The rogue - is it a necessary class?

[der_kluge]

This is exactly the kind of thought-provoking discussion I was looking for.

My player responded to my e-mail. Here is her response:

I didn't choose the Rogue class to try and round out
the "wizard, fighter cleric" mix, but because I've played nothing but
fighter types for the last 2 games and wasn't very interested in playing a
magic-user of any sort. I also went with the Rogue class because it seemed
to have the skills that I was interested in having in a character - kind of
going for an Indiana Jones/Lara Croft feel, although I don't think I've
been too successful with that idea so far. That being said, perhaps it is
not a mix of skills that is particularly useful if the campaign is going to
primarily be a trek in the wilderness or one in which our primary opponents
are going to be undead (or otherwise impervious to sneak attacks).

I do admit some frustration in the tomb - she's not a front-line fighter,
although she's capable enough. It's not that I'm unhappy with the rogue
class, although I'm not against revising her to make her a more effective
character, and I certainly don't want you to have to insert things just to
make her useful. It may simply be that her skills are redundant with the
mix of other classes that we have. Perhaps I should look at the
archeologist* again, but I'm not even sure that that would be an
improvement, depending on where you have us going.

To be honest, I don't know what would make her a better character. I will
admit that there are certain obvious things keeping me a bit distracted for
the time being**.

Anyone have any ideas on making an Indiana Jones/Lara Croft character? I'm fairly certain this player has Song & Silence, though I do not. So, recommendations from that would be viable.


* a PrC I developed that is similar to bard, without the music, and more of a focus on utilitarian spells. Was originally intended for Bluffside, but didn't make the cut.
** She is pregnant.

 

[diaglo]

This is exactly the kind of thought-provoking discussion I was looking for.

My player responded to my e-mail. Here is her response:



Anyone have any ideas on making an Indiana Jones/Lara Croft character? I'm fairly certain this player has Song & Silence, though I do not. So, recommendations from that would be viable.


* a PrC I developed that is similar to bard, without the music, and more of a focus on utilitarian spells. Was originally intended for Bluffside, but didn't make the cut.
** She is pregnant.

temple raider...in SoS it is Olidammara(sp?) only but adapt it to a god in your campaign.

 

[der_kluge]

temple raider...in SoS it is Olidammara(sp?) only but adapt it to a god in your campaign.

SoS?

 

[BSF]

I could argue that the Cleric isn't necessary. I play in a game where we don't have one. We do have a ranger 15, a monk 15, a druid 15, a ftr2/wiz13, and a rogue 3/ bard12. I play the rogue/bard and the only reason I took the rogue levels was that, early on I wanted more skill points. If we had been playing 3.5 the past two years, I wouldn't have taken any rogue levels.

I ran a game where the player that wanted to play a cleric had to roleplay his ability to be a cleric. For the first 3 levels in that game, they didn't have a cleric. They did have a bard and a rogue though.

You don't need any particular class - all you need are players willing to play the game you are running. The role that each class will play will depend highly on the game you are running.

 

[diaglo]

SoS?

SOng and Silence.

my slip. i call it SoS. as in Help Me. I've fallen and I can't get up.

 

[der_kluge]

Bard, I just don't know that I agree with that. I believe that having a cleric will add so much more to the game that it makes a huge difference. A party without a cleric is going to suffer more than a party without a rogue. I agree that the DM could alter the game in such a way as to make it possible to play without a cleric. I would imagine also that the druid in the party would prefer to be more of a druid than a healer, which I suspect he currently is. Your DM probably also hands out numerous potions of healing and wands and such to make up for the lack of strong healing. Parties without a rogue don't need to do such things.

 

[Nifft]

She sounds like a Rogue3/RangerX -- very Indiana Jones.

Backstory: she grew up in a poor neighborhood and got in trouble, but worse, she got caught. She chose military service over branding, Geasing or confinement, and the Army made her into a scout. Now she's an elite sniper (archery path for Ranger levels) with a favored enemy of Aberrations (or whatever's most likely to be found in the dungeon that FE damage bonus actually works on).

-- N

 

[BSF]

SoS?

I am pretty sure that is a reference to Song & Silence.

In particular, the Temple Raider of Olidamarra (sp?)

Curtis,
I would be happy to throw out ideas on how the character could be refocused.(Wait, you are a programmer right? How about I use "refactored" if you guys are taunted by the same terminology my friends are at work. ) But, there are a lot of different options that you can go with. More information would make things easier for all posting. Though, if you also wanted to take it offline, feel free to email me.

 

[BSF]

Bard, I just don't know that I agree with that. I believe that having a cleric will add so much more to the game that it makes a huge difference. A party without a cleric is going to suffer more than a party without a rogue. I agree that the DM could alter the game in such a way as to make it possible to play without a cleric. I would imagine also that the druid in the party would prefer to be more of a druid than a healer, which I suspect he currently is. Your DM probably also hands out numerous potions of healing and wands and such to make up for the lack of strong healing. Parties without a rogue don't need to do such things.

I can easily see your point. I figured the same when we started. I have been surprisingly wrong.

The Druid is most definitely a Druid. She deals out enormous amounts of damage and is tres cool to boot. The Bard handles the majority of the healing. Throughout the entire party we might have as many as 3 potions of Cure serious wounds. Over the last two years, we have picked up 2 scrolls with healing magic on them. We have yet to even see a rod/staff/wand with any healing spells.

Oh, the campaign world also doesn't have any Raise Dead type magic. It is a storyline that we are trying to bring that back.

My biggest concern is that we are relatively weak vs undead. No clerical turning. But, it has been an interesting game. Personally, I think we are light on the magic item side. Still, the game has worked out very well. We work together as a team pretty effectively. Our first encounter with a red dragon was nasty. We took out the first one, fell back and re-planned. Then we took out the remaining two while suffering a total of 28 points of damage. Admittedly, between the monk and the rogue/bard, the breath weapon attack that should have roasted us was a bit less fearsome.

My point is that you might be surprised at how your instilled notions of how an adventuring party will work are challenged. The game I ran without a cleric for 3 levels also did not have a Sorceror/Wizard for 5 levels. I was amazed at how well those guys did in such a "handicapped" manner. I really didn't pull any punches on them and I expected them to die frequently. Eventually, the party monk died and the player wanted to try a sorceror - that went dragon disciple later. That campaign challenged a lot of my "ideals". It was fun.

 

[der_kluge]

I will suggest the Temple Raider and see what she thinks about it.

And I have no doubts that a party could survive without a cleric, or even an arcane spellcaster, I just can only imagine that it would be easier to live without a rogue than it would to live without either of those other two - especially at high levels.

I couldn't imagine trying to fight demons without a spellcaster. And there are some creatures which can't be killed except without magical means.