The rogue - is it a necessary class?

[Hypersmurf]

Anyone have any ideas on making an Indiana Jones/Lara Croft character?

Aia. I put together a Lara clone for a PbEM a while back. Got all the elements that I wanted, with one major drawback...

... compared to the other PCs, she was pretty much a writeoff in combat.

While I'm perfectly capable of powerbuilding, in this case I ignored any powergaming instincts and just went for concept... while most of the other PCs were mechanically a lot stronger.

I think it might be an archetype that works much better in a solo game than a party-based campaign; after all, neither Indy nor Lara do their best work in the company of others...

-Hyp.

 

[Ogre Mage]

The rogue

Rogues can be a blast to play. But if your player is used to running a lot of fighters, she will have to learn that the areas where the rogue shines is not necessarily in combat.

*Spoilers for The Forge of Fury*

Our DM ran our group through The Forge of Fury. My rogue didn't kill a lot of monsters, but there was a lot of loot lying around the dungeon in not so obvious places. Who found the dough? My rogue -- the only character with +10 to Search.

The other PCs had a really tough time getting across the treacherous rope bridge. Who had an easy time of it? My rogue with +8 to balance. She then proceeded to help the rest of the party not fall by roping them together.

When we encountered the black dragon in the underground river, it blasted us with its acid breath. Who was the only one to emerge unscathed? My rogue, who had evasion!

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think the issue is entirely down to you, the DM.

You know she is a rogue, you know what her capabilities are. You have a responsibility to design adventures which are going to give every character a place to shine.

This is exactly what you have NOT done in the adventure you described. Sure an ancient tomb may be guarded by constructs and undead. But then you write off traps !?! The classic tomb thing!?!

I'm afraid it sounds to me like you have made decisions to make the class ineffective. You're the DM, design things to be inclusive.

e.g. if you are concerned that traps slow an adventure down, don't use "blam, corridor trap hits you" type of traps. Use traps which get triggered and the rogue has to find the disarming trigger before the room fills with sand/walls crush them/lava tips onto them/giant stone ball rolls towards them. Create traps that require more than one disarm check because there are several elements that need to be disarmed. Perhaps as they fight constructs of undead poison gas starts flooding into the room, pooling round their feet (don't fall over!) and slowly rising up. Can the rogue find the mechanism and stop it before it is too late? The others are all busy fighting off the golems and undead who couldn't care less about the poison!

Do you see what I mean?

 

[mmadsen]

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

Thanks, JD! It's good to see you too. I've had my nose to the grindstone for awhile here, so I haven't posted much.

 

[CCamfield]

Plane's ideas are good!

Something that occurred to me is, if you want to include traps but not make the entire party paranoid, don't put them in random corridors, but do include them in dramatically appropriate places, guarding important treasures and so on.

 

[WizarDru]

Some people say that the rogue class is needed/good. However, do you know anyone that plays a straight-classed rogue?

Actually, many folks are saying the rogue is good, no one is saying the rogue is needed. There are plenty of high-level rogues out there, I can assure you.

The rogue has too few HPs to be a decent swashbuckler without fighter levels.

Well, that's a different discussion, altogether. The rogue can be a swashbuckler...but D&D itself doesn't lend itself to this archetype directly, period. You can see several discussion on this topic elsewhere in this and the rules forum (one started by yours truly).

If the rogues skills are actually useful in the game, it usually means that the party HAS to have a +12 Sense Motive check in the group or they can't figure out what's going on, or they HAVE to be able to remove a DC 32 trap. Usually if the rogue's skills are necessary, it means that the skills are the only way around a problem. One way around a problem + rogue rolling a 1 = frustrated party.

You confuse the rogue's skills being highly beneficial with necessary. Triggering a magical trap IS a viable option, especially if you can identify what it is. Throwing down an antimagic field or putting a proteciton spell on the barbarian who intentionally triggers it is one strategy, for example. You could make a similar argument about requiring a cleric to battle the undead or a spellcaster to harm something with high DR or high AC. There are ways to solve the problem, but sometimes they are suboptimal ways. Following this philosophy removes creatures with magical immunities or SR, such as the Golem, which is practically immune to direct magical attack.

The group I'm running through RtToEE had no cleric for the first 6 levels. And yet they persevered. Their tactics were considerably different, and that spectre was a much scarier foe with turning out of the picture...but if the cleric had been there and rolled poorly, the same would apply.

All of which ignores the idea of party cooperation. If the rogue gets a few selective buffs, then she's going to have an easier time of it. A monk, ranger, fighter or bard could also be a scout, but the rogue's talents lend itself to such pursuits. Spellcasters and psionicists can scout ahead using spells or talents, as well as a rogue, too. There is only one task that a rogue can do that no one else can, and that's disabling a magical trap. And there are spells that can do that, as well.

The fact that a rogue is a good scout is of limited interest, since generally only the rogue can do it. Once a rogue starts scouting, he becomes a solo player while everyone else looks on. Sometimes it would be good if a group could use stealth to avoid a problem, but since only the rogue can do it, it isn't really a choice at all.

It sounds like you've had a problem with a particular player hogging the 'screen time'...but you don't need to be a rogue to do that. A shapechanged or polymorphed wizard, a stealthy ranger, wildshaped druid, a cleric with delusions of grandeur, a psion who decides to go astral travelling, a fighter with no patience and on and on....likeminded players can do this, regardless of class.

It's incumbent on the DM to provide challenges for the entire party. Every character can't be the hero in every battle or situation, so it's important they get a chance to shine once in a while. How the individual group resolves that problem is a problem specific to that DM and group. The rogue is one of the most versatile classes in the game, and just like the cleric and fighter is no longer trapped into a profession and set role, if she so chooses.

 

[Metallian]

I almost always play some flavor of Rogue, or at least take a few levels multiclass. Rogue is the 'best class evar' because it can do SO much. Take three levels of it and your combat skills bearly suffer at all, your skills improve dramatically (especially if you hyperspecialize) your reflex save improves greatly (Evasion helps like crazy)... It's fantastically useful. And if you straight progress as Rogue, you get some pretty amazing abilities. Slippery Mind would have helped against that Dominate, I think; It's an enchantment, isn't it? (No Book ATM, just seems right.)

Rogue is the gift you give yourself.

Yes, I agree completely. A few levels of Rogue means you can almost always do something because skills are very versatile and generally have an unlimited number of uses per day.

Spot and Listen are almost always useful.

Hide, Move Silently, and Tumble are good because mobility is always useful (even if you suck at fighting, you can always "Aid Another" or something).

Use Magic device can be sweet because you can play a pseudo-mage if you get your hands on a wand or whatever.

Then there all the other skills, which aren't useful all the time but can be useful some of the time. And you get enough skill points that you can even pick up a cross-class skill if you want. Get enough variety and you'll have something fun (and valuable) to do in almost any environment, without having to worry about using up resources.

Sneak Attack is fun (when you can use it) because it rewards the player for coming up with clever ways to take advantage of it. At least that's how I feel about it.

Having a huge Reflex save and Evasion and so on is good because you can afford to be a little cavalier about breath weapons and fireballs and stuff.


I've only played one 3/3.5 PC (I usually DM), but he's got a few levels of Rogue (and will be continuing in Rogue from now on), and most of the character concepts I come up with in my head for future characters have a few levels of Rogue as well. Many people told me that my Half-Celestial Rogue/Monk would be underpowered, and he's not a combat monster (in most situations, anyway), but he's loads of fun to play. Rogues are cool.

The Metallian

 

[der_kluge]

I think the issue is entirely down to you, the DM.

You know she is a rogue, you know what her capabilities are. You have a responsibility to design adventures which are going to give every character a place to shine.

This is exactly what you have NOT done in the adventure you described. Sure an ancient tomb may be guarded by constructs and undead. But then you write off traps !?! The classic tomb thing!?!

I'm afraid it sounds to me like you have made decisions to make the class ineffective. You're the DM, design things to be inclusive.

e.g. if you are concerned that traps slow an adventure down, don't use "blam, corridor trap hits you" type of traps. Use traps which get triggered and the rogue has to find the disarming trigger before the room fills with sand/walls crush them/lava tips onto them/giant stone ball rolls towards them. Create traps that require more than one disarm check because there are several elements that need to be disarmed. Perhaps as they fight constructs of undead poison gas starts flooding into the room, pooling round their feet (don't fall over!) and slowly rising up. Can the rogue find the mechanism and stop it before it is too late? The others are all busy fighting off the golems and undead who couldn't care less about the poison!

Do you see what I mean?

I do like your suggestion, but I want to avoid the idea that things are there just because there is a rogue. I mean, I'm a programmer. I don't think I've ever been in a situation where a woman has rushed out of a building and yelled, "Is there a program around? I need someone to write a C program!" In the real world, that just doesn't happen. Likewise, I'm not going to just put in traps just to give the rogue some sense of being. Like I said, however, I do like your idea of letting the rogue stay busy while the others fend off creatures. That's a nice balance, and I might have to implement something like that.

 

[The Blue Elf]

She is playing a better Rogue then I ever was, most Rogues do tend to do things like that sometimes when things go wrong for them.Most Rogues fight (unless they have too) or run away from combat because to avoid being killed or damage badly.Some rogues do have a tactical advantage in some way or other.

 

[tonym]

I wanted to build the ultimate in diversifed parties...So, my question is - does a party REALLY *need* a rogue?

You want to build the ultimate, diversified party? That sounds more like something a Player would say than a DM would say. To me, Players are the ones who worry about building the party, and DMs are the ones who worry about creating encounters which allow every PC to shine.

Anyhow, to answer your question, "Does a party really *need* a rogue?"....

If there already IS a rogue in the party, then I say "yes."
If there is NO rogue in the party, then I say "no" or "maybe" or "yes."




Tony M