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?