Rogues: essential class or sacred cow?

[Kunimatyu]

Since nobody's said it, I'll point out the the Grey Mouser is D&D's rogue ideal.

That being said, I don't think the rogue class(especially in its current form) is an important addition to D&D, mechanically. Sneak Attack is ignored by a vast array of critters(including types that get more frequent at the higher levels), and trapfinding - while essential to a 'crawl' game - is an ability that could easliy be given as a feat or skill anyone can take with no repercussions.

In a game like mine, where I don't use "gotcha" traps (encounter traps, yes, but those are different beasts), there's really no need for a rogue, and I try to discourage players from playing them - if they want a Fighter with loads of Sneak Attack, they can play a Thug(Unearthed Arcana), or splash a few levels of Rogue with Swashbuckler plus the new Complete Scoundrel feat I can't remember at the moment. If they want a sneaky magical guy, they can play a Warlock or Beguiler.

In an "class abilities are feats" system like True20, the Rogue archetype gains a bit more like, because anyone can take Disable Device if they want it, and the appropriate sneaking/hiding feats are available to the Expert class. It's pretty easy to play the stealthy ninja, the cunning criminal mastermind, or the backstabbing thug, all with just the Expert class and the right selection of feats.

 

[Shadowdancer]

If any of the 4 core classes can be dispensed with, I would say that it is the rogue. If another class had trapfinding, say bards, there would be no real reason to play a rogue at all. Sneak attack is fun, but, gets nerfed so badly by so many different encounters that are immune to it.

I think the first to go would easily be the cleric.

The rogue is one of the archetypal classes of the genre, long before D&D was invented. I believe Gary Gygax said he based the original thief class off Farfhd and the Grey Mouser. While Farfhd could be done as a fighter/barbarian type a la Conan, the Grey Mouser would be difficult to replicate in D&D using other classes.

Ali Baba, another classic thief/rogue from fiction.

Just giving the rogue's abilities and primary skills to other classes doesn't fill the archetypal slot a rogue fills in the basic party. Sure, you can have fighters or other classes that act "roguish," but it's not the same.

 

[kaomera]

That being said, I don't think the rogue class(especially in its current form) is an important addition to D&D, mechanically. Sneak Attack is ignored by a vast array of critters(including types that get more frequent at the higher levels), and trapfinding - while essential to a 'crawl' game - is an ability that could easliy be given as a feat or skill anyone can take with no repercussions.

Well, I consider the lack of Rogues a repercussion, but that's fairly a quibble.

In a game like mine, where I don't use "gotcha" traps (encounter traps, yes, but those are different beasts), there's really no need for a rogue, and I try to discourage players from playing them - if they want a Fighter with loads of Sneak Attack, they can play a Thug(Unearthed Arcana), or splash a few levels of Rogue with Swashbuckler plus the new Complete Scoundrel feat I can't remember at the moment. If they want a sneaky magical guy, they can play a Warlock or Beguiler.

In an "class abilities are feats" system like True20, the Rogue archetype gains a bit more like, because anyone can take Disable Device if they want it, and the appropriate sneaking/hiding feats are available to the Expert class. It's pretty easy to play the stealthy ninja, the cunning criminal mastermind, or the backstabbing thug, all with just the Expert class and the right selection of feats.

I was going to ask "What if someone wants to play the skill-monkey?", but I think you've pretty well answered that. The Expert is close enough to a PC class to be buffed into that role with little effort [raise skill points to 8 per level, allow the player their choice of good saves (instead of Will) and/or give a second good save category, possibly some bonus feats...], and I know there's something similar in the UA in the generic classes section... Personally I'm not at all worried about losing Sneak Attack, and Trapfinding may or may not be important to a given character...

 

[Campbell]

What dissatisfies me about rogues is that they're a combination of a number of archetypes. They're resourceful tomb explorers, socialites, sneaky bastards, swashbucklers, and lightly armored, agile, paper tiger, melee specialists. All are valid archetypes, but they aren't really the same archetype.

 

[Mortellan]

Rogues have infinitely more variety than any class. The reason? Skill points. I nearly ALWAYS start at 1st level with rogue merely for the ton of skill points and class skill choices.

 

[Wik]

Actually, examples of precisely this would be helpful. I suspect my list of archetypes is inadequate, but I couldn't think of a pre-D&D character of a stature sufficient to become the "thief" of D&D.

The Gray Mouser, a dueling man who relied on his wits, his dabbling in skills, and his personal agility. He was also something of a charmer.

Hell, most of the musketeers. Warriors, true, but agile warriors. With good social skills.

Bilbo Baggins is an obvious example, but he was more emulated by OD&D's halfling class.

 

[Imp]

What dissatisfies me about rogues is that they're a combination of a number of archetypes. They're resourceful tomb explorers, socialites, sneaky bastards, swashbucklers, and lightly armored, agile, paper tiger, melee specialists. All are valid archetypes, but they aren't really the same archetype.

This is exactly what I like most about them. Fighters are this way, too, and even clerics to some degree (with domains). Wizards are the most stuck in a particular archetype, because being a specialist wizard is not that meaningful.

People go on about "going back to the four-class standard," but if a class couldn't cover multiple archetypes it would be unbearable instead of just kind of hidebound.

A stereotypical action hero would be a fighter who dips into rogue and barbarian. The problem with this is escalating DCs, but this is something DMs can control.

 

[hong]

Play the Iron Heroes thief, executioner and harrier, people. You know you want to.

 

[Minicol]

I don't want any changes to the list of classes. It would alter the feel of the game. If anything, we need less magic using classes (or unified mechanics for them) to show for the rarity of magic.

The mechanics of the game can be changed, instead of the class disappearing. The rules for trapfinding are not very good IMHO, but why not make rogues experts in them (and trapbuilding too) while opening the option to other classes ? Also, you could keep the rogue and change its list of class options.

I think you took the problem the other way round : there are many problems in the mechanics of the game, and you blame the class for mechanics that are the real cause.

 

[Someone]

The Gray Mouser, a dueling man who relied on his wits, his dabbling in skills, and his personal agility. He was also something of a charmer.

Hell, most of the musketeers. Warriors, true, but agile warriors. With good social skills.

Bilbo Baggins is an obvious example, but he was more emulated by OD&D's halfling class.

I disagree with the Grey Mouser being a rogue, or at least a pure rogue, he'd be closer to rogue/fighter/wizard. Bilbo Baggins would be, and I think the thief class was built around that archetype, since he wasn't much of a combatant, but nearly every one else is also a skilled warrior (from the Grey Mouser to Conan) in the first place, and also able to sneak around, have a silver tongue, and use their wits when they need. The problem with one class holding the sneaky/charming niche is that it means the other classes are noisy and irritating, which runs contrary to most fantasy works starting from LotR.