Are Rogues Useless?

[mearls]

You've never fought a 6th-level rogue, have you?

A 6th-level rogue with 9 ranks in Tumble and the Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack feats is an absolute nightmare for most parties. That's a free flanked attack against your primary fighter or anyone stuck at the edge of the party's defensive line at +3d6 damage per round. If we make it a human rogue with a +1 longsword, 14 Strength, Weapon Focus (longsword), you're looking at an attack at +10 that deals 1d8+3d6+4 damage (assume the rogue uses the longsword two-handed, since he lacks shield proficiency). Against a fighter in full-plate +1, a large shield +1, and a Dex 13, he hits 40% of the time and deals 19 points of damage per hit. If the fighter doesn't have a shield, he hits 55% of the time.

Of course, the rogue could just tumble past the warriors and hack the wizard to death. Mr. Wizard can toss a fireball at him, but if the rogue saves he takes a big fat 0 damage. If the rogue has an allied spellcaster who summons a monster to flank the wizard, the rogue now goes back to dealing 19 points a round, hitting about 75% of the time (assuming 14 Dex, +2 bracers, +1 ring of protection for the wizard). The rogue could also use Bluff to hide or deny the wizard his Dex bonus to AC.

For extra nastiness, give the rogue a level of ranger (Rog5/Rgr1) and have him take human as a favored enemy. It has no effect on his base attack progression and gives him a second attack at only -2 on both, a particularly useful feature against soft targets such as wizards and sorcerers.

If our rogue maxes out his Bluff and Hide skills, he can singlehandedly take down a wizard in the typical dungeon setting. Wizards do not get Sense Motive or Spot as class skills, making it very difficult for the wizard to spot the rogue or call his bluffs. The rogue can use his movement action to close to melee distance, then use his Spring Attack feat to attack and immediately move 30 ft. away back around a corner to hide again. If no cover is available he can stay in melee and wreck the wizard. If the rogue hides, the wizard's targeted spells are useless since he can't see his target and his area of effect ones more than likely deal 0 damage because of evasion. If the rogue initiated combat and wins initiative, he gains consecutive sneak attacks by using his partial action to move into melee and attack, staying put, and getting another sneak attack. He can then complete his attack action by moving his full move as per the Spring Attack feat then use his move action to move another 30 ft.

As far as rogues vs. spells, every class in the game is weaker than a given spell, but once a spell is cast its gone. At 5th-level my one fireball may deliver 20 points of damage to 8 orcs, more damage than a fighter can deal in one non-critical hit. Does that make a wizard better than a fighter? Of course not. After using his spell, the wizard is spent. The fighter keeps hacking. Same thing for a rogue.

 

[jasamcarl]

And on your last point...

Yes if wiz/sorc load up on divination/echantment/illusion spells they might be as effective or better than a rogue, even in an intrigue-heavy campaign, but they sacrafic ALL combat effectivness to do so: d4 hit die, crap bab, weak physical saves...
And don't get me started on the magic item argument....you act as if there is 0 cost to such an endeavor while assuming the rogue has to recourse to costly items himself....namely those that jack his combat skills up over a long duration....i love it when those who make these arguements glaze over the facts so brazenly....

 

[Dieter]

I completely agree with the original poster. I've found that, unless you have somehting liek 4 combat encounters/day, spellcasters tend to outshine every other class in D&D.

My game doesn't tend to be filled with alot of random combat/encounters, so the spellcasters outshine all of the non-spellcasting classes.

Wizards with shield, mage armor haste etc. become better melee combatants than fighters.

Wizards with invis, spider climb etc becoem better spies than Rogues.

After the first few levels (without some serious tweaking) this game becomes about magical equipment and spellcasting.

That's all fine and good, but what if you have a DM who wisely selects the wizard as the unfortunate receiver of two sneak attacks? Unless he had spells up, (but why would he since he wasn't anticipating the surprise?) that wizard is screwed.

Now if we compare that to the rogues ability of uncanny dodge (3rd level) and inabilty to be flanked (6th level)...I'll take my rogue any day.

Oh and what happens when the spellcaster runs out of spells? Looks like he's resorted to turtle mode.

 

[Sigma]

A rogue can move silent, a mage can cast fly.

Out of curiosity, am I alone in not allowing fly to make characters move silently? My players have always tried to get away with that, and as I tell them, the spell says nothing about modifying a move silent check or granting automatic silence, therefore it does neither. I know the logic is that most of what moves silent does is keep you from making noise as you walk, but my response is that it is not detailed how flight works. People tend to picture it as a Superman style, I move where I want without moving my body, but it could very well require you to flap your arms, move your legs, or do other physical motions which will still make noise.

So, am I just being a strict DM, or is there some place in the core rules that states that flying engenders silent movement automatically?

 

[d20Dwarf]

Teflon is absolutely correct about his assessment of high level play, although I wouldn't say things go absolutely downhill until 7th level spells hit (resurrection and finger of death certainly change the game). 9th level spells are even worse. A mage with a few feats to pump up his save DCs and Wail of the Banshee is Too Hot for TV! Magic items completely trump skills and class abilities at higher levels of play, at least if you play at the levels written in the DMG.

We tried to play the 20th level module in Dungeon magazine and it was a joke, I couldn't even begin to challenge the players with the module as written, and even if I did they weren't scared since they have 50 resurrections in the staff of life they have hidden away. It was very disappointing.

 

[Swack-Iron]

Ok, this is exactly what I'm talking about. How many times do you have your party go through Anti-Magic areas? I have never done that, and unless it makes sense in the context of the adventure I'm planning, I never will. I shouldn't have to make up specific circumstances so the Rogue can do as well as the other classes. I generally come up with an idea for an adventure, run it, and the players find their own ways to make their specific character shine.

As someone who's playing a 10th level rogue, organically grown in a party all the way up from first level, hopefully I can add a little insight. In fact, we have two rogues in that party, and they're invaluable.

We've never been in an anti-magic zone either, but I'm sure everyone would love the rogues if we were. How often to enemy spellcasters target your clerics and wizards with dispells and fireballs? All the time, I bet. After all, that's how you counter clerics and wizards. Rogues, on the other hand, are pretty much immune to dispells and fireballs.

The advantage of a rogue is that their abilities are *inherent*. Sure, they can be countered, but they can't be countered with the same things that counter a spellcaster. So if you want to have your own party spellcasters optimized for rogue-like activities (which are fewer dispells and fireballs they can throw at the enemy), go ahead. But with a rogue in your party, the enemy spellcaster now has a tougher choice.

Combat example: Evil cleric and his cohorts are attacked by the heroes. The heroic spellcasters start lobbing in combat spells, and the heroic fighters and rogues rush into melee. The evil cleric now has a choice. "Hmmmm. I could hold person those people rushing at me. Or I could flame strike those people incanting in the back row. If I hold person, those casters are going to blow me away or dispell what I'm doing. If I flame strike, those people rushing me are going to surround me -- and then that one in plate mail is going to hit me three times in a round with that greatsword and that wiry one is going to stick that rapier in my backside. Hrm, difficult choice."

Having a rogue in the party just gives you more options. Your party isn't completely reliant on magic, and is supplemented by the flexibility of the rogue's abilities. (Not to mention the bard -- I can't count the number of times my party's bacon has been saved by our bard!)

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

Just so i understand, you are saying that a rogue would not be balanced in YOUR campaign and that any campaign which features circumstances (lots of traps, frequent politiking, large degree of magic counters) in which a rogue would have a valued place must be burdened by 'special measures.' Jeez...i wish that some posters would not throw out inflammatory rhetoric that places irrefutable credence to THEIR PERSONAL ANECTODES and would instead take a critical angel with their commentary.

Besides, at th levels you are speaking of, even a mage's limited magic does not have much of an advantage over the rogue's high skill bonuses....

Oh well....

I have plenty of traps in my campaign(s). My players have dealt reasonably well with them without the assitance of a Rogue. They did almost lose one party member to a trap, but they managed to save her in time.

I have several political situations ongoing in my campaigns, and my players often find themselves in non combat social encounters. They do just fine without a Rogue, thanks to the high Charisma Bard and Sorcerer. And I don't think "magic counters" are viable if you mean completely negating the magic abilities of my party. If I'm going to do that, I might as well throw out the magic using classes altogether.

I don't really mind the situation, as my players are having fun, and so am I. I just am trying to see what the Rogue brings to a party that no one else does. What does the Rogue do better than anybody else? What do they bring to a party that they can't do without?

I can think of at least one thing all the other classes do better than anyone else, and I have seen parties suffer because they don't have that class (possible exceptions being the Ranger and Monk) but I just haven't seen it with the Rogue. Considering they are one of the four "primary" classes, I'd think they would have more value. So I'm just curious as to what their value is.

Teflon Billy: True. You can spread out the combat encounters a bit, though, to help the situation somewhat. You can't really do that as effectively with the Rogue, at least in my experience. And sometimes I find it hard to justify spreading out the combat encounters just to make sure one class isn't making the other look bad, so I understand where you're coming from.

 

[333 Dave]

Are rogues useless? Only if they travel alone. A pair of rogues can sneak attack every round, and kill most things before they die. A rogue and a fighter type can do similar damage while flanking. And sure, an Invisible Flying wizard makes a great scout, but an Invisible Flying Rogue makes a better one.

 

[Saphirahn]

Rogue/Wizards(Sorcerers)

Also do not discount the raw nastyness that a Rogue/wizard or sorcerer could be.. or even then.. a Straight Rogue with alot of ranks in Use Magic Device. Rogues can be particularly devistating expecially when they employ magic..

Scroll or Wand of Invisibility in a Rogue's hand can be devistating as they can sneek up on the enemy and get a free sneek attack in practically.

Rogues with a bag of tricks or a means of summoning monsters. Monster Summoning 2 to summon 1d3 Monster Sum 1 creatures and the Rogue has 3 potential avenues to get flank bonuses and thus sneek attack damage.

I have a character idea for a Rogue/Deepwoodsniper... sure It'll take like a 7th level rogue to get the base attack bonus up but. imagine being able to snip from half a mile away on top of the weapon's damage. And being nearly impossible to strike back. Get nasty and make the arrow magically invisible so people cant even try to figure out where the arrows are comming from till the guy falls down dead!

the power of Rogues is often in their vesitility. Also at higher levels rogues start getting special abilities. Asside from Monks their the only ones that get Evasion unless someone makes a magic Ring of a Evasion. and those arnt cheep.

rogues succeed by playing things smarter.

and as they say. A knife between the shoulder blades is lible to cramp just about anyones day.

 

[cybernetic]

I shouldn't have to make up specific circumstances so the Rogue can do as well as the other classes. I generally come up with an idea for an adventure, run it, and the players find their own ways to make their specific character shine.

IMHO (and I'm not alone in this either)

The DM should just make an adventure and then have his players play through it....A good DM takes into account what classes his characters are and their abilities and make an adventure that would be fun for the whole group..... I good DM DOES make up circumstances so a Rogue can "do as well" as other classes (as you put it)....I player should have equal fun weither he wants to play a rogue or wizard....and that is partially the DM's job to see that it happens!!....

anywayz.....This isn't an attack on you or your DM'ing abilities...so don't take what I said personally...its just my .02 worth..