Rogues: essential class or sacred cow?

[Warbringer]

d20 is built to allow, and encourage, dipping into classes to allow you to build the character you want.. If you think the mouser is a rogue3/fighter5/wizard8 build it; if you disagree build it your way.

IMO, classes in d20 are basically bundles of skill points, abilities, magic use, that other skills let you pay points for.

To that end, yes the rouge path is a necessary archtype.

Can you eliminate and have feats and skills to replicate the role, of course; but you can do that with every class and end up at True20 (which IMHO is the way to go)

 

[Tonguez]

Achilles, Heracles, Odysseus, Arjuna, Boromir, Beowulf,
--Axe

Hercules was a Barbarian
Achilles could be built as a Scout
don't know Arjuna
Odysseus is multiclassed Fighter +
Boromir and Beowulf could be full Fighters

 

[CruelSummerLord]

Some people have suggested how many of the characters supposedly based off rogues-the Gray Mouser, for example-are skilled fighters. They also seem to be the kind of fighters who strike in and out quickly, instead of just hacking away toe-to-toe the way Achilles or Conan would.

By the same token, the only clerics who've ever been as martial as their D&D counterparts are the Crusader-type clerics of the Middle Ages. Most priests, shamans, medicine men, and other religious/mystical figures that I'm aware of (including real-life religious figures like Jesus and Buddha) are not known for their marital prowess. The one exception might be Mohammed, but I don't know enough about Islam to comment.

So, maybe one should switch the attack matrixes and/or hit dice for clerics and rogues? This might be a way to bring them both closer to their more traditional archetypes-rogues would work as long-distance fighters, with the ability to hold their own if worst comes to worst. The cleric, for his part, would be more inclined to use spells to support and strengthen the physical characters-and there's nothing preventing the creative use of the cleric's increased variety of spells both inside and outside combat. Besides which, they can still wear armor, so their chances of surviving would be a little better.

Would this be something of an acceptable solution?

 

[T. Foster]

More straight fighter archetypes from D&D's source-literature: John Carter of Mars, Robert Wolff (aka Jadawin) ("World of Tiers" series), Leif Langdon (aka Dwayanu) (Dwellers in the Mirage), Simon Tregarth (Witch World), Skafloc (The Broken Sword), Gimli, Legolas, Sinbad, Jason, etc.

 

[Tonguez]

Gimli, Legolas, Sinbad, Jason, etc.

John Carter - yep straight fighter
Gimli - Dwarf
Legolas - Scout? Spellless Ranger, PrC 'Archer'
Sinbad - Rogue swashbuckler
Jason - could be anything non-magical really (even a rogue)

More straight Rogue archetypes
Jack (of Beanstalk fame)
Dick Whittington (or at least his cat)
Puss n Boots (the charming rogue)
Sinbad
Cugel

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Essential.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Do you think the purpose of D&D is to create simulations of all other fantasy? It isn't. It might look that way because of it's magpie-like thieving from many sources, but it doesn't copy exactly. It takes the good stuff to make something new. D&D is it's own genre (or subgenre) of fantasy.

It doesn't need to be able to simulate The Illiad, Morte d'Arthur, Conan, The Lord Of The Rings and Stormbringer all at once. What game possibly could? Those works all have different setting assumptions.

 

[hong]

don't know Arjuna

She's this K-RAD archer gal. You can trust me, because I always check my facts before posting nonsense to Usenet webforums.

 

[Shazman]

That would depend on the abilities, no? For instance, fighters can climb, an ability that was exclusive to thieves in 1e.



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.



Examples of archetypes that preceded that D&D version would make this point.



But is that simply due to "niche protection" as another poster put it?



There are certain things in D&D that are class-specific; there are others that are not (although they may be easier for one class to do than another). Several classes can Spot well; only one has Wildshape. You say rogues need to be their own class because other classes can't do what they do. I'm asking, What if we got rid of rogues and either a) let other classes do what rogues do (e.g., universal trapfinding) or b) eliminated the ability altogether (e.g., sneak attack)?

We'd still have all the necessary rogue abilities in the game, but would we still miss having the rogue class? Would we demand a class that matches some roguish archetype? Or would we just play fighters and rangers and bards that have a roguish flair?

Let me put it another way. In 1e, assassins were a separate class; in 2e (as I recall), an assassin was just, say, a fighter who was good at assassinating people. Were players bothered by the elimination of a class? How would we feel if the same thing happened to the rogue? If 4e dumped the rogue, would any outrage be able to refute the claim that rogues are just sacred cows?

I'm not actually out to get rogues, but this is a game design concept that I was interested in exploring.

--Axe

Someone at WotC doesn't seem to be a big fan of rogues. The rogue is in the biggest danger of being repalced of all of the classes. Every other splatbook since complete adventurer seems to have a base class with trapfinding and disable device and search on thier skill list. A lot of these also give lots of bonus damage in certain situations similar to sneak attack. Let's take a look at all of the base classes that can replace the rogue.
Artificer - Eberron Campaign Setting
Beguiler - Player's Handbook II
Factotum - Dungeonscape
Ninja - Complete Adventurer
Scout - Complete Adventurer
Spellthief - Complete Adventurer
That's six base classes and at least two prestige classes (dungeon delver and temple raider) that give trapfinding. A rogue is no longer necessary.

 

[robberbaron]

I like playing rogues but about the only thing that doesn't sit right with me is Sneak Attack. The old backstab wasn't so bad but it is just daft now.
Also, the proliferation of twinked rogue lookalikes make it even dafter.

My answer? Play Runequest. Any character can do anything. Just houserule Ducks away.