Rogues: essential class or sacred cow?

[Failed Saving Throw]

I don't think any classes are, per se, necessary. The game could also chug along without fighters, paladins, rangers, wizards, sorcerors, druids, bards or clerics for that matter. The only relevant questions are: do people like the rogue archetype and are the rogue's abilities balanced and attractive? And the answer is: yes. (At least if one sticks with the MM and does not use the construct and undead-obsessed monster books WOTC has been grinding out since.)

So I don't really understand the point of the thread.

If I were redesigning the game, I don't know I would include the rogue; but that's because I don't know what the purpose of the hypothetical redesign would be.

Amen! I also find this thread a bit strange. I and several other long-time players I know love rogues and love playing them.

 

[Marnak]

Failed Saving Throw wrote: "I also find this thread a bit strange. I and several other long-time players I know love rogues and love playing them."

The point of the thread is NOT that rogues suck and no one likes playing them. The point of the thread is to ask this question: could you play the same type of character by choosing another class and making trapfinding and sneak attack into feats? If the answer is yes, then the rogue class is not essential and could be dropped without really hurting folks like you that love rogues and love playing them. If the answer is no, Pickaxe wants to know why, what makes the rogue a necessary class. What is the secret of the 3.5e rogue for those who love them? What makes them choose that class instead of another when wanting to play the "stealthy rascal"? Is it sneak attack? Is it trapfinding? Why is the rogue preferable to say the scout? Or even the ranger if the ranger was given trapfinding and sneak attack as an option along with TWF/Bow?

 

[Psionicist]

Thank you Pickaxe and T. Foster for the most insightful posts I've read in a very long time. I had never thought about this myself but it is very true; the rogue is not really needed as a concept. And classes are concepts, not professions.

I think the biggest problem conceptually is most people equate the rogue with what we in real life call professionals, but forget that they are adventurers first and professionals second. Indiana Jones for example, as an archaeologist, or MacGyver who you could say is in law enforcement. How do you portray a skilled worker who happens to also be an adventurer in the rules?

Enter the rogue, which is a hacky way to introduce a character class that doesn't really exist in fantasy settings but people relate to in movies and real life. Just because archaeologist is a profession now in the 21:st centuary, doesn't mean it have to be a class. In the same vein, I wouldn't call "doctor" or "lawyer" or "computer programmer" character classes. This is just a skillset. The class? Commoner.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

The point of the thread is to ask this question: could you play the same type of character by choosing another class and making Class ability Xtrapfinding and Class Ability Ysneak attack into feats?

The answer is 'yes'... regardless of which class you are talking about.
I have an alt-Paladin built through skills and feats... it needs a bit of work and would do better with talent trees, and now that I have the 'Complete Champion' I need to rework it to integrate those concepts... but..

Really all you need to mechanically represent any character concept is three base classes; 'Me Bash', 'Me Think', 'Me Spell' and a balanced set of feats and talent trees, and allow liberal multi-classing.

But.. that doesn't sell 'Complete X' books and it becomes to easy to introduce off-kilter material. The current system allows much of the flexiblity while minimizing the time/effort needed to ensure the GM can predict what level of encounter is appropriate.

If you walk in with a 5th level Rogue I have a good idea of what your characters abilities are.
If you walk in with a 5th level 'Me Think' with the 'cunning tactician', 'rapid strike', and 'arcane touch' talent trees and a list of 3rd party feats... I have to look over your character carefully to determine its power level.


As to Rogues in fiction, they are all over the place.. but you have to remember that authors tend to liberally multi-class. Almost every 'Rogue' would be stated out with at least one other class, Grey Mouser for instance was an apprentice Wizard.
The only 'pure' Rogue that comes to mind in literature is Golum...

Classes are a hacky way to represent character concepts without having to spend hours working on a character. New players can walk in and plop into a character relatively easily, and older players can tweak and twist to show the potential variants within the class. Not a perfect system, but it works well enough for me.

 

[kaomera]

Except that I don't belive this is true for fighters. Their role can be performed by other classes, but you can't get all the archetypes of the "warrior hero" from the barbarian, paladin, or ranger. The fighter does not have the same issues as the rogue.

And this is our point of disagreement: I have a far harder time playing a Fighter as the classic warrior-hero than I do playing a Rogue as the classic dashing scoundrel. The only specific archetype that the Fighter really fits for me is the knight-in-shining-armor, and then specifically one who has others to do everything for him. Even with Able Learner, the Fighter's lack of skill points just holds them back too much, IMHO.

 

[papastebu]

The term "class" has always meant "societal stratification" to me. Archtype is more accurate, but is harder to say. All four of the Archtypes are iconic, and some idea of what a character with a given set of skills and abilities will allow in-game is essential. However, the classes do not actually need to exist, at all. Only the abilities that they have are important, as far as in-game actions, and their concepts in the minds of players, as far as what those characters decide on as a course of action.
To this point, I say do away with character classes completely, except as an easy way to help those completely new to the game to make a character, first time out. Kind of like pre-gens in Shadowrun, Earthdawn, and others. Otherwise, bring a concept to the gaming table, and devise a system by which the player can choose any combination of skills, abilities, powers, whatever, and limit it through level-dependent choice, or some sort of points-per-level buy system. The character can be as puissant or skillful as the player chooses, but can only go so far per level. Another way to do this would be to have point-buy for everything, like most, if not all, of the White Wolf games, and the character doesn't have levels, so much as plateaus that can be exceeded with more points earned in-game.

P.S. I am not talking about D&D, as such, though I understand that this is the thrust of the thread. If classes are used as they stand, often it stands in the way of character concept, rather than facilitating it. This is true of any game or game system you use.

 

[Someone]

I'm more and more convinced that Fighter and Rogue should be a single class. Feat choices are enough to build the sneak attack-trapfinding-light armor archetipe of the rogue and/or the other traditional Fighter roles.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Really all you need to mechanically represent any character concept is three base classes; 'Me Bash', 'Me Think', 'Me Spell' and a balanced set of feats and talent trees, and allow liberal multi-classing.

Which is why you'll find those classes in Unearthed Arcana.

Honestly, I don't get the "rogue = sacred cow" thing. While it's the original sneaky skills guy, it's not something that everyone's going to play at every point. Every other archetype (hit things guy, nuke things guy, patch up guy) has multiple classes devoted to it, why shouldn't the sneaky skills guy?

Brad

 

[Pickaxe]

Rogues and the players who love them

Amen! I also find this thread a bit strange. I and several other long-time players I know love rogues and love playing them.

This thread is not about whether playing rogues is enjoyable. Certainly, some players enjoy playing them a lot.

Nor is it about whether rogues do anything worthwhile in a party. It's easy to convince me that they do.

Nor is it about whether they have a place in D&D iconography. The thief or rogue class has been in D&D for almost as long as the game has been around.

What I'm really asking is whether the rogue archetype(s) is/are such an integral part of the fantasy genre that if you removed the rogue class you'd severely compromise the game's ability to express the genre.

In other words, if you simply subtracted the rogue (or any class), players might complain because a) the rogue is necessary for party function, b) rogues are a traditional part of D&D (i.e., sacred cow), or c) the game's rogue class uniquely represents archetypes that are an indispensible part of the fantasy genre, sine qua non. What I want to know is how many people would complain because of "c"?

Quote:
Originally modified from Marnak
The point of the thread is to ask this question: could you play the same type of character by choosing another class and making Class ability X and Class Ability Y into feats?


The answer is 'yes'... regardless of which class you are talking about.

That's not quite what I'm asking. Rather, if someone did what is suggested above would we a) be fine with it, as long as we can still build well-rounded parties, b) not be fine with it, because the class in question has "always" been part of D&D, or c) not be fine with it, because some fantasy archetype can no longer be played?

And this is our point of disagreement: I have a far harder time playing a Fighter as the classic warrior-hero than I do playing a Rogue as the classic dashing scoundrel. The only specific archetype that the Fighter really fits for me is the knight-in-shining-armor, and then specifically one who has others to do everything for him. Even with Able Learner, the Fighter's lack of skill points just holds them back too much, IMHO.

We might find ourselves simply agreeing to disagree, but let me at least address your argument. I agree that the knight fits the fighter, but I think there are far more archetypes that fit as well. Achilles, Heracles, Odysseus, Arjuna, Boromir, Beowulf, among others all strike me as characterized by fighting skill (though in different ways), in a way that suggests nothing of the paladin, barbarian, or ranger, and certainly no other class would fit. They seem like some of the archetypal characters for which the fighter class ultimately exists.

On the other hand, though I'm sure the rogue makes a fine "dashing scoundrel," I can't think of anything that sets this class apart from the others in its ability to capture this particular persona. I suppose I could be convinced if dashing scoundrels were all about the skills, but I don't see this myself, and, even if it were true, I don't see that other classes wouldn't have sufficient skills and skill points to be just as dashing and scoundrelly.

--Axe

 

[kaomera]

What I'm really asking is whether the rogue archetype(s) is/are such an integral part of the fantasy genre that if you removed the rogue class you'd severely compromise the game's ability to express the genre.

In other words, if you simply subtracted the rogue (or any class), players might complain because a) the rogue is necessary for party function, b) rogues are a traditional part of D&D (i.e., sacred cow), or c) the game's rogue class uniquely represents archetypes that are an indispensible part of the fantasy genre, sine qua non. What I want to know is how many people would complain because of "c"?

From my point of view (and based on my experiences), I think players may immediately complain about any of those options, they are more likely to complain because d) playing a Rogue is an enjoyable part of the game (which is likely to result from a combination of a, b, & c). I think part of my disagreement with your assertion is with your use of the term "sacred cow". The D&D classes are all really archetypes in their own right, and IMHO none of them exactly fits the fictional and/or historical archetypes that are suggested as examples for the classes. So from there it comes down to a question of: "Does the Rogue fall further from the out-of-game archetypes it is supposed to represent than other classes?", and I don't really feel that it does.

We might find ourselves simply agreeing to disagree, but let me at least address your argument. I agree that the knight fits the fighter, but I think there are far more archetypes that fit as well. Achilles, Heracles, Odysseus, Arjuna, Boromir, Beowulf, among others all strike me as characterized by fighting skill (though in different ways), in a way that suggests nothing of the paladin, barbarian, or ranger, and certainly no other class would fit. They seem like some of the archetypal characters for which the fighter class ultimately exists.

I agree that Heracles is definitely an archetypal Fighter, and I don't know much about Arjuna. I can see a good argument for Boromir, but I would have have a hard time fitting his position as a PC with a straight Fighter. Achilles, Odysseus, and Beowulf I say definitely need something beyond just the Fighter class to represent them.

Note that I'm not suggesting that the Fighter is a "sacred cow", or that it doesn't serve a very important place in the game, but I feel that the limitations placed on the class (in order to preserve play-balance and niche protection) are more of a problem for me in play than those of the Rogue.

On the other hand, though I'm sure the rogue makes a fine "dashing scoundrel," I can't think of anything that sets this class apart from the others in its ability to capture this particular persona. I suppose I could be convinced if dashing scoundrels were all about the skills, but I don't see this myself, and, even if it were true, I don't see that other classes wouldn't have sufficient skills and skill points to be just as dashing and scoundrelly.

You have a point. However, I don't generally feel that the Fighter does a very good job at the traditional warrior archetype. I don't think that it's all about BAB and weapon proficiencies. Now Feats do go a long way twords dealing with this (and Fighters is definitely the class to go to for Feats), but there's a definite skew in Feats between the great ones and the ho-hum. If you ignore the normal restrictions on Fighter bonus feats and are willing to take things like Skill Focus or the +2 / +2 feats, I think you can do a good enough job of modeling most of these characters. Even better if you are willing to dip into other classes. But if you're going to start stretching things like that, I think it's only fair to look at alternate class features that could replace features of the Rogue that don't fit a particular concept. IME most really good / creative character concepts are best supported by multiclassing, and at that point you're more likely than not to have extra class features you don't really need...

If you replace the Rogue with the Expert from UA, I'm certainly not going to complain. But at that point you really might as well adopt the whole Generic Classes system. Or throw out the class system altogether. As I said before I really see the D&D classes as archetypes in their own right; if that's what you want to play, then great. If some or all of those archetypes don't fit what you want to do (ie: are sacred cows), then you should replace them. But it's a decision that I think really needs to me made on a game by game basis. I don't think there's any way you can reasonably make a blanket statement that the game doesn't need X class...