Are Rogues Useless?

[jasamcarl]

Uh....

Your asking the wrong questions...its not a question of what specifically the rogue does better, it is a question of its ultimate utility to a given party..does the rogue do any one thing better than any other class? No, but it does ALL things, perhaps not with the potency of a wizard, but it can do them OVER AND OVER AND OVER again....

And no, your vague assertions that your campaign has 'alot' of traps and politics does not engender my intellectual sympathies...

I wish questions of balance would be addressed in the context of tactical and strategic effect, i.e. quality over quantity; as of now, half of these shaft/broken threads are monopolized by those who can't get past the 'flash' of magic to analyze its REAL utility, i.e. its strenghts AND weaknesses....

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

Mearls: So, you optimize a Rogue, have the Wizard cast a reflex save spell at him, and suddenly the Rogue is great? That Fighter you had the Rogue up against would kill the Rogue in two or three hits if he has a two handed weapon. And his damage is not negated by concealment, fortification, etc.

All a Wizard has to do to prevent the Rogue from sneak attacking him is cast Blur. Then all the Wizard has to do is cast a will save spell and the Rogue is likely toast. But we can create hypothetical situations in which each class has the advantage till doomsday. What I'm interested in is peoples experiences with the Rogue in their actual games, especially at higher levels.

Jasamcarl: Actually, the Sorcerer in my campaign is great in combat and out of combat with just a couple combat spells. I can post his statistics here if you want.


Dieter: How is the Rogue going to know to Sneak Attack the Wizard? Unless he's got inside information (which _is_ a possibility) why is he more likely to attack the Wizard/Sorcerer than the Ranger or Bard? Wizards don't always wear pointy hats and long flowing robes, you know. And how is the Rogue going to Sneak Attack the Wizard when he's wearing a Cloak of Displacement? (A favorite item to make or purchase by the spellcasters in my campaign).

Sigma: I have them make Move Silently checks. That's why you cast Silence after the fly and invisibilty, but my players don't even bother with scouting anymore, they just cast Scrying. My villians usually detect it, but so what? That's generally when the party teleports in and proceeds to attack.

Swack: Thank you. But my question would be, is it really better to have those two Rogues in your party than it would be to have two Clerics/Sorcerers/Wizards, or Bards? And yes, Bards rock. I think they're way more useful than Rogues. They are really underrated, in my opinion.

 

[Henry]

Sigma has a very valid point - there is no rule that specifically states that flying is silent. Furthermore (having just seen a special on the Long Range Reconnaisance Patrols - LRRP's - of the Vietnam War) being undetected is more than just not making noise when you walk - it's the sounds we all make when we move.

Unless the wizard is dressed like a ninja and casts spells with no material components, he will likely have spell components, standard gear, weapons like staff and dagger, etc. on him. One thing the LRRP's said was the most dreadful was a metallic click, because there was nothing in nature that made a sound like that. There were also tells such as coughs, cigarette smoke, rustling leaves, etc. that made a difference. Even an invisible flier is going to make a lot of noise when he moves, especially to ANYTHING with an appreciable score in listen.

There's also more to hiding than being invisible. While it's great camo, it doesn't mean that no one can tell when you are in the vicinity.

If you want to scout, the goal is not that you don't want to be seen - the goal is that you don't want anyone to know you exist. Period.

 

[Henry]

Scrying - unless your wizards have HELLACIOUS scrying abilities, then scrying against enemy spellcasters is going to be hazardous. Plus, sensitive conversations can be stopped with a simple non-detection spell.

 

[Crothian]

The strength of the woizard is in preperation. Give the wizard (or any spellcaster really) time to prepare and they will more then likey be able to outshine any other class.

Hoeever, in times where reaction is neede, the spellcasters are not as good. Did they selct the correct spells for thaday? Is that wand easily excisible? Does he have enough time to activate and cast all the things he needs to become useful?

In my experience, the Rogue has always been allowed to do his thing, because the spellcasters need their spells for other things.

 

[Sodalis]

i dont believe that this question was asked...

In all seriousness: is this a REAL question?

A rogue, though is not as potent as a mage in comparison, but is as important as any other character in the game.

True, a mage has spells that do things better than the rogue, but how many times can he do it a day? i don't know about you, but we have probably 10 encounters a day that needs these skills. I am not saying we have 10 battles a day, but encounters where we would like to move silent, hide and catch people off guard, sneak by, or even just gather information without being noticed.

A mage has what? 5 spells/day per lvl. That means that while he is already splitting his spells into utility and offense and defense spells, he now has to worry aboutthe little things that a rogue would usually do. Is that smart? Not in my game- a mage would be better suited to stick to what he is good at- and not try to cover another niche in which he CAn be good at.

Plus, have you ever encountered a trapped door? a rogue who trips a trap has evasion,a nd mildly good HP (along with great ref save) to survive. a mage who accidentally trips a trap door is DEAD...

I dont know there is any other class who can disarm a trap.

by asking this question, you can further ask: What is the usefulness of a fighter- when a cleric can do his job at ten times the effectiveness? But , if you ever went into battle without a front line fighetr (or barb, ranger) you will know just how valuable he can be.....

 

[mearls]

What I'm interested in is peoples experiences with the Rogue in their actual games, especially at higher levels.

Those *are* my experiences at higher levels in actual games.

 

[Storminator]

A lot depends on your party. How many PCs are there? I have a no rogue party of five PCs, and they do fine. I also have a party of 3 rogues, no other players. They also do fine. In small parties the rogue's skills are essential, because there aren't enough PCs to specialize in everything.

Rogues can dish out a lot of damage, especially in groups. With high DEX, their ACs aren't too bad. With Use Magic Device they have some magic capability. With all those skills they can bypass traps, locks, walls, and guards. They can also ferret out secrets. No other class can match that. If you have enough PCs to allow specialization within the party, this versatility isn't needed, but if your sorcerer only has one guy to stay between him and the enemy, he'll be hurting, and fast.

PS

 

[Dieter]

Wizard v. Rogue

Dieter: How is the Rogue going to know to Sneak Attack the Wizard? Unless he's got inside information (which _is_ a possibility) why is he more likely to attack the Wizard/Sorcerer than the Ranger or Bard? Wizards don't always wear pointy hats and long flowing robes, you know. And how is the Rogue going to Sneak Attack the Wizard when he's wearing a Cloak of Displacement? (A favorite item to make or purchase by the spellcasters in my campaign).

Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. The sneak attacks could come from rogues, but they could also come from the 10001 other creatures that have the ability to hide/lurk and attack. The particular instance I mentioned had to do with two dog-like creatures waiting in the dark to ambush the heroes. The wizard didn't have any defensive spells up (again, why would he since he wasn't anticipating an attack at that moment)...his meager AC13 was little match the doggies. Between the attack and their poisonous bite, the DM dropped him like a bad habit.

As an afterthought to the encounter, the rogue (ME) suffered only 2 points of damage (NOT dog damage, but screwing up a climb check). There is a reason why rogues take mithryl armor and have high AC's.

Spells? We don't need no stinkin' spells!

 

[jollyninja]

wizards cannot sneak attack, therefore rogues are better pppbbbbbbbbbbttttttt! playing a rogue is about playing a rogue not being the best at everything. a rogue can hide all day, a wizard can't be invisible all day or fly all day, or get rid of traps in a heavily defended area. if your wizards and clerics are focusing on replacing rogues, they are obviously lacking in other areas that they typically shine in.

seriously though, wizards can be better then any class at anything. does a level 11 fighter have as much damage potential as a level 11 wizard in a single round? no freaking way man but he can do his damage for a longer period. can a wizard outmove a monk or barbarian, yes he can (haste, expiditous retreat, ect...) but his ability to do so is finite. the only thing a wizard can't do better then anyone else is heal.

i'm not saying wizards are broken, all i'm saying is that a wizard specialised on one thing completley eliminates the need for certian characters.

if they dress like wizards, i just have people grapple them, making them useless. they are typically weak and have a low BAB so that's their downfall, and everyone (who had any experience fighting wizards) would know that grappling is the way to deal with a wizard.