5e rogue importance?

[Bacon Bits]

Assuming that we will play an adventure involves much dungeon crawling (say, White Plume mountain) using 5e rules, how much important to have a pure-rogue?

Should we have at least one dedicated dexterity-based-rogue?

Or some other class with a level dip of rogue (for proficiency to Thieve's Tools and Expertise class feature) is enough?

How about a character of completely different class (say, a Barbarian) who is just proficient in Perception skill and Thieve's Tools (from background)?

You can get Thieves' Tools proficiency with a background pretty easily. That's good enough on a Dex-based character Even then, however, you don't really *need* the ability unless your DM is particularly fond of traps and locks. If the DM is following the DMG guidelines, traps and locks will be easy enough to survive or bypass through other means. Doing so will be more costly, sure, but it's not mandatory.

For Perception I would say that the party benefits from having multiple characters proficient.

DCs only realistically go up to 30.

I would say that DCs realistically only go up to 25. I think I've seen DCs higher than even 20 about a dozen times, and that's usually stuff like lifting a portcullis (which multiple characters can participate in) or saving throws of demon princes and the like. I don't ever recall seeing anything over DC 25.

Locks are so easy...

Locks aren't intended to be hard. It's D&D, not a video game. The world isn't made from indestructible polygons. You can bypass a lock pretty easily in most cases. The difficulty is doing so quickly and quietly.

 

[Henry]

A Rogue is not indispensable, as noted above — but they are invaluable if you have one, for all the reasons above. They wrap together stealth recon, trap and lock utility, and very respectable damage-dealing all in one package, and for that reason they contribute strongly to the goal of a well-rounded party.

 

[Ancalagon]

They are a very solid class too - the 2nd ed thief was a bit underpowered, it's not the case in 5e anymore. The "oh no, I have to be the thief/rogue" shouldn't be a thing anymore.

Of course, if no one want to play one, it can be solved... the game I GM for example has a warlock with the spy background that is the sort of rogue for the party.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

Locks aren't intended to be hard. It's D&D, not a video game.

It never was, but locks were not always easy, nor do I suspect, were they intended to be. Not that Gary Gygax or Dave Arneson are around to ask, but I played 1e, 2e and Basic, and locks were a significant challenge (Rogues had a very low chance to pick locks at all but high level, and nobody else could at all) and I see no evidence that they weren't intended to be so. Breaking locks usually had severe consequences, like poison gas that would kill any party member that didn't make a poison save, etc.

 

[KenNYC]

This is a subject that I have tried to address with my group: the need for rogues. I realize everyone can do everything in 5e but the price for that is nobody is unique or has mood. There is no atmosphere to be had anymore because every class has been reduced to just different recipes of dice thrown in combat. So, I am DMing Caverns of Thracia now in a 5e/1e hybrid (they play 5e and I try to run it as 1e as much as possible without them knowing) and it makes me sad nobody is a rogue but we have a monk, barbarian, and a warlock. I even tried to say the rogue gets an extra plus 1 on initiative when alone or alone with another rogue to see if I could encorage scouting ahead and skulking around in shadows. To give it extra flavor I said the sneak attack has to be a literal back stab so they just didn't play the character as just a different type of fighter. I thought if we had someone getting into the character a little we could eventually get some flavor going, not just combat crazy playing. Just DMing kill-crazy optionized murder machines is boring.




This is my favorite D&D artwork of all time, and it just is sad it is lost.

The player playing the Wizard I took aside and asked if he would at least try playing with material components. It's not that I want it to be difficult but how is it I know Misty Steps needs Sulfur and Fallow and he doesn't? It's because the classes are being forgotten and all people seem to worry about is how many dice of damage you get and what modifier.

Anyway, long live the rogue and the thieves guild and hopefully fun urban campaigns filled with intrigue that silly Bards wouldn't fit in.

 

[Bacon Bits]

It never was, but locks were not always easy, nor do I suspect, were they intended to be. Not that Gary Gygax or Dave Arneson are around to ask, but I played 1e, 2e and Basic, and locks were a significant challenge (Rogues had a very low chance to pick locks at all but high level, and nobody else could at all) and I see no evidence that they weren't intended to be so. Breaking locks usually had severe consequences, like poison gas that would kill any party member that didn't make a poison save, etc.

That's really completely irrelevant, though. My answer, like this entire thread and this entire section of the boards, are framed in the context of 5e. 5e D&D doesn't use traps as instant death gotchas like AD&D did to punish the players for not imagining the game world in exactly the same level of detail as the DM or module author. OP asked the question precisely because the game used to "challenge" (i.e., abuse) players this way, but it has not done so in nearly 20 years. If you're following the guidelines in the DMG, traps are not particularly deadly, locks are not particularly difficult to bypass, and adventures are not written to kill players at the drop of a hat. You do not need a character with Thieves' Tools proficiency in 5e. You didn't need the equivalent in 4e, either. 3e varied quite a bit depending on the module, but I'd still say that Open Locks and Disable Device skills were nowhere near as mandatory as they were in previous editions. It's beneficial, sure, and certain adventures are significantly more trap or lock heavy, but the game no longer treats traps and locks like defusing a time bomb and they're essentially never the only means to acquire a given reward. Rather than assuming the party will always have a Fighter, Cleric, Thief, and Wizard, the adventures and game itself don't make those sort of judgments about what players want to play.

Bottom line is that without any knowledge of the DM, it's safe to assume that having a dungeon skill monkey is now a "nice to have" rather than a "must have or else you will die," much like any other traditional party role.