Are rogues marginalized by magic?

[StreamOfTheSky]

Stream of Sky - so your solution to the problem is for the rogue to be more like a wizard? And that's protecting the rogue's niche?

No, my "solution" is to first acknowledge that D&D is a high magic, high fantasy setting, where people light up like christmas trees under detect magic, and not waste any time complaining about it. Instead, recognize that almost all classes are tied to these ever prevalent items and find solace in the fact that Rogues' skill list, SA dice, and player ingenuity* makes them very well equipped to put those existing conditions to their advantage, better than most other classes. Every single one of FranktheDM's examples does a great job of illustrating that, albeit inadvertently.

Summary: Magic isn't the enemy, it's just another tool to get the job done.


*[sblock]Just my experience, but rogue players fall into two types: novices and pros. The former are the ones you always hear about in threads, the dumb rogues that get killed by a trap cause they were behaving stupidly and not thinking in the "Rogue mindset." They tend to get killed off and the players pick a new class and move on. The latter category are the ones that actually matter, and (again IME) the more prevalent grouping. Being a Rogue, much like a Bard without the benefit of at least being able to mindlessly give the group +1's when in doubt, you're kinda middle of the road. Can't fight that great, can only use scrolls of several CL lower than what the mage can cast, etc... But you can cover a lot of ground. Thus the class tends to attract creative and tactical thinkers. Then there's the fact that whether they're in the enemy camp bluffing their a@@ off to gain some trust, nervously disarming a trap that poses great danger if it goes off, or presenting (self-) forged identification papers while in disguise to the king's guard under threat of execution if discovered, the class really forces you to be careful and paranoid, and think hard to resolve situations, often independent of the rest of the party's backup. The whole need to set up advantageous situations in order to get your good combat damage further enforces this. Because of all of these reasons, I've come to expect that the Rogue player will come up with many creative uses for the prevalent magic, moreso than perhaps anyone but the Wizard, strictly from the player's skill, not the character's. Of course, i consider myself a Rogue-archetype player, so I'm also just tooting my own horn. Maybe other people have different experiences, but I find this to be true of good rogue players, and that it's important to keep in mind when discussing anything about the class.[/sblock]

 

[Ahglock]

Shouldn't the rogue have enough niche protection that the wizard flat out cannot do this?

That is a good question, though it seems to be phrased more as a negative statement.

Does the rogue or heck any class deserve niche protection, and how much?

If niche protection is to high, then you are put in the situation where the party needs a rogue, they need a cleric, they need a wizard, they need a fighter, all the psuedo classes need not apply.

What if no one wants to play a rogue? The entire roguish skill set is supposed to be protected so tough luck on sneaking around, getting past doors, and opening chests.

I think a niche should be protected in the sense that a class is the best at there niche, and outside lame charged magic item rules I think 3e pretty much does that.

Other classes should be able to fullfill that role to a decent degree enough so that a partys bases are covered, they just wont excell in that department. And really if a wizard tried to sub for a rogue in a party he'd get at the role, but that is all.

I'd say the big problem of 3e was not that the wizard could fullfill multiple roles though not as well as the primary class, but that the rest of the classes could not do the same. Most of the spellcasting classes could, the rogue could with UMD, fighter, barabarian not really, monk, ranger, paladin a smidge.

 

[racoffin]

Ah good, Stoat and Stream of the Sky put things into words that I was thinking and trying to say.

As far as my previous comments:

1. Yes, talk to the other player. I'm not sure why this is considered a problem unless the players around the table are at odds for some reason. I'm not sure how everyone else plays, but when I play (or when I watch my players) they usually chat a bit before the game and work out who wants what role. If someone were to chime in with, "I want to be a mage but use my magic to be better than the rogue at everything! Eat that!", than the player of the rogue might either rethink their choice or invite the other player into another room for a quiet conversation with a bat.

2. As far as improvise/adapt/overcome, I recommend this for every single class, not just the rogue. There are many situations when you may be out of your element (anti-magic area, without weapons, social situations, foes you cant backstab, etc etc). If the only thing you can do is hack things with an axe, you may be bored during social play. If all you want to do is backstab, you may be in hot water when facing foes immune to that tactic. Learn to do other things. Sometimes you have to fight for your time in the spotlight. Not every DM runs things the same way, and some won't take special pains to make sure the spotlight falls on you. By taking the initiative, you can often surprise your fellow players and the DM with ingenious manuevers that go beyond "I backstab it." "I blast it." "I waste it with my crossbow." YMMV.

In conclusion, I agree that magic is very powerful and varied. Sure, the mage can steal the rogue's gimmick. Heck, he could get a wild hair and decide to be the bestest archer, or a super fighter, or whatever. The solutions vary, from trying to find a happy medium with the player to finding a path that the super mage doesn't want.

 

[sukael]

Spells can make a rogue's abilities obsolete, but at least they run out, or require the spellcaster to fill up spell slots with Knock instead of an attack spell. Its gear that creates the problem- a 50 charge Wand of Knock can last most parties a very, very long time, and isn't all that expensive. And Slippers of Spider Climb grant 10 minutes of climbing every day.

And that's not even getting into the ways that advanced magical tricks like flight and teleportation rain on the parade of classes based on mundane maneuverability.

You outlined the sort of view I have very eloquently, thanks.

 

[wally]

Wally - the problem is, why is the wizard allowed to do this in the first place? Shouldn't the rogue have enough niche protection that the wizard flat out cannot do this?

I think Ahglock pretty much covered most of it. The idea is that there can be crossover if needed, and if you are in a party without a rogue, you can cover areas of needed expertise. The problem is that most say a wizard or sorcerer will always do so after a certain level, and I think the only way they really see it doing so is with assistance of magic items, but with magic items, anyone can really cover any other class if done right. I don't think it is too good of an excuse.

At their core, if you have a spellcaster that is concentrating on taking spells that allow them to pretty much cover another class, then they will end up lacking in their own. That is unless the game is run to allow for it to happen. (ie. the party rests after every few hours to allow spellcasters to get back all their blown spells, the party sits around for weeks allowing spellcasters to make whatever magic items they want, etc.)

 

[Voadam]

I'm in the "somewhat agree" column - I've seen rogues get marginalized in all but ONE area - Stealth . . .

. . . Find traps? Cleric's got either a wand or scroll of that which he made, and it's still got a few dozen charges left, because what DM puts a trap every 10 feet of corridor any more? . . .

You've actually seen this in a 3e game? At 20th level a cleric using this spell is generally still only going to have a +10 or so search check. And with a scroll or wand it is generally going to be caster level 3 or 4 so only +1 or +2.

I can't imagine a party relying upon a normal cleric using this or it working if they did. Maybe a rogue with a good UMD would get some use out of such a scroll or wand. Or a cleric taking a feat to put search as a class skill.

 

[Voadam]

I think a niche should be protected in the sense that a class is the best at there niche, and outside lame charged magic item rules I think 3e pretty much does that.

Other classes should be able to fullfill that role to a decent degree enough so that a partys bases are covered, they just wont excell in that department. And really if a wizard tried to sub for a rogue in a party he'd get at the role, but that is all.

I'd say the big problem of 3e was not that the wizard could fullfill multiple roles though not as well as the primary class, but that the rest of the classes could not do the same. Most of the spellcasting classes could, the rogue could with UMD, fighter, barabarian not really, monk, ranger, paladin a smidge.

A barbarian or fighter can both climb and use axes on locks. They have high hp and good fort saves to suck up many trap effects. They can intimidate for social situations. They can do physical combat. They can use general use magic items. A barbarian has survival and listen skills to handle wilderness stuff and alert perceptions. A fighter can afford to spend feats to develop a bit of secondary role competency.

Its not much but it is a little bit of mechanical role expansion open to the classes.