Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Olgar Shiverstone" data-source="post: 1230255" data-attributes="member: 5868">Most classes aren't particularly necessary -- you can almost always find another way to replicate a given class feature.Borrowing a bit from Monte Cook, though -- it's the roles that are important.&nbsp; There's a need for the sneaky guy, and there's a need for the skill specialist.&nbsp; The rogue combines the two -- but other characters can conceivably fill those roles. Personally, I love the rogue class.&nbsp; I played a lot of thieves in 1E, second only to rangers, and I think the flexibility given to the current rogue is fantastic -- you can be a swashbuckling light-fighter, the trap specialist, a traditional &quot;thief&quot;, an information gatherer, a social gadfly, a merchant, a scoundrel ....&nbsp; If your player isn't enjoying the class, I suggest it's because of one of two reasons: (1) she hasn't figured out what kind of character her rogue is, and so doesn't really know how to excel within the party -- if she's just a little bit good at everything, that's a tough role to play for most people; better to specialize and have a clear role, or (2) the nature of the campaign doesn't make the rogue's niche valuable.&nbsp; A tumbling combat rogue who only fights undead will be unhappy.&nbsp; A social skills rogue who only goes on wilderness and dungeon adventures will be unhappy.&nbsp; A trap-detecting treasure-seeking rogue will be unhappy if the campaign doesn't include trap filled dungeons.There's a balance between the role the player wants to play and the role the DM allows her to play; with the right balance, any class can be viable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Olgar Shiverstone, post: 1230255, member: 5868"] Most classes aren't particularly necessary -- you can almost always find another way to replicate a given class feature. Borrowing a bit from Monte Cook, though -- it's the roles that are important. There's a need for the sneaky guy, and there's a need for the skill specialist. The rogue combines the two -- but other characters can conceivably fill those roles. Personally, I love the rogue class. I played a lot of thieves in 1E, second only to rangers, and I think the flexibility given to the current rogue is fantastic -- you can be a swashbuckling light-fighter, the trap specialist, a traditional "thief", an information gatherer, a social gadfly, a merchant, a scoundrel .... If your player isn't enjoying the class, I suggest it's because of one of two reasons: (1) she hasn't figured out what kind of character her rogue is, and so doesn't really know how to excel within the party -- if she's just a little bit good at everything, that's a tough role to play for most people; better to specialize and have a clear role, or (2) the nature of the campaign doesn't make the rogue's niche valuable. A tumbling combat rogue who only fights undead will be unhappy. A social skills rogue who only goes on wilderness and dungeon adventures will be unhappy. A trap-detecting treasure-seeking rogue will be unhappy if the campaign doesn't include trap filled dungeons. There's a balance between the role the player wants to play and the role the DM allows her to play; with the right balance, any class can be viable. [/QUOTE]

Verification