Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="der_kluge" data-source="post: 1230144" data-attributes="member: 945">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?</blockquote>

Verification