What is a rogue to you?

[Ahnehnois]

This:

Acrobat
Bandit
Burglar
Chameleon
Charlatan
Cutpurse
Driver
Investigator
Knife Master
Pirate
Poisoner
Rake
Roof Runner
Sanctified Rogue
Scout
Scroll Scoundel
Sniper
Spy
Survivalist
Swashbuckler
Thug
Trapsmith

 

[CM]

Nothing but in 2e and 1e that was their domain (it was the concept) and they were built around that (they were not designed to be super stealth fighters or anything like that). I just prefer them built around the noncombat stuff and having more exclusive access to thief skills (others had lower base percentages at these but were nowhere close to the thief).

What if the DM uses more difficult and dangerous traps, locks, climbing challenges, and more perceptive enemies (and so on), such that only a rogue who has spent the majority of his talents and abilities on skill improvement has a reasonable chance of success? Doesn't that accomplish the same thing without having to build a whole new class (or variant)?

I do think that 3e and 4e turned down the danger dial on traps quite a bit and the rogue lost a bit of its niche in the process.

My ideal rogue for 5e would allow a player to select their own class abilities from a tree of options. Give the player the choice to select combat or non-combat abilities (or a mix of both). Some could look like 4e-style attack or utility powers, others could look like the 3e rogue abilities (evasion, uncanny dodge, defensive roll, slippery mind, etc), still others would be skill specializations.

 

[paladinm]

I think this thread illustrates why there was no Thief class in OD&D. The line between "rogue" and fighter is a fine one. Is a "swashbuckler" a fighter or a "rogue"? There have been plenty of brawny thieves and stealthy fighters. Before the Barbarian "class", Conan was often depicted as both a fighter and a thief, but as a thief first. Were the 3 Musketeers "rogues" or fighters? The line has been even more blurred in 3e/4e, where the classic "thief skills" have been opened to everyone and the "rogue" is mainly known for one thing: backstab/sneak attack.

If we do have a discrete thief/rogue class, I think the old thief skills need to be brought back and maybe enhanced, perhaps with different mechanics (like no percentage dice). And the rogue should Not be consigned to the "striker" role, when rangers, slayers and who-knows-who-else can do it better.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What if the DM uses more difficult and dangerous traps, locks, climbing challenges, and more perceptive enemies (and so on), such that only a rogue who has spent the majority of his talents and abilities on skill improvement has a reasonable chance of success? Doesn't that accomplish the same thing without having to build a whole new class (or variant)?

But then you still end up with the rogue stepping on the fighter's toes and this only works if people put all their resources into simulating the old thief (something other classes in theory can do as well if they spend their skill points correctly). All I know is when I went back to 2E last year after years of 3E and some dissapointment with 4E, the thief worked great for me and I was alot more satisfied with it than the 3e rogue. In fact i was more satisfied in general with the thief skills being class based and NWPs being somewhat limited in scope (not much in the way of social skills for example).

 

[Gargoyle]

For me:

Rogue is to Thief as Fighter is to Barbarian.

I don't see why we can't have both a rogue and thief class. If they plan to put all the classes from all the edition Player's Handbooks into the game, they really should do just that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think how 5E treats the Rogue entirely comes down to how focused they make the 5E Fighter in regards to ability scores.

So long as the Fighter remain a STR-based melee-focused combatant... the Rogue will remain the DEX-based melee-focused equivalent. Just like the Ranger will remain the DEX-based ranged-focused equivalent.

However... should they open the 5E Fighter up and make the class able to choose which types of ability scores & weapons they can be effective with (thereby allowing the DEX-based swashbuckler/duelist or ranged weapon/archer to be Fighters)... then I think we'll see the Rogue/Thief move back away from their combat efficiency to a more moderate place where exploration and interaction become more of the focus (with combat still being passable, but not as high-damage strikerish as they have been in the recent past).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If WoW influenced the development of 3E, the folks at Blizzard are seriously wasting the potential of their time machine.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Hm, I wouldn't mind seeing a split between Rogue and Thief either. That way I could ignore the Rogue entirely and put thieves back in the business of thieving and fighters back in the business of fighting.

Incidentally, to me a Rogue is a 1st level Thief.

 

[Mokona]

My friend always flavored his rogues, in-game, as *hint hint, nudge nudge* archaeologists.

(Oh, and note that AD&D 2nd Edition says, "The character classes are divided into four groups according to general occupation: warrior, wizard, priest, and rogue." So rogue was introduced in 2e and included both the thief class and the bard class.)

 

[kitsune9]

I like rogues versatile. A rogue may be a pickpocket, an assassin, a swashbuckler or a scout.

The only thing most rogues have in common is their sneakiness.

This is my view. If I play a retro-clone and they call the rogue a thief, I'll adopt the traditionalist viewpoint, but right now, I'm in the versatility opinion.