Rogues: essential class or sacred cow?

[Zaruthustran]

But this is an arguement for a single generic class which can be customised to do anything. It ignores the fact that DnD is a classbased game and that each class has a role. Personally I graduated from OD&D to GURPS and GurpsD20 would give me a dream come true but that is not an argument for taking the rogue out of DnD

I don't really get "DnD is a classbased game" when 3E opened free multiclassing up to every character. Seems like only pure casters stick with a single class; everyone else dips 2 into ranger (for Track, skills, and TWF), or 1 into barbarian (for HP, fast movement, and rage), or 3 into rogue (for skills, 2d6 sneak, evasion, and trapfinding).

If the consumer is already cherry-picking abilities by multiclassing, why not follow customer demand and implement a less cumbersome system?

-z

PS: it'd be interesting for everyone in this thread to post the class breakdown of their current character. Mine is a rogue 1 / ranger 3 / fighter 2 / scout 1 / wildrunner 2 / shadowdancer 3. Clearly, I'm a fan of choosing specific abilities, rather than sticking with one class and gaining abilities that may not necessarily fit my concept.

 

[T. Foster]

The problem with literary models for the D&D cleric is that the role the class serves (glorified medic who provides healing and support but can also be a second-line fighter when necessary) is much more necessary in a game than in literature (where the author doesn't have to keep track of his protagonist's hp total). It's not hard to find saint/holy man/miracle-worker archetypes in myth and literature, but they don't look much like D&D clerics -- they aren't "adventurers," they don't fight, and they certainly don't go delving into dark caves looking for treasure. The knights hospitalers, St. Martin of Tours, Bishop Odo (depicted in the Bayeux tapestry), Archbishop Turpin (from the Song of Roland), Friar Tuck (perhaps) -- that's about it for fighting/"adventuring" holy men in myth/history, and significantly all of those are more post-hoc rationalizations for the D&D cleric class than archetypal models -- I find it hard to believe that anyone actually comes into the game thinking "I want to play someone like St. Martin of Tours" (which is also, presumably, why the cleric class is so famously unpopular among players, despite being overpowered (at least in AD&D and 3E)).

Therefore, I think the D&D cleric class is also a sacred cow that the game could survive without, at least archetypally. Mechanically you'd have to spread out the cleric's healing abilities to other characters -- include a first aid/chirurgery skill that anybody can use for "light" healing (hp recovery) and add an expert medic/surgeon class (mostly NPCs) who can perform more elaborate healing (cure blindness, disease, poison, re-attach severed limbs, etc.) and create healing potions and poultices; with that, the actual holy man class (ability vs. undead, resurrection and all of the other non-healing cleric spells) would become, essentially, a variant/specialty magic-user (i.e. without any assumed/inherent combat focus) and would have a much stronger and more familiar archetype. Somebody who wanted to play a "traditional D&D cleric" would do so by combining levels of fighter and holy man (and perhaps surgeon).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Keep your fingers off the rogue! One of the most versatile and most fun classes we have.

He's the adventurer. The thief. The freedom fighter. The assassin. The spy. The infiltrator. The cat-burgler. The scout. The look-out. The con man. The charlatan. The fast-talker. The thug. The pickpocket. The dungeon delver.

He's Robin Hood. Bilbo Baggins. Prometheus. The Grey Mouser. Cugel the Clever. Han Solo. Indiana Jones (obviously, Harrison Ford has trap sense +3 or more).

If you want something scouted, you can ask a sout, a ranger, a monk - or a rogue.
If you need someone who has a way with words and people, get a bard - or a rogue.
If you need someone who gets a lock open (without alerting everyone within a mile with the HULK SMASH) or a trap disarmed (without bodily harm to you or any of your buddies. And sometimes there's more traps than you have captives or halflings handy), you get - a rogue.
If you need someone who can go there (wherever "there" is), you can get a wizard (with the right spells prepared), a rogue (with the right spells known) - or a rogue.

If you want somone for all these jobs, you can either hire an army - or a decent rogue.




I love the rogue because if you select the right skills, apply the ability scores in a half-decent manner, and get the right equipment, you will hardly ever be useless: You're not lost in a fight (headway has even been made with the COUPE monsters, at least some of them, with items and magic makeing them sneak attackable), you can gather intel by various means, can speak with people, you can deal with mechanisms, and also with magic items.

Rogues are right at home in dungeons, evading its deathtraps, bypassing all the obstacles that stand between the party and the treasure - in a game like D&D, where Dungeons are so part of the game that they're part of the name, and treasure is quite important (back in the day, it was the main source of power, for it did not only provide items, but also experience, which directly translates into personal power.), the rogue could not be more useful.

Note that many stories evolve around retrieving some legendary artifact or other. They're not always guarded by legendary beasts (and even then, there have been cases where the heroes would rather steal the treasure than go into certain death), but often by clever traps.

The Freedom Fighter, rebelling against Tyranny is another strong theme, and heroes like that can use all of a rogue's skills: Pretending to be someone else (so the Legion of Doom won't apprehend you), be convincing (to gain fighters for the cause) but also being able to keep a low profile (again the Legion of Doom). They can steal from the rich and give to the poor, and do so in a number of ways. They can get information, again in a number of ways.


The rogue is not a great archetype. He's a dozen of them, all rolled into one, and you can usually pull off playing more then one of them at the same time.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Terrific post, Kae'Yoss!

-z

 

[Pickaxe]

Pickaxe, are you saying you want to get rid of everything 'D&Dy' about D&D and make it a generic fantasy game?

No, I'm actually not advocating getting rid of anything. I'm trying to recognize what is the effect of getting rid of any particular "D&Dy" thing. Just because something is a sacred cow doesn't mean it needs to go. It just means that, if you do slaughter a sacred cow, some people will care, some people won't, the game rules will still be playable (if not moreso), and you'll still be able to have the same kinds of adventures that you had before.

--Axe

 

[messy]

Terrific post, Kae'Yoss!

-z

his sig is even better

messy

 

[kaomera]

An encounter trap is a trap that is meant to be sprung, and whose initial springing bears little ill consequence. Once set in motion, the trap is observed and dealt with. Despite my loathing of the module at large, the bleeding wall trap in Tomb of Horrors is an excelletn example. The doors slide shut and the wall begins bleeding. The room begins filling up with blood, and the players must staunch the flow or get out of the room.

Another example would be a hallway filled with mechanical slashing blades. The players might sunder them, jump on them or tumble past thenm (or just charge down and take the hits).

The difference is it allows intereaction. A spring loaded crossbow hits you and is done. A pit trap is usually just a few d6 and you climb out. Those are "zinger" traps, and to me, are what bog down play, as theres no way to deal with them once they have been activated (thus the higher incentive to find and deal with them before being sprung).

I've had a chance to get a glance at encounter traps. Just a glance, really; I'd certainly want to see them in action before I passed any kind of final judgment. However, I'm not entirely sure what to think about the idea of turning traps into, basically, combat encounters. Traditionally I've seen trap-based encounters as a break from combat, so that the dungeon doesn't turn into just a long series of fights. And I can't really say that I see all that much cooperation among the PCs in combat ~ they're each only really "there" for their own turns. I'm also not sure I like the idea that the PCs first notice the encounter trap when it goes off. It seems like this kind of forces the PCs hand.

I think the concept of a "zinger" is pretty much what I would call an "invisible trap". I can totally understand not enjoying randomly-placed damage that can only be countered by more-or-less blind luck (or really stubborn die-rolling). Why bother placing a trap if the PCs aren't going to find it and have to decide how to deal with it? It seems like bad DMing to me.

The other part of rogue/decker syndrome is scouting, where the rogue sneaks off, has his solo play, then comes back. Its just the combination of the two that makes the rogue feel at odds with the cooperative group play of the rest of the game. For the record, I feel the same way about the way social skills are divied up, in that it encourages some classes to do nothing when its not time to roll initiative (hence my making all skills class skills).

I really haven't seen Rogues run off and split the party much. In fact I see very little splitting of the party at all, players seem very gun-shy of the concept. "Scouting ahead" tends to mean no more than 60', so that the rest of the party can reach the Rogue within 1 round if something goes wrong. If the Rogue was actually going to try and have his own little adventure up there then I'm pretty sure the rest of the party would move up and join him. I certainly can't see any PCs just sitting back and letting that go on.

I agree that skills could be apportioned much better in D&D. Really it could be better if niche protection could be handled by the players instead of the rules. Of course, there are some pretty big pitfalls to that method...

Undead can be killed withhout a cleric, tomes can be taken to a sage, and many classes get social skills. In core, only a rogue can disarm a real trap. And unlike a tome, you cant take it back to town to get a specialist to help out.

Well, my examples where a bit weak, I guess... For one thing, there's more than one way to avoid a trap. Often the first question comes up when the PCs find something suspicious is "Is it even worth checking for traps, or can we just avoid the whole thing?" Usually the answer is "check it", because I usually put some reason to do so in there. I want the Rogue's player to get his chance to roll the dice.

Now, I think what you're getting at (and apologies if I've misinterpreted you) is that you shouldn't have to have a Rogue in every party. I can agree with that. However, in the last three campaigns I've run I had a player who immediately wanted to play a Rogue in each one. So, I'm making the assumption that there is a Rogue in the party. If there isn't, then traps should be very few, and they have to be handled at least a bit differently. Also, I'm kind of assuming that the Rogue's player wants chances to use the Treapfinding ability (since it's on his character sheet). I haven't really ever asked about that, it's something for me to think on for the future, I guess...

Now, let's go back to my example of the tome. If you have a PC in the party who reads / writes (let's say for example: ) Draconic, and who has some ranks in (again, example: ) Knowledge: Arcana, and you find a dusty old tome that's written in Draconic and has to do with Knowledge: Arcana, you let him check it out, right? Even if that means he gets to roll the dice while some other character doesn't. I think that kind of thing is great, because it gives the player the chance to feel like he's getting some value out of those skill points. Even better if the information he gets out of the book is of use in that adventure. Now, if you don't have a character who speaks Draconic and/or has ranks in K: A, then I as DM wouldn't have placed that book there. So you don't need a character with those skills, but if you've got one, I think he should get the chance to use them. That's what I was trying to get at.

 

[Pale]

OK, I've got a question: Why would you want to remove player options in a class-based system? It's already restrictive enough as it is.

 

[JDJblatherings]

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.

Thieves Tools ...a resource. Make them buy (or build) a new set each level or they don't get to make the most of their skills. Roll 5 under a score take -1 in that skill using that set of thieves tools until a new kit can be gotten.

 

[Remathilis]

Really, you could simplify it down to two simple classes/archetypes: Warrior and Spellcaster. Everything else is some variant or combination that there of. If you combine arcane/divine magic and add skill points to all classes, you effectively "lose" 2/4 of the core classes and any variants that come from it.

But how much fun is that? In Trued20 and UA, they keep three classes (one who fights, one who has skills, one who casts). SW: Saga has five (fights, social, survival, sneaky, & mystical). Even computer games like EQ, WoW, or FFXI (all MMORPGs) keep rogues, priest/healers, and other classes along those lines variable.

Granted, you could have a flexible, all-encompassing class that alone simulates Conan, Aragorn, Robin Hood, Aladdin, Odysseus, Legolas, Bilbo, Fahfield, Hercules, Xena, Indiana Jones, and Lara Croft, but at that point you have a point-buy system, not a class system anyway...

If/when 4e comes, I hope they take the SAGA idea and make a couple good, flexible classes that have both some customization AND some internal identity.