Is Rogue a problematic class?

[cattoy]

I respectfully disagree. IMO the rogue is problematic in that they often spend much of their time engaged in solos while the rest of the party twiddles their fingers, waiting for success or a fight.

It's a lot like the netrunner from Cyberpunk. From a teamwork perspective - vital in that almost any job was going to need some form of hacking to enable success. Horrible from a game design perspective in that any activity core to a netrunner's skillset was exclusively theirs and the rest of the table might as well break out a boardgame or videogame.

Almost all of the rogue's core competencies require the absence of the rest of the party. They need darkness and quiet to be stealthy, they need room to work when disabling traps, they're better off without the dumpstat CHA teammates present when working the mark.

 

[cjosephs1s]

[MENTION=38606]cattoy[/MENTION] makes some very good points.

I"m usually a fan of the core classes (cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter) but I find rogue seems always better multiclassed with something else where the other three all do what they are supposed to quite well with a standard 20 levels.

 

[Hassassin]

Almost all of the rogue's core competencies require the absence of the rest of the party. They need darkness and quiet to be stealthy, they need room to work when disabling traps, they're better off without the dumpstat CHA teammates present when working the mark.

Yes, I definitely agree. A further complication is that if anything happens to the rest of the party when the rogue is away, he will be out of the game as well. Balancing all this so that the players don't get bored is often quite challenging.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Yes, I definitely agree. A further complication is that if anything happens to the rest of the party when the rogue is away, he will be out of the game as well. Balancing all this so that the players don't get bored is often quite challenging.

Solution: Players not involved in the Rogue's "solo" missions remain at the table by playing the Rogue's opposition and making it tough on him.

Granted the DM does need to make sure that the players don't go soft to benefit the group, but with my group of players that's never been an issue. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Hassassin]

Solution: Players not involved in the Rogue's "solo" missions remain at the table by playing the Rogue's opposition and making it tough on him.

Granted the DM does need to make sure that the players don't go soft to benefit the group, but with my group of players that's never been an issue. Your mileage may vary.

That's what I do when a part of the party is engaged in combat. However, it doesn't work for many rogue missions.

("You can be the guard of the right and you the left. Roll for listen." )

 

[Kobold Boots]

That's what I do when a part of the party is engaged in combat. However, it doesn't work for many rogue missions.

("You can be the guard of the right and you the left. Roll for listen." )

Noted.

I've found that it works well in combat or in any environment where there are multiple NPCs that can be played.

As to the guard example you've mentioned above, I'd just give my players the information they'd have at their disposal. "The four of you are guards, one of you is the guard captain responsible for defending this place. This is what you're defending, this is the full floor plan of the place."

Note that what I tell them they're defending may be different from what the rogue is actually going after as the guards don't know his mission. If they are defending a gold repository and the rogue is going in to assassinate the guard captain, that may change how effective the guards plans are.

Now for the rogue: "Rogue, you have been hired to do X. This is what you've been able to determine about the target. This is what you've been able to determine about the floor plan (through streetwise and other checks I know how accurate what I'm advising is. He or She may not.)

"Guards - what are your plans for the night? You either have information that you're expecting company or you expect this to be another boring night."

"Rogue, what is your plan?" Of course handled away from the guards and vice versa.

Everyone at the table knows something is going on and I just set up the scene for the first opportunity of conflict. Usually the guards are tipped to something going on, either by the rogue taking someone out or being noisy and the game goes from there. It takes some careful planning of the place the rogue is going and if I know I have a player that does this kind of stuff, I keep a random castle or building ready just in case and some old Dragon magazine hazard tables.

 

[kitcik]

Balance in a non-optimized world

... we join the adventurers in an epic battle vs. the orc horde (i.e. two orc guards in a corridor).


DM: the remaining orc has initiative over everyone, but misses her lunging attack against the paladin. You're up.

Paladin: I raise my mighty shield and continue with my total defense action to protect the caster.

Monk: I leap in the air and execute a flurry of blows so fast she cannot follow my hands. I miss - TWICE!

Rogue: Remember that needle trap I disabled in the last room?

DM: Yeah, that was totally cool. You prevented 1d2 points of damage!

Rogue: I hide in the deep shadows and lurk, awaiting my chance to strike the telling blow.

Wizard: I only memorized Alarm and Unseen Servant. I pull out a dart and launch it into melee. It curves in a majestic arch and lands, undamaged, at the feet of our foe. Is she intimidated?

DM: That's the end of round 4...

 

[Dandu]

@cattoy makes some very good points.

I"m usually a fan of the core classes (cleric, wizard, rogue, fighter) but I find rogue seems always better multiclassed with something else where the other three all do what they are supposed to quite well with a standard 20 levels.

To be fair, you're going to end up multiclassing a Rogue with something else anyways, if only because Rogue 20 offers nothing.

 

[Visigani]

Problem is many of these shine moments really only effectively work at lower levels. At higher ones you have abilities available to other characters that trump or do better than what base skills do making a skill monkey only useful in off battle settings. I don't think it is a horrible class, it is just that skills only go so far and get left in the dust in moderate to high power games.

Hence why the rogue is among the most balanced classes. One of its core virtues is that it doesnt significantly step on the toes of others.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Hence why the rogue is among the most balanced classes. One of its core virtues is that it doesnt significantly step on the toes of others.

I agree with Dandu, you've gotten very good at this.