The rogue - is it a necessary class?

[der_kluge]

I was having this conversation with one of my players (and friend) last night. Another player in our group is playing a rogue, and we both felt like she wasn't really getting much out of the class. This particular player typically plays fighters, and even told me once that she didn't understand all the spell rules, so was uncomfortable playing spellcasters.

The reason she is playing a rogue is what prompted our discussion, and this thread. When I started my campaign, I knew what kind of party I wanted. This was going to be a high-level campaign (starting at 9th - ending at 20th), and I wanted an arcane spellcaster, a rogue, a cleric, and 2 fighters. I ended up adding this other friend of mine (the one whom I had the conversation with), and he made a fighter/wizard/spellsword, which, for me, rounded out the party make-up. It was perfect, I thought.

Which leads me back to the gamer player the rogue. I feel like, at least in some respect, she's playing a rogue because she knew the party *needed* one. I wanted to build the ultimate in diversifed parties, and the rogue was what was left - all the other players had chosen their classes.

So, my friend asked me the question that I couldn't really answer - "why did you want a rogue?" And it led me to question the value that a rogue really adds to a party. It seems to me that the rogue is the class that is most easily made redundant by spells and magic items. Need to open a locked door? Knock. Need to dole out lots of damage to an opponent - the two fighters should be able to handle that fairly easily. In fact, I could think of no reason why, in my big scheme of things, that I actually *needed* a rogue.

Oh sure, I could put lots of traps in the dungeons, but traps in a dungeon usually just slow down game play. For the party to stop, and allow the rogue to make all kinds of checks for finding and removing traps fundamentally changes the pace of the game, and I don't like that. I don't want to put traps in dungeons just to keep it interesting for her, either. I would only place traps if they actually made sense. Instead, I prefer more puzzle-oriented rooms where the party as a whole has to find a solution to get through the room or challenge, versus just boiling it down to a simple dice roll.

And the rogue's sneak attack isn't a must-have. If I replace her with a ranger, she's going to add some healing, some extra clerical spells, and she'll have a better to-hit, and deal more damage in the long run than the rogue would anyway. So, sneak-attack isn't something that a party needs.

In the dungeon the party just came out of, this player would have her character sit on the edge of a sarcophagus and dangle her feet while the party dealt with throngs of undead. She would hide behind pillars while they dispatched golems. And finally, when they met a living creature she would be able to sneak attack, I dominated her, and she attacked (and missed) the party's sorcerer. So, it's obvious to me that, from a combat perspective, she has already recognized her ineffectiveness. I want to act to ensure that she doesn't grow bored of this character (and coincidentally my campaign), so I'm going to see if she would prefer to change the character over to Ranger, which I think will add significantly more value in the long run anyway.

So, my question is - does a party REALLY *need* a rogue? Especially, a high level party?

 

[Henry]

No one actually NEEDS any of the classes - except maybe a warrior and a spell user. Everything else can be faked with magic.

Need clerics? Not with Cure wands and bards and rangers and paladins running about. 7 out of the 11 base classes can use a cure light wounds wand Need wizards? a rogue with a good UMD skill and a couple of wands can provide firepower, and many clerics duplicate traditional wizard spells.

So in retrospect, 3E doesn't HAVE to have any classes.

But it's better in my opinion to let a players play what he wants, and tailor the adventure to the actual makeup.

 

[TiQuinn]

You can rely on spells from wizards and clerics for so long, but eventually they run out of spells. Besides, do you want to have your wizard memorizing Knock all the time? A nimble rogue with a good Tumble and Balance check can get to places without the use of spells, which can be key in certain situations. The point is that the rogue shines in many situations BECAUSE she doesn't need to use spells. That's a benefit for the spellcasters too, who now can use their spells for other purposes. And really, I don't think it's fair to judge a class based on a dungeon filled with golems and undead. It'd be similar to saying that the Druid stinks because the game is set in an dungeon beneath a huge city. Maybe for what you have in mind, the rogue isn't necessary. But in many games, those that deal with the use of skills, intrigue, and general sneakiness, the rogue could be more useful than any of the others.

 

[Asmo]

die_kluge wrote:

"In the dungeon the party just came out of, this player would have her character sit on the edge of a sarcophagus and dangle her feet while the party dealt with throngs of undead. She would hide behind pillars while they dispatched golems. And finally, when they met a living creature she would be able to sneak attack, I dominated her, and she attacked (and missed) the party's sorcerer."

Why do you have throngs of undead when you have a rogue in the party that you know can´t sneak attack them? Ok, it´s fun for the cleric,but not to fun for the rogue. Let the spellcaster cast Improved Invisibilty on the rogue and give him some living creatures, I guess that would spice things up for the rogue
When I dm I feel that it´s my responsibilty to let all the pcs shine,including the rogue. Give him that opportunity.

Asmo

 

[Berandor]

So you don't put traps in a dungeon for the rogue, but instead fill it with golems and undead, and the living target decides to dominate the rogue (and not, say a fighter)? That seems to me as if you accidentally made the dungeon especially anti-rogue.

But, what about pick-pocket? Sneak? Bluff/Diplomacy/Gather Information/SenseMotive? Tumbling/Climbing/Jumping?

Yes, a big part of the rogue is trap-disabling. But he can be so much more.

However, if your campaign takes place mostly in the wilderness and in dungeons, but without traps, with undead and golems - than perhapy you really don't need a rogue. D&D is a game where you can replace most everything with magic.

Berandor

 

[diaglo]

in this edition the rogue true purpose and role is a skills vs. magic vs combat class.

she should've bumped up the skills needed by the character.

dragon wis 50 or so say....sense motive 1000 or so. who has a shot against that. but in reality it is more like dragon wis 20 with 15 ranks of sense motive so d20 +20 vs.....who...the rogue of course..with max ranks of bluff or diplomacy or whatever is needed...in gather information etc...

 

[francisca]

To me, this is obvious, but I'll state it anyway: depends on the kind of game you want to play.

The DM who runs the 1E game I play explicitly excludes thieves and assassins, as he doesn't run that kind of game. I was originally all "what the heck" about it, but in his game, they are not needed. It's a combat and magic, quest oriented game where alot of time is spent in the wlderness.

City based campaigns and games which feature magic less than the standard put forth in the PHB offer more opportunity for rogues, where their sneaking skills and chances at quick kills are very handy, especially at low level.

In the end, whether you need the rogue or not is dependant on your group and your style of DMing. Pretty obvious answer, eh?

I would bet that most people out their could do without the rogue, though I have nothing but a gut feeling about that to go on.

This might be a good poll, where the utiltiy of the rogue is rated from none to vital for people's current campaigns.

 

[der_kluge]

The dungeon was specifically designed that was, because the inhabitants had been inside - sealed off, for over 200,000 years. So, living creatures were in a rare form inside.

The campaign itself will feature Slaad, and dragons, and demons eventually, but there will be a fair amount of undead, and constructs as well.

I've sent a note to the player in any case. We'll see what she says.

 

[Harlock]

Rogues are more than disarming traps, you see. Rogues have all those wonderful social skills for roleplaying situations. Sure, a wizard can charm some schmuck, but can she charm a whole angry town with one stirring speech? Sure the wizard can turn invisible and cast silence on herself to be sneaky, but a rogue can be undetectable without using up some of the most precious adventuring resources around; spells. Sure the Cleric can heal the party, but the rogue can too with use magic device...

There's more to D&D than tomb raiding and the rogue can shine in most every case with an understanding DM that's willing to create opportunities for her. Of course, if your players aren't interested in that style of game, then work with the rogue's player to develop a character she can enjoy. After all, if the game isn't fun, why play?

 

[gfunk]

As others have stated, rogues are good for role-playing due to their breadth of skill selection. However, their main advantage (class-specific) is sneak attacking. I find it incredible that so many creatures are immune to this ability or can be rendered immune (uncanny dodge, fortification armor, etc.).

No other class has their significant power stripped in such a way.

If you want a combat rogue, the best thing I can suggest is to freely multi-class with fighter or barbarian and focus on melee. Either stay invisible (via greater invsibility or the like) or try to continually flank.