This thread was inspired by conversations with Marnak that also led to this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=199038.
In case you don't want to read the rest of my lengthy discussion, here are my basic questions. Why do rogues exist as a separate class? Do they represent a beloved archetype of history, myth, or fiction? Are they an iconic character type invented by D&D? Do they fill an essential role in the D&D Party? Finally, does D&D really need rogues as a separate class?
As Marnak's thread mentions, this came from discussions of how to fix the rogue. Some will surely answer that the rogue is just fine, but my issue for this thread is not whether the rogue is powerful, balanced, or weak, but why rogue (or thief) classes exist in the first place. Because one "fix" for the rogue is to abandon the concept as a character class.
Why does any class exist? For this discussion, I'm focusing on the most fundamental D&D classes, such as the core PHB classes, but also any class (or prestige class) that evokes some familiar archetype: I have no idea where the Hulking Hurler came from, but I can relate to the concept of the Knight or the Ninja before I even read the description.
What I'll argue here is that every one of these basic classes is derived from some archetype found in history, mythology, or (pre-D&D) literature (or movies/TV), that these archetypes become ensconced as icons of the game, and they also persist because of their utility in party structure and function during game play. However, not all archetypes translate into classes, just as not all iconic classes are equally effective in game play.
For instance, Aragorn begets the 1e ranger, an outdoorsy fighter subclass with stamina and the ability to use enough magic to do everything Aragorn does in LotR. But, rangers themselves become icons of the game, and D&D even produces its own iconic ranger, Driz'zt. So, later editions ensure that players who choose to be rangers can emulate Driz'zt without penalty: in 3.5, TWF needs one less feat to work, and rangers can get it for free; or they can be the "other" iconic ranger-- the bow-hunter.
The key step here is the iconic status of the class. Once we have established 1e rangers, we need 2e rangers, and 3e rangers, and they all need to have sufficient power and utility in game, as well as all the nifty powers (e.g., the spells that many folks think are extraneous) that they had in 1e. If rangers are weak, we don't say, "Oh well, let's just ditch/ignore the ranger." Instead, we call for "fixes" and develop 172 alt.rangers.
So let's turn to the rogue/thief. What is the archetype of the rogue? Unlike the ranger, but like the fighter, wizard, and cleric, the rogue comes from a much more general and widespread archetype. The cunning thief. The sneak. The spy. The light-armored scout. The trickster hero. Bilbo Baggins. In D&D, the rogue is characterized by agility rather than strength, but I think the real archetype is characterized more by the classic "brains over brawn." In some ways, the rogue archetype is an "everyman" archetype. Most of us don't relate to a figure like Hercules, nor do we think of ourselves as harnessing magic or invoking our gods' wrath, but we can relate to poor Bilbo trying to think his way out of a jam, or even to Odysseus coming up with a clever ruse to defeat the cyclops.
One problem with this is that those kinds of activities, in D&D, are really about roleplaying, not about class abilities. So how do you translate this archetype into a game that models most challenges with numbers and dice rolls? Well, you give the class some unique abilities (find/remove traps, climb walls, pick locks, etc.) that are handy, and give them "backstabbing" as a reflection of their ambush ability.
But was that the only solution? In fact, this archetype is really one that other classes could address. Odysseus may have used his brain, but he was a great warrior, and an Odysseus-like character could come from the fighter class. Rangers have every reason to be stealthy and adept at attacking from ambush. And Conan was considered to be a thief-- because he stole stuff, which even a barbarian can do! Sure, thievery involves other things: picking pockets, among others. But are thieving abilities something that should be specific to a class, or should they be available as feats or skills? In other words, did we really need the thief *class* in D&D?
Of course, once the thief made it into 0E, it soon was iconic and destined for all subsequent editions. And in the course of those transitions, the iconic abilities became more important than the archetype. A 3e rogue's ticket into a party is often trapfinding and Disable Device, but most rogue builds that I see on these boards center around the rogue's one combat specialty: sneak attack. (Interestingly, this extends beyond D&D. Rogues exist in MMORPGs like World of Warcraft, and their main abilities center on causing large amounts of damage from ambush. Oh, they can open locked boxes, too.)
Even the role of the rogue is odd compared to that of other characters. The thief or rogue is usually considered to hold one of the four "primal" party roles: tank, arcanist, healer, and sneaky trap-finder/scout. Yet, the rogue's roles are either expendable, replaceable, suboptimal, or less synergistic with other party members. Other classes can spot and sneak. A scout needs to go in advance of the rest of the party, which is not ideal for the low-AC, low-hp rogue. The one unique, important ability that they have, trap-finding, generally gets used when there is no combat, leaving them only to hope for a sneak attack opportunity when combat does arrive. All in all, the rogue often doesn't bring enough to the party that it's out of the question to swap the rogue for another front-line fighter or an extra healer.
So, what would I do if I were redesigning the game? How about drop the rogue? Make trapfinding something anyone can do with search, or give it to rangers. Give rangers sneak attack, or ditch sneak attack entirely. (Who would miss it?) Make more options (e.g., along the lines of the Combat Expertise tree) for players to develop "brains over brawn" characters. Make "thievery" a set of feats and/or uses of skills, so you can still have all those roguey NPCs.
Thoughts?
--Axe
In case you don't want to read the rest of my lengthy discussion, here are my basic questions. Why do rogues exist as a separate class? Do they represent a beloved archetype of history, myth, or fiction? Are they an iconic character type invented by D&D? Do they fill an essential role in the D&D Party? Finally, does D&D really need rogues as a separate class?
As Marnak's thread mentions, this came from discussions of how to fix the rogue. Some will surely answer that the rogue is just fine, but my issue for this thread is not whether the rogue is powerful, balanced, or weak, but why rogue (or thief) classes exist in the first place. Because one "fix" for the rogue is to abandon the concept as a character class.
Why does any class exist? For this discussion, I'm focusing on the most fundamental D&D classes, such as the core PHB classes, but also any class (or prestige class) that evokes some familiar archetype: I have no idea where the Hulking Hurler came from, but I can relate to the concept of the Knight or the Ninja before I even read the description.
What I'll argue here is that every one of these basic classes is derived from some archetype found in history, mythology, or (pre-D&D) literature (or movies/TV), that these archetypes become ensconced as icons of the game, and they also persist because of their utility in party structure and function during game play. However, not all archetypes translate into classes, just as not all iconic classes are equally effective in game play.
For instance, Aragorn begets the 1e ranger, an outdoorsy fighter subclass with stamina and the ability to use enough magic to do everything Aragorn does in LotR. But, rangers themselves become icons of the game, and D&D even produces its own iconic ranger, Driz'zt. So, later editions ensure that players who choose to be rangers can emulate Driz'zt without penalty: in 3.5, TWF needs one less feat to work, and rangers can get it for free; or they can be the "other" iconic ranger-- the bow-hunter.
The key step here is the iconic status of the class. Once we have established 1e rangers, we need 2e rangers, and 3e rangers, and they all need to have sufficient power and utility in game, as well as all the nifty powers (e.g., the spells that many folks think are extraneous) that they had in 1e. If rangers are weak, we don't say, "Oh well, let's just ditch/ignore the ranger." Instead, we call for "fixes" and develop 172 alt.rangers.
So let's turn to the rogue/thief. What is the archetype of the rogue? Unlike the ranger, but like the fighter, wizard, and cleric, the rogue comes from a much more general and widespread archetype. The cunning thief. The sneak. The spy. The light-armored scout. The trickster hero. Bilbo Baggins. In D&D, the rogue is characterized by agility rather than strength, but I think the real archetype is characterized more by the classic "brains over brawn." In some ways, the rogue archetype is an "everyman" archetype. Most of us don't relate to a figure like Hercules, nor do we think of ourselves as harnessing magic or invoking our gods' wrath, but we can relate to poor Bilbo trying to think his way out of a jam, or even to Odysseus coming up with a clever ruse to defeat the cyclops.
One problem with this is that those kinds of activities, in D&D, are really about roleplaying, not about class abilities. So how do you translate this archetype into a game that models most challenges with numbers and dice rolls? Well, you give the class some unique abilities (find/remove traps, climb walls, pick locks, etc.) that are handy, and give them "backstabbing" as a reflection of their ambush ability.
But was that the only solution? In fact, this archetype is really one that other classes could address. Odysseus may have used his brain, but he was a great warrior, and an Odysseus-like character could come from the fighter class. Rangers have every reason to be stealthy and adept at attacking from ambush. And Conan was considered to be a thief-- because he stole stuff, which even a barbarian can do! Sure, thievery involves other things: picking pockets, among others. But are thieving abilities something that should be specific to a class, or should they be available as feats or skills? In other words, did we really need the thief *class* in D&D?
Of course, once the thief made it into 0E, it soon was iconic and destined for all subsequent editions. And in the course of those transitions, the iconic abilities became more important than the archetype. A 3e rogue's ticket into a party is often trapfinding and Disable Device, but most rogue builds that I see on these boards center around the rogue's one combat specialty: sneak attack. (Interestingly, this extends beyond D&D. Rogues exist in MMORPGs like World of Warcraft, and their main abilities center on causing large amounts of damage from ambush. Oh, they can open locked boxes, too.)
Even the role of the rogue is odd compared to that of other characters. The thief or rogue is usually considered to hold one of the four "primal" party roles: tank, arcanist, healer, and sneaky trap-finder/scout. Yet, the rogue's roles are either expendable, replaceable, suboptimal, or less synergistic with other party members. Other classes can spot and sneak. A scout needs to go in advance of the rest of the party, which is not ideal for the low-AC, low-hp rogue. The one unique, important ability that they have, trap-finding, generally gets used when there is no combat, leaving them only to hope for a sneak attack opportunity when combat does arrive. All in all, the rogue often doesn't bring enough to the party that it's out of the question to swap the rogue for another front-line fighter or an extra healer.
So, what would I do if I were redesigning the game? How about drop the rogue? Make trapfinding something anyone can do with search, or give it to rangers. Give rangers sneak attack, or ditch sneak attack entirely. (Who would miss it?) Make more options (e.g., along the lines of the Combat Expertise tree) for players to develop "brains over brawn" characters. Make "thievery" a set of feats and/or uses of skills, so you can still have all those roguey NPCs.
Thoughts?
--Axe
