Are rogues marginalized by magic?

[Remathilis]

Although any rogue worth his salt has magic items on him right? So detect magic is just as effective against him. Once he's detected a simple Glitterdust renders him visible, then it's a simple hold person spell against his weak will save and that's the end of that problem. Or Disintegrate him and use mage hand to clean up the dust left behind .

Don't remind me.

Remathilis "Last time I steal from an archmage" Ooi.

 

[Psion]

You seem to hate it and take it awfully personally when someone ascribes a general message board comment and thinks they understand your game - maybe you shouldn't do it to others?

EDIT: Let me put it this way: You profess a problem with rogues being overshadowed by mages in your games; I do not share this experience. There is a reason for this. We can only quantify this difference by what is expressed here.

You told me a philosophy you hold with respect to how easy it should be to counter skills and magic (one not implicit in the RAW), and I made what I think is a reasonable connection between your philosophy and your experience with rogues and mages.

If there is something I am missing here, please feel free to point it out.

My game works better because I understand there are problems. If someone really wants to make a rogue I make sure they have important and useful things to do - both in the party and individually. But the fact that I have to take any special measures at all is a flaw not a feature - for example most published modules/adventures don't.

In contrast, I haven't had to take any great pains to give rogues things to do. And indeed, published modules I have run (given their higher-than-my-norm "dungeon crawly" nature) haven't been particularly tasking in this way, either.

 

[Mort]

Show me where these are in the book? I think you'll have a good bit of trouble. Things that are in the book are standard. Things like dispel magic, detect magic, anti-magic shell.

Locks are in the book. Rules for how terrain affects hide and move silently are also in the book - and using the terrain is common sense. Cost of help is also in the book, and again common sense from there.

And as AllisterH pointed out magic counters magic but it also counters skills - so it's win/win for magic.

You know I just looked up arcane lock - level 2 permanent duration. Caster only has to cast it once - it won't wear off unless the door is broken. (him opening it does not stop the spell).

Explicitly says that the only way to get in is Knock or to break down the door (which it makes harder by 10). 100% rogue screwage-means the rogue cannot pick a locked door against anyone who can afford a lvl 3 or better wizard.

 

[apoptosis]

As an aside, it should be noted that ORIGINALLY, the game was fighting man, magic user and cleric.

Thieves were added AFTER the spell system had been created.

Thieves can be the odd man out. They were more useful in 1E because of such limited spell slots and that the overall levels of PCs in theory were much lower. A knock spell means a lot more when a 7th level M-U is considered mid to high levels and has such limited numbers of 2nd level spells.

 

[Psion]

Locks are in the book. Rules for how terrain affects hide and move silently are also in the book - and using the terrain is common sense. Cost of help is also in the book, and again common sense from there.

Context. The statement you are responding to is for things like unclimbable walls and un-diplomaciable guards. You made these up.

Locks are in the book. Rogues can pick them.

And as AllisterH pointed out magic counters magic but it also counters skills - so it's win/win for magic.

Allister missed my point. There are blanket anti-magic measures like anti-magic shells and dispel magic. There is no "anti-skill shell" or "dispel skill". And while there were once rogue-screwers like lock-lurkers and ear-seekers, in retrospect these were bad ideas. But creatures that dampen, feed off of, or are immune to magic are still legion.

You know I just looked up arcane lock - level 2 permanent duration. Caster only has to cast it once - it won't wear off unless the door is broken. (him opening it does not stop the spell).

That is hosed. Again, especially considering how narrow open locks is. Either that spell or the skill needs house ruled, as mentioned in the referring thread.

 

[Remathilis]

Depends the system.
3.5 probably yes since wands of X which can trump most skills are so easy to obtain.
Earlier versions where spell slots are a lot more sacred and I would say no. That in individual instances yes but over the course of a story, no.

Fuzzy nostalgia there. While spells slot were more limited, spell effects were far more potent. Some stuff from the 2nd edition books...

* Spider Climb was first level.
* Invisibility had a duration of 24 hours or until you attacked, whichever came first. That's a lot of scouting if you never attack!
* Knock was just as potent, and was the only way to disarm magical doors (wizard lock)
* Fly had a duration measured in turns (10 min per turn) at a movement of 18 (3x walking) and maneuverability class B.
* A Cloak of elvenkind typically granted an hide-in-shadows effect equal to 50% (unfavorable conditions like sunlight) to 95% (favorable, like night) effectiveness.
* Ditto with boots of elf-kind (95%-100% chance of success at move silently!)
* Clerics got in on the act too: silence 15' radius was fool proof soundless scouting for an entire squadron. Its durations 2 rds/level was no slouch at higher levels. (remember 1 rd = 1 minute)
* Worse still: Find Traps. For the cost of 1 2nd level spell slot, you got 30 minutes of "find every trap in sight, no chance of failure". Eat that rogue.
* Oh, and comprehend languages never failed to read a language. Unless you were pressed for time...

Remember, these were the days thieves were defined by 8 categories: pick pockets, find/remove traps, open locks, hide in shadows, move silently, climb walls, hear noise, and Read Languages. Spellcasting (even low level) nullified the percentile chance (and the 5% margin of failure, not matter what your score was) of failure on six of those eight skills (open locks < knock, find trap < find traps, invisibility > hide in shadows, silence > move silently, comp lanaguages > read languages, spider climb/levitate/fly > climb walls)

Well, the thief still had near noise and pick pockets. Least they had sole dominion over... whadda mean bards get those two thief skills AND can cast any wizard spell in the game? ORC SNOT!

At least 3e TRIED to make amends; elven fashion grants bonuses not replacement powers, fly et all are weaker, invisibility is measure in rounds, not days, and find traps grants a small bonus to a clerics not-class skill.

Closer, but still not enough.

 

[Crothian]

In my games magic never replaced the rogue. Sure, it can do what a rogue does but a rogue does it better with less resources spent.

 

[apoptosis]

Fuzzy nostalgia there. While spells slot were more limited, spell effects were far more potent. Some stuff from the 2nd edition books...

* Spider Climb was first level.
* Invisibility had a duration of 24 hours or until you attacked, whichever came first. That's a lot of scouting if you never attack!
* Knock was just as potent, and was the only way to disarm magical doors (wizard lock)
* Fly had a duration measured in turns (10 min per turn) at a movement of 18 (3x walking) and maneuverability class B.
* A Cloak of elvenkind typically granted an hide-in-shadows effect equal to 50% (unfavorable conditions like sunlight) to 95% (favorable, like night) effectiveness.
* Ditto with boots of elf-kind (95%-100% chance of success at move silently!)
* Clerics got in on the act too: silence 15' radius was fool proof soundless scouting for an entire squadron. Its durations 2 rds/level was no slouch at higher levels. (remember 1 rd = 1 minute)
* Worse still: Find Traps. For the cost of 1 2nd level spell slot, you got 30 minutes of "find every trap in sight, no chance of failure". Eat that rogue.
* Oh, and comprehend languages never failed to read a language. Unless you were pressed for time...

Remember, these were the days thieves were defined by 8 categories: pick pockets, find/remove traps, open locks, hide in shadows, move silently, climb walls, hear noise, and Read Languages. Spellcasting (even low level) nullified the percentile chance (and the 5% margin of failure, not matter what your score was) of failure on six of those eight skills (open locks < knock, find trap < find traps, invisibility > hide in shadows, silence > move silently, comp lanaguages > read languages, spider climb/levitate/fly > climb walls)

Well, the thief still had near noise and pick pockets. Least they had sole dominion over... whadda mean bards get those two thief skills AND can cast any wizard spell in the game? ORC SNOT!

At least 3e TRIED to make amends; elven fashion grants bonuses not replacement powers, fly et all are weaker, invisibility is measure in rounds, not days, and find traps grants a small bonus to a clerics not-class skill.

Closer, but still not enough.

Not nostalgia, fuzzy or otherwise

Though nothing against nostalgia, as I have plenty of it for the older editions. Frankly nostalgia is the strongest reason for me to play D&D as there are mechanically superior games to D&D out there for my tastes. On the other hand, nostalgia is powerful and a worthy reason for me to play. Anything that makes me feel like i am 15 again is pretty good with me.

But i prefer the older models of fewer slots and more potent magics.

While magic could trump most mundane activities, character levels were generally significantly lower and a 'powerful' magic-user of 7th level only had 4 3 2 1 slots available. This makes taking some of those utility spells much more costly.

I know this could be thrown out of wack in any group (say the DM gives them 30 knock scrolls or whatever). This was not really an issue for my groups during play, though i am sure other experiences might differ.

 

[Khairn]

Based on personal experinced, our rogue's abilities were marginalized by magic (wizard) about as often as our wizard was marginalized by the rogues ability to use magical devices.

The opportunity to be marginalized is there but it takes deliberate effort from both the wizard and the rogue for it to happen enough to be considered a problem.

On the other hand, magic items can marginalize every class. But that shouldn't become a problem if the GM is managing the game properly.

 

[stonegod]

In my games magic never replaced the rogue. Sure, it can do what a rogue does but a rogue does it better with less resources spent.

This. Sure, a wizard *could* do all those things, but then I'm not summoning the powers of the Abyss while meteor-swarming the battlefield from my flying-point vantage. It didn't take effort on my part to avoid being the rogue---I had better things to do than be the rogue.

If the wizard *wants* to be the rogue, sure they can be. There's even some nice PrC for synergy. Wizards can be pretty much whatever they want at the high levels.