to break this down to a basic set of classes and figure out each one's niche, why not look at how they map to the core attributes:

Strength - Fighter
Dexterity - Rogue
Constitution - ?
Intelligence - Mage
Wisdom - Cleric
Charisma - ? (Bard?)

A Rogue or Thief is about Dexterity more than lots of skill points.  Why not flesh out the skill list so that all classes could serve a secondary out-of-combat role, be it sneaking around, knowing lore, finding and disarming traps, picking locks, climbing, making and fixing things, carousing, etc. and that makes it all the easier to make it optional, as in a group that doesn't care about that stuff can just leave it out.  Is finding and removing traps through skill rolls really that interesting that it's a critical core part of the D&D experience for people?

Again, as a real world example of what's wrong with making Rogues skill monkeys is that when I played in a D&D 3.5 campaign, I was looking at taking levels of Rogue not because my character had any interest in being quiet, picking locks, or disarming traps but because I wanted to take other skills and it was the only way, other than taking a level or two of the lame "Expert" NPC class, to get skill points to make a well rounded character.

What exactly do people mean when they state Rogues are 'skill monkeys'?  Are they refering the fact Rogues have a large number of skills or are they refering to the fact they can be better at their skills via their skill mastery ability ( and in D&D Next by have other bonuses ) ?

If it's just about the number of skills, I'm not sure why so many people hate the concept so much about Rogues being a 'skill monkey' class.  The whole reason they are the skill monkey class is because all of the abilities a Rogue should be good at ( aka the 'thief abilities' of old school D&D ) were converted into 'skills', so they simply have 'alot of skills' so they can mimic the capabilities of the old school Thief class.  

If combat were converted to skills, Fighters would be 'skill monkeys' too.  If spells were converted into skills, Wizards would be skill monkeys as well.

I guess I'm just seing the problem, other than some non-Rogue classes don't get enough skills in 3E.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;594161If it's just about the number of skills, I'm not sure why so many people hate the concept so much about Rogues being a 'skill monkey' class.  The whole reason they are the skill monkey class is because all of the abilities a Rogue should be good at ( aka the 'thief abilities' of old school D&D ) were converted into 'skills', so they simply have 'alot of skills' so they can mimic the capabilities of the old school Thief class.

You've summed up my problem with it perfectly. The "skill monkey" Rogue is a class which is capable of being made in to a passable simulacrum of the Thief class. It's also capable of being a million different things.

Personally, I have no interest in there being a "skill monkey" class in D&D, and I do have an interest in there being a Thief. So I'd prefer that the Thief was just there with "Thief skills" being delivered in a class-only way.

Of course, as always with D&D at this point in time, the simplest solution is just to play an edition that already does it the way you want. So I do. From what I've seen in the previews I doubt I'll buy D&D Next, and certainly won't plan to play it.

Quote from: John Morrow;594126Why should Rogue, as skill monkey, be one of the three core classes?  It wasn't even in the 3 original D&D books.  If you really want to break this down to a basic set of classes and figure out each one's niche, why not look at how they map to the core attributes:

Strength - Fighter
Dexterity - Rogue
Constitution - ?
Intelligence - Mage
Wisdom - Cleric
Charisma - ? (Bard?)

A Rogue or Thief is about Dexterity more than lots of skill points.  Why not flesh out the skill list so that all classes could serve a secondary out-of-combat role, be it sneaking around, knowing lore, finding and disarming traps, picking locks, climbing, making and fixing things, carousing, etc. and that makes it all the easier to make it optional, as in a group that doesn't care about that stuff can just leave it out.  Is finding and removing traps through skill rolls really that interesting that it's a critical core part of the D&D experience for people?

Again, as a real world example of what's wrong with making Rogues skill monkeys is that when I played in a D&D 3.5 campaign, I was looking at taking levels of Rogue not because my character had any interest in being quiet, picking locks, or disarming traps but because I wanted to take other skills and it was the only way, other than taking a level or two of the lame "Expert" NPC class, to get skill points to make a well rounded character.

If you read through my posts you will see that I define the whole of the character design space as Skills, Combat and magic. I don't care how D&D used to do it to be honest or what stats they used to use or that thieves came to the game after other classes.
What interests me is what are the core character types in the literature and rogue is a core concept not just of fantasy literature but of myth in general. So if we look at the literature I think there are 3 basic archetypes the warrior , the caster (be they a wizard, priest, or elementalist) and the rogue. I would want a fantasy game to represent that.
Taken with the design space for characters being combat magic and skills it kind of makes sense to match the design space and the archetypes you want to use.
Again I wouldn't allow multiclassing at all. I would allow PCs to buy stuff from other classes for a cost. If you found that you couldn't make a well rounded character then either the system isnlt very good or what you were trying to do was to make a character that was great at combat and you weren't prepared to sacrifice that to make them more rounded. This refers back to the basket weaver thread and how committed are you that your PC is going to be a master weaver :) I suspect its bit of both if skills includes stuff that is incredibly useful and other stuff with niche or colour use only then its hard to not pick the useful stuff for the sake of characterisation sometimes (but lets not dwell on that).
Now this is not he only paradigm to use there are plenty of others and certainly having thief's skills as the only skills in the game is one solution but even in 1e they were not restricted to theives. Monks and assasins got thieves skills lot sof the races could do basic sneak stuff and the barbarian when he came along was snaking, hiding and climbing with aplomb.

I think if the backgrounds idea does take hold such that anything like a skill use is an ability check with level modifiers based on a list extrapolated from a rought background template then I do think the rogue starts to look very marginalised. By this I mean if your fighter and my rogue can both take the background "thief" such that we can both do the same stuff based on a dex save but I get better combat, weapons , Hit points etc I think the rogue does become redundant.

Quote from: Grymbok;594162The "skill monkey" Rogue is a class which is capable of being made in to a passable simulacrum of the Thief class. It's also capable of being a million different things.

But the million other things are simply a bunch of alternate versions of what a bone stock/stereotypical AD&D Thief is no?  Yes Rogues have alot of skills, but they're all 'Thiefy' skills, so you always end up with a 'Thief' in the end, you just have the ability to customise it a bit.  Are you saying you don't like them as skill monkeys because Rogues can get so many skills they can end up with a bunch of skills that are 'non-Roguish'?

And just to note, I have no strong feelings either way about the whole Rogues/skill monkeys thing.  I'm just trying to understand why some feel the Rogue must or must not be a skill monkey.