Can anyone think of any reason not to be a Rogue?

[Irda Ranger]

My wife wants to DM a solo quest for me, and she wants it to be urban. As it happens, I have the three Freeport Adventures, but haven't played them yet. Convenient, eh?

So, that brings me to the title. Can anyone think of any reason not to play a Rogue is this adventure? I thumbed through the adventure when I bought it, but haven't read it in detail. (and of course, I don't want to)

I probably won't be first level, maybe 3rd? No decision on that yet, but that's probably what it will be. Maybe a level of spellcaster to use wands, scrolls and use activated items?

Thanks for the input.

 

[Angcuru]

Play a Psychic Thief.

 

[mystraschosen]

I knew Angcuru was going to say that,cause I read his mind while I picked his pocket .

 

[Desdichado]

Because you don't want to?

There's some other good options out there for an urban campaign: Masters of the Wild has a pretty good alternate "urban ranger" that would be fun in an urban campaign, and Path of the Sword by FFG has an alternate "urban fighter" that gives up a bonus feat or two and some armor proficiencies for more skill points and more class skills. For a solo game, I'd probably prefer the urban fighter, myself. Or maybe a level of urban ranger first to take advantage of the front-loading of the ranger.

 

[diaglo]

i saw someone play an urban half-orc druid once. it was a neat concept.

 

[Simplicity]

Rogues don't always make great solo adventurers,
if only because they depend upon other party members
for their major combat ability (sneak attacks)...

 

[Drawmack]

Actually I'd say rogue monk. But you'll have to get her permision beause of the monk's multiclassing restrictions.

Here is why - the monk lets you fight your way out of a jam without having to wear armor and carry weapons that mess up your roginess.

Rogues get use magic device as a skill you don't need a level of spell caster for them. Matter of fact I have this character concept for a fairly high level rogue who has everyone convinced he is a wizard through the use of wands. Would make a great cover for a hidding villian.

These two classes are the perfect compliment to one another for a solo adventure that will involve battle.

Also if you're using canned adventures for a solo campaign have her come here for some help on softening up the encoutners a bit or you'll wind up with a CoC life span.

 

[ejja_1]

Why not to be a rogue?

High guild taxation, along with an increase in the local guard. No insurance, high risk for those second story men.
Those pesky party paladins ( say that three times fast....) always with the morals and stuff.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Why not to be a rogue?

High guild taxation, along with an increase in the local guard. No insurance, high risk for those second story men.
Those pesky party paladins ( say that three times fast....) always with the morals and stuff.

Just because you're a "rogue" doesn't mean you're a thief! This is exactly my problem with defined classes; you get too pigeonholed. The rogue is the most flexible class out there, it can easily represent all kinds of characters, many of whom are completely law abiding.

 

[Drawmack]

Rogue - An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.

Yeah he could be law abiding just not very likable is all. At least not once you get past his charming and witty exterior anyway.