D&D 5E What should Rogues do?

Manbearcat · Oct 6, 2012

Stuff that makes them versatile enough to capture the archetype of McGuyver, Sherlock Holmes, the Dread Pirate Roberts, Han Solo, Bilbo Baggins, Jesse James, James Bond, Zorro, Face, Carlos Hathcock (credited as the most skilled, and one of the most accomplished, USMC sniper of all time).

So then:

Thieves
Sneaks
Scoundrels
Master Technicians
Master Logicians
Spies
Swashbucklers
Silvertongues
The Schemers/leaders of bandits/thugs
Assassins

It would be nice if Rogues had a baseline competency in more than two of these roles (and the skill-sets that they incorporate) and the ability to either diversify their competency as they level or to specialize. I see the rogue as the Jack of All Trades/Renaissance Man as much, or more, than the Bard (whereas the Bard has lore and music, the Rogue has other skill-sets and then they overlap in several areas)

They appear to be going the Scheme route. Having the above roles as Schemes and then accruing further Schemes and/or specializing would likely be a Rogue build setup that pleases my friend who plays these archetypes.

Tony Vargas · Oct 6, 2012

Remathilis said:
:facepalm:

While we're at it, lets merge the cleric (who is a boring healbot anyway) with the wizard and only need two classes! Won't that be fun!

Hardly. The cleric and wizard - most casters, really - are perfectly capable and 'complete' classes, able to handle a breadth of adventuring challenges both in and out of combat.

GreyICE · Oct 6, 2012

Remathilis said:
I want to agree, but combat's too vital to D&D to have a class sit there twiddling its thumbs. I'd like to see rogues have a few additional options to replace backstab; acrobatic/swashbuckler dueling, avoidance/cowardly/get-me-outta-here maneuvers, decent dual-wielding, archery, etc. Rogues shouldn't be strikers per se, but they need something to do while the fighter slashes, the cleric heals, and the wizard nukes from orbit.

Well they're either Strikers, Defenders, Leaders, Controllers, or worthless.

Defender and Leader make zero sense, so I guess it's either they do horrific stacking debuffs with poisons and shut down enemies or deal lots of damage, or they're worthless.

Tony Vargas · Oct 6, 2012

GreyICE said:
Well they're either Strikers, Defenders, Leaders, Controllers, or worthless.

Defender and Leader make zero sense, so I guess it's either they do horrific stacking debuffs with poisons and shut down enemies or deal lots of damage, or they're worthless.

There are no roles in 5e design. Roles make it easy to design contributing classes, and all too easy to judge if such design has been successful (as your post illustrates). Since 5e wants to return to the feel of classic D&D, and classes that would be judged 'worthless' under the role paradigm are part of that feel...

Unfortunately, the fighter and rogue are both pretty easy to find wanting under the 'Three Pillars' paradigm, as well...

Steely_Dan · Oct 6, 2012

Crazy Jerome said:
What is a backstab?

Stabbing something in the back.

GreyICE · Oct 6, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
There are no roles in 5e design. Roles make it easy to design contributing classes, and all too easy to judge if such design has been successful (as your post illustrates). Since 5e wants to return to the feel of classic D&D, and classes that would be judged 'worthless' under the role paradigm are part of that feel...

Unfortunately, the fighter and rogue are both pretty easy to find wanting under the 'Three Pillars' paradigm, as well...

Roles have been in D&D since the very first edition. They're not about to leave any time soon.

I mean look at the original big 4. You had the Fighter (Striker) the Wizard (controller) the Cleric (leader) and the Rogue (Striker).

3E had a few classes that blurred the line. Clerics were Striker/Leader/Controllers, Druids were Striker/Leader/Controller/Defenders. While Paladins and Monks were kind of Half-strikers. This... this didn't turn out to be very good design. Most of the classes that didn't cause problems had clear roles and could fill them successfully.

Steely_Dan · Oct 6, 2012

GreyICE said:
Roles have been in D&D since the very first edition. They're not about to leave any time soon.

I mean look at the original big 4. You had the Fighter (Striker) the Wizard (controller) the Cleric (leader) and the Rogue (Striker).

3E had a few classes that blurred the line. Clerics were Striker/Leader/Controllers, Druids were Striker/Leader/Controller/Defenders. While Paladins and Monks were kind of Half-strikers. This... this didn't turn out to be very good design. Most of the classes that didn't cause problems had clear roles and could fill them successfully.

I hope classes are not pigeonholed into "Roles" in 5th Ed.

Blackwarder · Oct 6, 2012

I'm not a big fan of the rogue being defined by his combat roll, I'm fine with classes like the fighter, paladin, ranger being the guys who are excellent combat classes, I would like the rogue to be the guy who define out of combat and out of the box playing.

Warder

Neonchameleon · Oct 6, 2012

GreyICE said:
I mean look at the original big 4. You had the Fighter (Striker) the Wizard (controller) the Cleric (leader) and the Rogue (Striker).

The 1e rogue wasn't a striker. He was utility. He actually was worse at hitting people than the cleric.

Steely_Dan said:
I hope classes are not pigeonholed into "Roles" in 5th Ed.

What do you have against clear and consistent design goals? Not having them is how we ended up with the messes that were the 3e monk and CoDzilla.

Li Shenron · Oct 6, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
Much as I'd absolutely love to agree with you, combat is too central to D&D (and from the playtests takes too long) for this to work. If you put a non-combatant who tries to stay out of fights as much as possible alongside a class literally called "fighter" then you automatically have party tension and someone is really not going to get what they want.

Combat is as central as we want it to be

I am going to overreact a bit now, so don't take this too seriously -> If someone wants combat to be so central to D&D that we must twist each class identity to make them all equally effective in combat to a "fighter", then why not rather removing the Rogue from D&D, and the Bard too?