Have you run and/or played in a 3e/3.5 game with no rogue?
- Thread starter Mort
- Start date
Do you mean no rogue (aka the class), or no rogue-like PCs?
A quick count reveals 7-8 other core classes with trapfinding, so these should prove equally capable of filling in for the rogue. Nor is It impossible to work around not having a rogue (such as using the summon elemental reserve feat from complete mage to have a steady source of trap detectors/springers).
I did play though CoTSQ without a rogue, but only because there weren't really any traps in the game (the DM even bluntly told us as much when he suggested that the rogue player reroll his character.
A quick count reveals 7-8 other core classes with trapfinding, so these should prove equally capable of filling in for the rogue. Nor is It impossible to work around not having a rogue (such as using the summon elemental reserve feat from complete mage to have a steady source of trap detectors/springers).
I did play though CoTSQ without a rogue, but only because there weren't really any traps in the game (the DM even bluntly told us as much when he suggested that the rogue player reroll his character.
Yes, works fine. The main obstacle to not having a rogue (or rogue wannabe) is locks, but there's lots of ways around that via magic. Traps can be avoided or absorbed. The only truly dangerous traps in 3e are ones that trigger save-or-die spells, and those can be dispelled.
I meant rogue specifically - I'm trying to gauge how "replaceable" (for lack of a better word) the rogue is vs. how replaceable the wizard is (which is another thread).
My heavy suspicion (which I would be glad to have shown false) is that the rogue is much more easily replaced than the wizard.
DM-Rocco
Explorer
I DM'ed a few games where people didn't want to play a rogue/thief. Next to the cleric it seems like the class that peole don't want to play unless no one else does. The campaigns went fine. I never altered traps or DC or anything and they always managed just fine.
In the last campaign we had all spell casters. Two divine casters and two arcane casters. They managed to not only do away with the rogue/thief, they managed to do away with the fighters too. At tenth level they had enough power to come up with a series of spells that broke the game (then I got to limiting the power of things and balance it out). The series of buffs they used they termed the, "Royale with Cheese." They managed to get to use it in full effect once before i knew what was going on and I put the clamp down quickly.
I have also played in games where we didn't have a rogue/thief and we also did just fine.
Now, for the other side of the coin. At one point in time I have played just about every type of cahracter class in most of the editions. One of my favorite was the 1st edition assassin or the acrobatic and insanely deadly 1st edition bard. Back in 3.5 (that feels wierd to say) I played a character named Robillard who was a rogue because it was a low magic world, the DM only allowed us to start as Fighters or Rogues and everyone else was a fighter and I wanted to be diffrent.
I do love Robillard. He has a 16 INT and is a human so he is a skill monkey. He is a lot of fun to play and more useful in none combat than the fighter types.
Can a party do away with the rogue/thief? Certainly. Are they fun to play? They sure are. Can magic replace a fighter/rogue/other combat or skill class? You bet.
Not intentionally- in our recent run through RttToEE, our Rogue died. It fell on my Ftr/Rgr/SpecWiz: Div/Spellsword to pick up the slack on trapfinding...which went just fine. He not only had spells he could use, he even had the skills to do the job, up to a point. He had high ranks in most of the skills, but by rule, some things can only be done by a Rogue.
And the Barbarian was pretty good at opening the otherwise unopenable.
IOW, things went OK.
Eventually, though, we got the Rogue brought back. We did fine without him, but it went much more smoothly and efficiently with him back. It meant that we didn't have to expend spells or risk the big meatshield to do the Rogue's job.
And the Barbarian was pretty good at opening the otherwise unopenable.
IOW, things went OK.
Eventually, though, we got the Rogue brought back. We did fine without him, but it went much more smoothly and efficiently with him back. It meant that we didn't have to expend spells or risk the big meatshield to do the Rogue's job.
Last edited:
Crothian
First Post
Yes, we've done it a few times.
It does effect the game and in a good way. Plkayers have to think a little more when they come across traps and locks that a rogue routinely deals with. We've played games with out each of the core classes and it brings a refreshing change to the way the game is played.
It does effect the game and in a good way. Plkayers have to think a little more when they come across traps and locks that a rogue routinely deals with. We've played games with out each of the core classes and it brings a refreshing change to the way the game is played.
Ahnehnois
First Post
Sure. I even had one group with 10 PCs and no rogue (well, there was an assassin after some character deaths, but more most of the campaign, no rogue). I had another smaller rogue-less party before that. My most recent game had only a daggerspell/warlock character who had a rogue level or two but was not truly a rogue. I think I only ever had one campaign with a straight rogue.
So my conclusion from these games is that it wasn't a problem. I don't really do dungeons. I only pull out traps once every several sessions. I also use a lot of undead and constructs (particularly undead int he last campaign). Rogue-less was fine for my group's style.
(I've similar conclusions on the other classes)
So my conclusion from these games is that it wasn't a problem. I don't really do dungeons. I only pull out traps once every several sessions. I also use a lot of undead and constructs (particularly undead int he last campaign). Rogue-less was fine for my group's style.
(I've similar conclusions on the other classes)
Similar Threads
