What makes the "rogue/thief" archetype different from fighters, aside from being DYEL, sneak attacks, and picking locks? Is that really it?
I'm a big fan of the fighter/mage/thief triad but it seems like the latter lacks a lot of defining characteristics. Maybe I'm not creative, what does this archetype have/need to really differentiate itself? Please don't say fricking critical hits.
They have the broadest range of skills
That's super lame, and anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that wizards can skill harder than rogues.
Good point, but if your DM doesn't do traps, then it's a wasted ability.
Everyone *should* be sneaking, provided your DM isn't shit. The whole point of the "fantasy heist" isn't to clear out the dungeon, it's to get the treasure and get back to town to spend it on hoes and bling.
Druids/Clerics/Bitches who buy crystals/Psychics are all just mages. Druid and Cleric being top-tier in certain editions is a side effect of shitting writing and balancing.
no wizards dedicated their life to whitecolar work, rogues dedicated theirs to bluecollar. you are not going to expect an English teacher to know more about engines then a mechanic probably.
>That's super lame, and anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that wizards can skill harder than rogues.
No unless the DM is a literal moron.
But it's an old meme that ruined plenty of games.
D&d classes are based on whatever media some random Midwesterners liked in the 70s, there is no "reason" behind it
Woah what a major moronic homosexual you are.
Fighters do combat good, Rogues do the skill system good, and Wizards can use magic. That’s the split in theory but whether or not that’s how it is in reality depends or if the niches are even worth separating in that way depends on the system
In earlier editions Thief was the only one that could effectively deal with traps.
This
What you call "effective", extreme hardcore OSRgays might call "unrealistically". The thief class was the beginning of "I want to [do thing]" "okay, how?" "by rolling for it"
OSRgays are also morons. The thief class is the logical endpoint of the "combat is a failure state" OSR mentality, a character archetype that succeeds through avoiding combat.
wrong because combat is not a failure state, rolling is a failure state and thieves still roll
>Level 1 Thief is literally worse at finding traps than any other class
Well in theory it's supposed to be the guy that sneaks rather than does damage.
But ofcourse how the games are designed EVERYBODY has to do damage. So they're just combatants with some side abilities.
>What makes the "druid" archetype different from wizards, aside from being brainlets, turning into animals, and not having spellboikss? Is that really it?
>I'm a big fan of the arcane/divine/nature triad but it seems like the latter lacks a lot of defining characteristics. MAYBE I'm not creative, what does this archetype have/need to really differentiate itself? Please don't say fricking wild shape.
How many of these dorks are would you actually consider to be "rogues" vs flavors of fighters?
>all-warlock party
Same patron or different patrons?
Each demon is a different patron
you underestimate the moronation I have seen at biweekly D&D night
Pretty much only Morgana and Joker. Everyone else is some flavor of bard, monk, barbarian, fighter or hackerman.
Fighter deals with martial problems. Enemies, tactical impasses, etc.
Thief deals with technical problems. Vault doors, difficult climbs, fiendish puzzles.
Mage deals with mystical problems, and the impossible. Like bringing the magical tool take makes a complete roadblock into something one of the other two can possibly do (magic sword to fight ghosts, etc).
Sure, in theory. Works well enough in narratives. In reality, fighters can do the thief shit, mages can do the thief shit.
Mage can do the fighter shit too
In reality there's no such thing as any of them.
In the application of RPGs it depends on the system and the situation whether given classes can cover each others' niches.
Any archetypal generalisation like a triad of classes will be a loose interpretation of reality. Don't expect too much.
brainlet
>What makes the "rogue/thief" archetype different from fighters
They can't work with paladins at all, risking instant execution the moment the paladin realizes he's in the same party as a feckless chaosgay
I've thought on this some in the ad&d system. I think the rogue is specifically made to do stuff that MUST be done in 1 turn or else it fricks up.
>Deliver deadly poison
>Deliver arrow of slaying
>Obstacles that may collapse/lose stability if check fails
>Get past a group of pre-buffed enemies for whatever reason
>Maybe the macguffin commits suicide when they see you coming?
These opportunities are hard to telegraph & I doubt most DM's give enough of a frick to apply the effort in playing it out
The concept is tortured by the moronic logic that it has to exist in:
The Fighter wears a full suit of armor and can't sneak around
The Wizard wears no armor and has to use their spells
The rogue wears medium armor and can sneak about.
If you stay in the realm of going room to room to fight X encounters a day instead of trying to twist, cut, and turn a dungeon crawl combat simulator into a narrative system, the logic works.
skills for fricking traps, sneaking about and picking locks do not belong to a class. They should be general skills selectable by the only 2 classes that should exist - fighting man and magic man.
That's what I've been saying
All of these are things that the other archetypes could do
this post has a lot of "I watch alpha male youtube unironically" energy
>hurrrrr the fighter could just cast spells durrrrr
How so? It doesn't really fit the aesthetic or theme of a fighter unless you broaden the category to a comical degree.
Poor guy. Gets called a woman and a broscience guy for the same post
I think the rogue is meant to be an assassin of sorts and for when you need a specific thing done well. Need a lock picked but it's rigged with a bomb that goes off if you frick up? Rogue. Corrupt lord assassinated? Rogue. Package delivered through hostile territory? Rogue.
I'd say that this makes the classic RPG party of fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue have the roles of melee fighter/healer/spellcaster/utility.
the fighter is the true honest normal man, he works for his succes
the mage is the schizophrenic
the thief is chad impersonated, takes what he wants without you noticing, every billonaire or high ranking politician in history is a rogue
Never really understood why you'd play a fighter over the other two. You discard all kinds of tricks and abilities that allow you to have at least a modicum of control over your circumstances for the sake of slightly higher numbers?
female hands typed this
Critical hits
the thief is Jason, Aladdin, Odysseus etc
the fighter is Achiles, Spartacus, Ajax etc
The Rogue lacks the Fighters skill at arm's and the barbarians raw innate strength and thus have to compensate with raw cunning and ammorality to get ahead.
Just as the wizard lacks the cleric and druids mastery over the natural and supernatural or the sorcerors raw potential, so resort to their raw cunning and ammorality to get ahead
>lacks skill with weapons
>but is also so skilled with weapons that they can use them to great effect when attacking unseen
yes? a competition sharpshooter is not going to be the greatest marksman in a firefight
A surgeon probably has a hundred surefire ways to frick up an unresisting victim beyond repair in an instant due to a steady hand and extreme anatomy knowledge, but I wouldn’t bet on him against the average fatass HEMA fedoralord.
>Stabbing unknowing targets in the back
>Skilled
>Ammo-rality
The real magic is more dakka.
Reminder that Gary Switzer (not Gygax nor Metzner) created the thief class in 1974 as a dumping ground for the things that players wanted to do that were not already covered by the Fighting Man or Priest or Wizard
It works for Bilbo/gray mouser-type characters at the time, but roles have gotten so muddled and nowadays there's just too much overlap
I memba her, but I forgot the name. Flexible thing.
You may as well just be asking why anything other than mages exist with your logic. Mages can sneak, pick locks, and all that shit as well as wear armor and hit things with weapons.
They can only do it 2-4 times a day.
how many locks a day do you tend to pick?
More than the wizards are willing to dedicate spell slots to it.
No? Mages are shit because they're too inflexible. Fighters are shit for the same reason. There's no room for them in a properly difficult dungeon, they'll just die instantly.
so how many is that?
If this is a euphemism, generally a couple times a week if the gf is amenable
low test posts are just obvious
>he picks the same lock over and over over the course of a week
this is your brain on being a fighter
how's the single life?
apparently abundant in locks
cope more
>"how many locks does [ordinary human being] pick" is somehow relevant to a game about exceptional characters doing exceptional things
How many locks do you tend to pick a day when playing, you stupid Black person. Are you incapable of following a conversation? Are you actually fricking moronic?
So mages are better at focusing on magic rather than wearing heavy armor and smacking things with pointy sticks?
Kind of like how warriors are better at focusing on armor and weapons?
And rogues are better at focusing on stealth and guile?
It's almost as if magic being able to do absolutely everything in a game is a fricking problem.
rouges are assassin type characters, they see high value targets in the back and can usually reach them with their enhanced mobility
Split combat exp and utility exp and level up both independently so you can be a sneaky spellcaster or a fighter who can talk with plants and animals.
>the combat chars and the skill chars constantly at odds trying to get themselves into combat ‘ avoid combat so they can get THEIR xp that they need for THEIR concept char
great idea
Why would some chars have a higher combat or skill level than the others? The whole party may become lopsided, but that just means you need to give them challenges that test their weak side.
because the guy who wants to fight has the sole incentive to get into fights so he can get better at fighting so he can fight more, whereas the guy who wants to be the clever guy wants to use non-combat skills to circumvent combat so he can get better at being clever and using his skills to do things and neither is served by the opposite approach
the reason people play fighters is specifically to fight and not have skills
I think most players are more flexible than that. If you have players that just want to fight and players that really don't want to, they probably don't belong at the same table.
why wouldn’t they belong at the same table?
the issue only arises if you start rewarding characters selectively based on what approach they pick when the approaches, as here, are mutually exclusive
it’s an awful idea and I dare you to run a game like that and see how long it lasts
You aren't crossing a broken bridge with just combat skills, and while it's theoretically possible to stop an orc invasion without any fighting, it's more likely you're going to get your hands dirty. While some players may want to lean on their character's strong side, I and I presume most players would prefer to have more well rounded characters.
bro, you’re just armchair theorycrafting, run it
I have may actually be able to soon.
make a thread and report back
seems counterproductive to me, but I’d be interested regardless
And if they can win just by fighting, what's the point in relying on non-combat skills in the first place? Clearly the game is so easy there's barely any reason to play.
A fighter is a combatant that wants and actively seeks out direct conflict, a rogue is a pragmatist.
I get where you are coming from, fighter and rogue are two of the more versatile roles and there can be a lot of crossover, you can be a sneaky agile fighter or a confrontational thuggish rogue.
Still I feel like there is enough difference to justify having them as different archetypes. In non-D&D systems I generally know what people are going for when they say they want to be more of a fighter or more roguish.