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.