rogue: the obsolete class?

[lotuseater]

i finally got my hands on complete adventurer. i really like it. especially all the emphasis on skills and new equipment.

so, i feel like now that the complete series is done, that with all the new classes, it's made the traditional rogue obsolete. or, rather, whenever i think of playing a rogue, i think of one of these several types that have now been coopted by other classes. the swashbuckler, the ninja, the scout, all borrow from the rogue domain. even the monk can be on that list. i had never really imagined a spell thief, but i like the idea, and it's further encroaching.

perhaps some of you might feel the same way about other core classes, which could make a good topic for another thread, but what i'd like to ask right here is: what do you think of when you think of a rogue, that hasn't now been applied someplace else. or is the rogue now just a class for that character that is a dabbler in many skills but a master at none.

i'm expecting many of you will disagree. i'm certainly not trying to stir up an argument, just curious what other people think about rogues and their role in a campaign that allows all the non-core classes.

 

[Voadam]

i finally got my hands on complete adventurer. i really like it. especially all the emphasis on skills and new equipment.

so, i feel like now that the complete series is done, that with all the new classes, it's made the traditional rogue obsolete. or, rather, whenever i think of playing a rogue, i think of one of these several types that have now been coopted by other classes. the swashbuckler, the ninja, the scout, all borrow from the rogue domain. even the monk can be on that list. i had never really imagined a spell thief, but i like the idea, and it's further encroaching.

perhaps some of you might feel the same way about other core classes, which could make a good topic for another thread, but what i'd like to ask right here is: what do you think of when you think of a rogue, that hasn't now been applied someplace else. or is the rogue now just a class for that character that is a dabbler in many skills but a master at none.

i'm expecting many of you will disagree. i'm certainly not trying to stir up an argument, just curious what other people think about rogues and their role in a campaign that allows all the non-core classes.

More than skills I think sneak attack and the defensive abilities of uncanny dodge and evasion define a rogue's capabilities. I haven't seen CoAd so I can't tell you about the scout, ninja, or spellthief, but the two rogues I've played I've been happy mechanically with both and would not have preferred another class to fit their archetypes (LG paladinesque fencer with a straight rogue and a wilderness rogue scout/warrior using UA wilderness rogue gestalted with wolf barbarian).

 

[Desdichado]

Rogue is a master as skill use and sneak attack. Granted, I don't know if that's really all that archetyical of what a "rogue" is supposed to be, but it's not obsolete any more than the unmodified fighter is obsolete relative to the samurai, or hexblade, or whatever.

But I see your point. Part of the problem is that the archetype the Rogue class supposedly embodies isn't really all that well served by the class.

The class itself is fine, it's just a bit more narrow than some would have you believe, while the "alt.rogues" you mention have a more archetypical schtick.

 

[Umbran]

But I see your point. Part of the problem is that the archetype the Rogue class supposedly embodies isn't really all that well served by the class.

Or, conversely, perhaps many players have an incorrect vision of the archetype that the class is supposed to embody?

It is a bit of a "chicken and the egg" argument - is the class supposed to fit some pre-defined archetype, or should we look at the class, and see what archetype it's mechanics support?

 

[Desdichado]

The PHB describes the archetype, if I remember correctly, so no, it wouldn't be a chicken and an egg thing at all. It's merely that the designers bowed to historical precedent and made a class that is more narrow than the archetype it supposedly embodies.

Not that that's at all unusual for D&D...

 

[Remathilis]

As a typical rogue player, I'll lend my two Cp...

Since 3.5, there have been a couple classes that can fill the rogues niche. I'll give my take on them, and if they can out-rogue the rogue.

1.) Ranger: Not technically a rogue replacement, but lots of skills and emphasis on light armor and agility. However, while a good sneak and combatant, lacks the SA and trapfinding of a regular rogue. Unless you never run into traps, the ranger CAN fill a rogues niche as a sneak, but nothing else.
2.) Bard: The other side of the coin, great at diplomacy and social interaction (and a few rogue skills) but the poorest combatant and more a mediocore spellcaster with good skills than a rogue replacement.
3.) Swashbuckler: He's got charisma and some mobility skills, but really a different beast. Like the ranger, he's primarily a combatant in light armor and lacks the stealth, trap ability, and sheer skill points to multi-task. great class to M/C with though.
4.) Ninja: Master of the Sneak. Can find traps and such, but doesn't play well with others. His SA is limited to denied dex only (no flank) and his ki abilities affect self only. He also lacks a number of larcenous skills (appraise) and really does fit the assassin model of rogue.
5.) Scout: A better fit than ranger. However, needs lots of room to work; doesn't do good in cramped spaces. Limited trap ability (seach, but no DD or OL). Weaker SA needs movement to work.
6.) Spellthief: Closest to real rogue in versatility, but small SP pool (6) and a need to focus on magic as well as skills makes him stat intensive. His great abilities require magical foes to use, otherwise he has just a handful of spells and weak SA.
7.) Artificer: Included cuz he's not really a spellcaster, hes a skill user (trapfinding, UMD). Still, not a good sneak or diplomat and has little larcenous talent.
8.) Rogue: The do it all. A rogue can focus on any of the above (stealth, traps, mobility, diplomacy, larceny, combat) with a descent chance of success. More importantly, he can do many at once or really focus down. Most useful (and powerful) SA, good defensive skills, and a bit more customization (Rogue Special Abilities)

Rogues are great generalists and are versatile, the others fill one niche and cannot fill the others well or at all.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I'd say it's mostly that the rogue is, with the fighter, an extremely generic base class... and in many cases, it was better used to represent archetypes that the core rules didn't serve.

Depending on the campaign and the skill of the players, the rogue can be at least as good a fighter as the fighter - especially at higher levels, where the fourth attack is essentially a "hope for a 20" prospect, the core feats start to peter out, and Evasion becomes far, far more important than hit points. Couple that with the rogue's vast array of skills and he becomes almost a generic non-spellcater.

The rogue certainly isn't obsolete - beyond the 3rd-level exit point, he's flat-out better than CW's swashbuckler - but IS rapidly becoming, like the fighter, the class you multiclass into or out of - in this case, to improve a character's skills and tactical combat ability, and to get precious Evasion without an alignment restriction (ranger also works).

Many archetypes remain for the rogue, though: treasure hunter, non-magical assassin, tactical fighter, gentleman spy, even, if you're using WotC-only, diplomat.