Rogues: essential class or sacred cow?

[fusangite]

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.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

IME the problem with Rogues is the same as the problem with Bards and Druids... basically every published module focuses on hack and slash with a couple traps thown in as an afterthought, so when running the game its difficult to mesh the meticulous nature of the Rogue trap-defeating with the kill happy barbarian.

I enjoy playing a Rogue, and enjoy running them. There are a couple HR's that make the mechanics a little easier to swallow {Sean Reynolds 'avoiding absoulutes' to open up Open Locks to other characters, trap-sense working as a Take 10 while moving cautiosly, etc..} and try to set up trap encounters that can involve the entire party instead of focusing 15 minutes of game play on one character.

I don't think the Rogue needs to be changed, just a tweak to the rules supporting them and more work on the DM's side of the table.

 

[kaomera]

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.

Personally, I'd have to say that D&D is a bit too combat-focused. It's true that a lot of players really come to the table for a good fight (and that's fine), but there are also players who really don't get much out of the D&D combat system, and the system has a definite bias twords combat that ends up slanting things too far in that direction, IMHO. I think one of the things that has been missing from a lot of my more recent games is a sense of excitement about the game as a whole. If there is a fight, I'm interested even if I'm not the one "up to bat", because this is my character's party out there, and I want them to survive and win. I like to cheer on the Barbarian when he hits a big critical, while there are often other players who can't even be bothered to pay attention if it's not their action. Likewise, I don't expect to hog the spotlight all night, but I'd like it if the rest of the group could at least feign interest for as long as it takes for me to make a few die rolls. [I'm thinking, specifically, of two instances: One where I carefully went over how to safely get through a trapped portal, and half the party wasn't paying attention and ended up teleported into a prison, and a second where the one player who's PC knew the solution to a puzzle never heard me ask the group for help, and we missed out on a shortcut that would have probably saved two PCs lives...)

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.

I disagree. Personally I find that "rogue" is a very generic term. It's not completely neutral, true, but then neither is "barbarian", "monk", or "sorcerer". But I can kind of agree that Trapfinding and Sneak Attack are loaded abilities, and very much a holdover from the oD&D / AD&D Thief class. I think that the Thief may have had a bit more going for it as an archetype. Certainly, Thieves' Guilds and Thieves' Cant come from actual sources. I'm not sure there are many main characters that fit into that archetype, but then fiction doesn't usually have to deal with the "party structure". I think that the Rogue, while losing a bit of the out-of-gaming cred that the Thief had, kind of moved into the role (in D&D) that the Thief had fill, and expanded it a bit. In the process it has, indeed, become much more of a catch-all.

I'd be perfectly happy playing in a game where the other characters got more skill points and filled in the role of the Rogue. I'm not as interested in constantly playing a warrior or a spell-slinger (well, maybe a Diviner) as I am in playing a scoundrel and all-around clever / sneaky weasel of a character, but I could surely make do. Actually, I already do so without any changes to the rules, as I usually will try and play other classes a bit Rogue-like. But if you remove the archetype completely, that is: if there are no more traps to find, no more bargains to be wheedled out, no more strange writings to decipher, no more secret doors to find and prize open... Well, then, it's not really D&D anymore, to me.

 

[Pickaxe]

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.

Certainly, you could design a fantasy RPG where you eliminate classes altogether. In this genre, though, players want to take on the roles of classic archetypes, like the strong hero with the big pointy stick, or the mysterious wizard who harnesses magical power. But I'm not suggesting eliminating classes; I'm asking questions about how classes end up in the D&D game, and how our perception of their reasons for existence changes.

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.

"Rogue archetype" is not the same as "rogue class." So, you are leaving out another relevant question: Does the rogue class capture the "rogue archetype" that people want? What I'm suggesting is that it doesn't capture the myriad archetypes that people associate with the "rogue", but they are a fixture in D&D that we've come to expect, as with any "sacred cow".

Here's another way to look at it. What if the game replaced the rogue with the scout from Complete Adventurer? The scout essentially has all the rogue functionality, so no one could complain that there's been some loss of party function. Would we still ask for our rogues back; if so, why? Because the scout doesn't give us the chance to be the Gray Mouser? Or because rogues/thieves have been a part of D&D from the very beginning, and we just want them in the game? If the answer is more in the vein of the former, then rogues are an essential part of the game, providing an expression of a vital archetype. If the answer is along the latter line, then rogues are a sacred cow.

So, the point of this thread is that the possibility that such a central D&D class might be a sacred cow occured to me only recently, and I wanted to see if others could convince me one way or the other.

--Axe

 

[Pickaxe]

I disagree. Personally I find that "rogue" is a very generic term. It's not completely neutral, true, but then neither is "barbarian", "monk", or "sorcerer".

Of course, barbarians and monks have alignment restrictions that play to the personality types associated with those terms.

But I can kind of agree that Trapfinding and Sneak Attack are loaded abilities, and very much a holdover from the oD&D / AD&D Thief class. I think that the Thief may have had a bit more going for it as an archetype. Certainly, Thieves' Guilds and Thieves' Cant come from actual sources.

You touch on something that probably would shed a lot of light on the archetypes that established the thief class. Anyone know these sources?

I'm not as interested in constantly playing a warrior or a spell-slinger (well, maybe a Diviner) as I am in playing a scoundrel and all-around clever / sneaky weasel of a character, but I could surely make do. Actually, I already do so without any changes to the rules, as I usually will try and play other classes a bit Rogue-like. But if you remove the archetype completely, that is: if there are no more traps to find, no more bargains to be wheedled out, no more strange writings to decipher, no more secret doors to find and prize open... Well, then, it's not really D&D anymore, to me.

This actually fits very well with my argument. The rogue archetype is more about how the character is played than things that translate into class abilities. But D&D is ill-suited to defining such a class, so, instead of a cunning, sneaky trickster with, say, a high Intelligence, the rogue is a high-Dex character with poor AC and hit points and sneak attack. If you can instill the cunning and stealth into any of your characters, why do you need the rogue class?

I certainly don't advocate removing traps and puzzles and negotiation as parts of the game, but I do think these aspects could be redistributed to other classes.

--Axe

 

[delericho]

Personally, I think Trapfinding should be a feat (or, just not required at all). Other than that, there's nothing in the Rogue class that is truly irreplacable.

That said, I can't imagine an incarnation of the D&D game without some sort of skillsy trickster/scoundrel/rogue character. It's just too iconic.

(I think the Rogue, like a lot of classes, has been harmed by the proliferation of new base and prestige classes, with things like the Ninja and the Scout treading on its toes to some extent. Personally, I'm all for talent trees being brought into the core for the next edition, multiclassing made easier and more accepted, and the number of classes reduced.)

 

[T. Foster]

The thief class wasn't part of original D&D (they were added as an option in Supplement I in 1975) and the game worked fine without them -- traps were found by dwarfs, player cleverness, or the cleric find traps spell and were avoided rather than disarmed, locks were opened by keys, by force, or by the magic-user knock spell, and being "sneaky" and "roguish" were role-playing matters -- a fighter or elf with a high Int, high Dex, high Cha, and neutral or chaotic alignment who relies on speed and stealth and who attacks with missiles or by ambush covers the "rogue archetype" every bit as well as the D&D thief class (who, based on his skill-set, is actually more of a mechanic or trapsmith than a dashing swashbuckler-type).

The Gray Mouser is acknowledged as the main literary model for the D&D thief class, but IMO he doesn't even particularly fit the class -- except for the way he dresses, the weapons he uses, and the fact that he's called a "thief" he doesn't (that I can recall) use any of the D&D thief-skills (picking locks and pockets, disabling traps, etc.) and is much too good a fighter (equal in ability to Fafhrd and thus one of the two best fighters on the entire planet of Nehwon). Bilbo Baggins, Cugel the Clever, Shadowjack, Kickaha, and Ali Baba are all considered "thief archetypes" as well, but again their thiefliness comes more from matters of style and attitude than any demonstrated skillset -- Bilbo's stealthiness is reflected in the hobbit racial writeup, all of the other guys could just as easily be fighters (and with Kickaha, like The Gray Mouser, you have to deal with the fact that he's way too good at fighting to be a straight D&D thief -- there's no way either of these guys has d4 hit dice and attacks on the cleric table!).

There are two issues (beyond pure interia and sacred-cowedness) that cause people to want the thief class in D&D: 1) players like to play dashing/roguish "trickster" characters who rely on quick wits and a clever tongue rather than brute force (like all of the characters listed above, plus Han Solo, Odysseus, and tons of others), and 2) an expert mechanic/trapsmith/locksmith/"skill guy" is a valuable asset to a party in a traditional dungeoncrawl. The thief class in D&D represents #2, but people play it because they want #1, even though the fit is awkward at best, if not downright contradictory -- the ostensibly free-spirited, unfettered trickster character meticulously checking every 5' square for traps while the rest of the party stands around waiting. IMO these two concepts need a divorce -- roguishness/tricksterishness should be a matter of role-playing and feat selection (to maximize speed and stealth-rlated special maneuvers), trapsmithery should be a matter of skill selection and racial bonuses (for dwarfs and gnomes) and, honestly, is probably a more suitable role for an NPC henchman or hireling "guest star" than an actual long-term PC -- if you're going into a dungeon where you expect you'll encounter lots of mechanical traps and locks, you bring along a dwarfish Expert NPC who can't fight or do anything else for crap but is ace at spotting and disarming traps and cracking locks.

 

[Woas]

Yes. Do away with them and give more skills & skill points to the other classes. Skills are fun and if there is one thing everyone has learned here at ENWorld it is that more fun = better game.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

My problem with the rogue is that between the skill points and the sneak attack, they are something of a "must dip" class for almost every character idea I have... so why have it be a seperate class to begin with? Imagine if power attack and proficeincy with two handed weapons were exclusive fighter abilities, and any build that involved them had to dip into fighter. That's how I feel about the rogue. Just make sneak attack a feat (or introduce a ranged/finesse version of power attack) and bump up skill points across the board. Getting rid of trapfinding is a gimme, that one is just silly.

 

[Tonguez]

Change every class except for the rogue.

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

I actually agree with this

The Rogue is the Archetypal Adventurer who can do 'a bit of everything' but the DnD clas system gimps them by reducing their BAb and giving class abilities which could easily be feats (or even better Talent trees). Conan and Greymouser were both Rogues with Fighter BAb, and Rogue-wizards work in skillbased magic systems (see Cudgel).
plus the utility belt spells like Knock and find traps re one of my personal peeves about DnD!

I agree Clerics can be dropped and Wizards should use divine magic (either through pacts with demons or the favour of bloodthirsty gods)