The rogue - is it a necessary class?

[johnsemlak]

For me, the main reason I want to keep rogues in the game is the desire I have sometimes to play a character based on the rogue archtype--the sneaky, tricky, brain-over-brawn, 'good hands' hero. Whether or not the rogue is as valuable as the other classes is irrelavent--when I decide to play a rogue, I want to develop that archtype. Plus, I think 3e has enough flexibility to allow a (well played) rogue to shine in most campaigs.

For me, this is a lot like previous campaigns that the Ranger was unplayable in 3e. While perhaps it was weaker than other classes, for me this wasn't that important. If I played a ranger, I simply wanted to play that archtype (I personally had problems in 3e and 3.0e with the two weapon fighting bit, but that's another story).

Summary, if the players want to play a particular type of character, and are willing to develop that character, I don't see any reason why any class isn't viable particulary in 3rd edition.

 

[francisca]

There's more to D&D than tomb raiding...

Of course there is. But even in the classic tomb raiding scenario, there is plenty for a rogue to do.

For example: the clerics, wizards, and tanks can be holding off the infinite throng of undead buying time for the rogue who is feverishly deciphering scripts, undoing multiple locks, disarming multiple traps, all to gain access to the the one artifact that will stop the undead army in their tracks and turn them to dust, and of course, awake the ancient, evil lord of the undead......try that one on your party, die_kluge.

 

[Kichwas]

Similar conversation occurred last night at a new game one of my players kicked up.

The only thing you 'need' a rogue for is traps that have a DC over 20. Beyond that a well rounded group can deal. In any out of dungeon situation I'm of the opinion that you should drop the rogue and replace with a socially focused bard to give the group a 'face' or 'leader'.

 

[Victim]

Sure, a group with lots of spellcasters can use spells to reduce the need for skills. But spells are:

Finite: casters only have limited numbers per day, and may not know/have prepared the appropriate spell. Wands or scrolls can reduce the ened for the proper spells some what, but have limited total uses.

Countered by other spells: "Who needs stealth, Invis is low and has a good duration?" Sure, Invis works great at allowing non sneaky characters to sneak around. At least until you run into someone using a different 2nd level spell that lets them See Invis. At high levels, many monsters can detect Invisible guys, and so can many characters. So having stealth skills gives you a chance of success, while magic has none. Same thing for information gathering. Divination spells are well and good until you run into a Mind Blanked foe.

And skills are resisted with other skills, not saves. A high sense motive is usually going to be better than Detect Lies.

 

[Urbannen]

Similar conversation occurred last night at a new game one of my players kicked up.

The only thing you 'need' a rogue for is traps that have a DC over 20. Beyond that a well rounded group can deal. In any out of dungeon situation I'm of the opinion that you should drop the rogue and replace with a socially focused bard to give the group a 'face' or 'leader'.

This is exactly right.

Heck, you don't even really need a bard since so few people really use the social skills.

 

[Psion]

Rogue: needed for the PCs in a party? I don't really think so. I don't think any of the "core four" are strictly necessary unless you are fixated on running a forumula dungeon crawl.

Needed as a character archetype in a fantasy mileu? Abso-frikin'-lutely. The one thing I lament about AU is the lack of the rogue. Spellcasters of all stripes can be explained or explained away with the cosmology and traditions. But some rogue type and some warrior type are central to fantasy gaming, AFAIAC.

 

[francisca]

Rogue: needed for the PCs in a party? I don't really think so. I don't think any of the "core four" are strictly necessary unless you are fixated on running a forumula dungeon crawl.

isn't this only an issue with commercially produced products which use the pre-fab 4 concept as the yardstick to measure by? Which begs the question: How many designers out there stick to the idea of designing to the core four? I've not run, nor do I own many, commercially produced modules, er um, adventures I mean, so I have no idea. Psion, and any other reviewers, could you shed some light on this for me?

 

[mmadsen]

It seems to me that the rogue is the class that is most easily made redundant by spells and magic items.

Absolutely. I see two basic solutions: (1) make spells like knock, invisibility, and fly higher level, or (2) give the rogue similarly amazing "ninja" powers at a lower level.

 

[RC Hagy]

One thing touched on but not outright stated (that I could see, slap me If I missed it...) -

What if there are no spellcasters at all? Wether from class options of the campaign to a pervasive anti-magic area (dungeon cut off from the outside for about two hundred thousand years? The evil one could inflict...).

Then if one were to kick the cleric's Base Attack down to Wiz/Sor level... might as well buff someone else.

The rogue is there solely based on the type of game played... same as every other class.

So before you swap out the rogue, see what might be done to make it useful.


Hagy

 

[Desdichado]

Hey! Not to hijack, but good to see you again, mmadsen. Where've you been? Posting in other forums?