Rogues: essential class or sacred cow?

[Imp]

Nah, the Gray Mouser just has UMD, and not very many ranks of that, either. He is the basis of that skill, and its AD&D antecedent, the read scrolls skill the thief got at like 10th level. He's maybe half fighter, or a rogue/swashbuckler with that feat from Complete Scoundrel mentioned earlier. (The feat that validates a whole class!) Fafhrd probably isn't much different, actually. I don't think he has proper barbarian levels. He's "strong enough to use a longsword as if it were a rapier," as the books say (to the shrieks of modern ARMA types) - but he's using the longsword as a rapier. And wasn't he a young skald in the first story?

 

[Someone]

I don't recall the specifics, but in one tale (talking about the origins of both the Grey Mouser and Farhrd and how they met) the Grey mouser uses very potent magic. In any case he's quite competent with weapons and able to defeat a couple dozen lesser men without breaking a sweat, IIRC from other books. The problem with literary characters is that they frequently look like six or seven D&D classes, gestalted; the only case of a pure fighter in literature I can think on comes from Jack London's "the inevitable white man" tale, where they talk about a man who was an ace with firearms, but and absolutely clumsy doing anything else.

 

[Doug McCrae]

So, what would I do if I were redesigning the game?

Change every class except for the rogue.

Rogues are fine as is, it's fighters, wizards and clerics that need work.

 

[Ozmar]

Rogues: essential class or sacred cow?

"Moo"

-Ozmar the Sacred Cowherd

Edit: oh, and as for trapfinding, the problem with that ability, IME, is that traps tend to get found one way or the other. So a big HP barbarian backed up by a healer or someone with enough magic or resources to get him out of a locked pit essentially negates the need for someone to find traps without springing them.

 

[kensanata]

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[...]

That's what I do. I think traps are mostly not fun for the party. The rogue does this, the rogue does that, and finally the chest is open, the door is open, the rope is cast. Fine. But did the others have fun? I don't think so. The same is true for sneaking ahead: While one rogue sneaks, the others wait. Sit at my table and start leafing through the MM.

I'd get rid of rogues and add their skills as class skills to other classes, if it weren't so complicated...

 

[Aus_Snow]

Change every class except for the rogue.

Rogues are fine as is, it's fighters, wizards and clerics that need work.

Heh. W3rd.


It's everyone else that's insane! j/k

 

[Marnak]

Sacred Cow that Needs Help

I believe that the rogue is a sacred cow but not an essential class in 3.5e. The things that the rogue does well can be done by other classes or aren't essential for party success.

1. Rogues are skill monkeys it is true but if a four person party is built well the rogue isn't missed. Here is a quick example of the top of my head.

Dwarven Ranger (Spot, Search, Hide, Move Silently, Tumble, Survival)
Human Barbarian (Listen, Climb, Jump, Swim, Cross-Class Tumble)
Human Wizard (Cross-Class Spot, Spellcraft, Concentration, Decipher Script)
Human Druid (Spot, Handle Animal, Heal, Diplomacy)

Note: If you wanted more of a "face" to the party, you could add Bard or Paladin instead of ranger or barbarian.

2. Rogues have trapfinding. This is true but a dwarven ranger with search gets around this underground. Still, this may be the most essential rogue skill that you give up when you abandon the rogue. Of course, you can get this ability if you take just one level of rogue and move on to some other class like ranger.

3. Rogues have sneak attack. Yes, but this ability as others on this thread have said can be nerfed in a number of encounters. I like sneak attack and think it is a cool abilityt, but I don't think it makes a rogue essential to a party.

As Kunimatyu wrote, I think the problem is with the mechanics of 3.5e. I think the rogue is a sacred cow that should be revisited in 4e so that he again assumes a role of importance comparable to that of fighters, wizards, and clerics. I think that using the "Expert" from True20 or Unearthed Arcana would be an improvement in that direction, though I continue to think about more radical changes that would help the rogue in combat because I believe what Kaomera wrote about the importance of combat in 3.5e. Some of these thoughts are posted under "house rules" at the thread Pick Axe linked to at the top.

 

[Pickaxe]

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.

Those are good archetypes, but couldn't you play all of them with something other than the rogue? Certainly the musketeers could be modeled as fighters.

Change every class except for the rogue.

Rogues are fine as is, it's fighters, wizards and clerics that need work.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing about what classes need to be rebalanced or changed, but what classes "belong" in D&D or fantasy RPGs in general, because of archetype. No matter what their problems, fighters, wizards, and clerics have strong archetypal foundations that they fit very well. (It's hard to have a "Sword and Sorcery" game without swords and spells.) The fact that your calling for these three classes to be fixed points to this; if they didn't have strong archetypes, we could just as easily get rid of them entirely. If the Hulking Hurler is unbalanced, you can ditch it without consequence. If the wizard is unbalanced, you need to change it, because there are always going to be wizards in this game.

My point about rogues is that, while I think there are strong archetypes behind the rogue, the rogue isn't really a good manifestation of those archetypes, because those archetypes are tough to translate into stats and modifiers. Instead, we have rogues because D&D has always had them, and therefore D&D has always made a place for them.

Let me throw out one other thought. Of all the core character classes, or at least those without major alignment restrictions, only the rogue has a name that has a specific connotation. I always found it odd that you could be a lawful good "rogue"; role-wise, I have no problem with this, but it seems odd that you'd be called a generally derogatory term. (This goes back to the broad set of archetypes covered, as others mentioned.) It's like having a "bandit" class, or a "nerd" class. Eliminate the rogue as class, and the term becomes like "bandit", a name you can apply when it fits.

--Axe

 

[Herobizkit]

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.

Many systems would agree with you. Note that there is no "Cleric" NPC class; we have Warrior, Adept, and Expert. Adept covers your "spellcaster" archetype. This model carried over to Blue Rose/True 20 as well. This same model also indirectly carries over to GURPS as well, having three stats to base your concept on (STrength, AGility, and IQ; HEalth is there, too, but mostly for determining starting HP) and a generic spell list to build from.

The only thing the Cleric can do that at least one other core class can't is Turn Undead. Big whoop.

 

[Delta]

I agree that rogues/thieves are a troublesome class in D&D:
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2007/03/class-trouble-1-thieves.html

My trouble is less with the archetype (the Hobbit, the Gray Mouser, Loki are good enough fantasy emblems for me). It's more with the special mechanics that got welded onto the D&D system for the rogue class.

In short, when OD&D introduced thieves, it also created this whole new mechanic based on percentages, that today has evolved into the skill system, mostly just for those darned rogues. Me, I'd just as soon hack off the whole skill system from D&D. I think I could pretty easily if it weren't for the rogue class.

Rogues/thieves also have the unique position where their skills aren't resource-based; fighters need to pick the one best attack before an enemy goes in combat; clerics & wizards have to nurse their spell slots daily and think carefully before they shoot one off. But rogues can spend an indefinite time searching, sneaking, searching -- outside of combat, with no limitation on the ability, potentially rolling dice forever and slowing the game to a crawl for the other character types.

I really don't know how to solve that, other than making the search ability reflexive (automatically rolled by DM when any opportunity arises), but that doesn't really solve the problem of having a mechanic so unlike the other classes' core abilitites.