Neonchameleon
Legend
The rogue is the guy you only realised was an enemy too late, or only after the results are found.
What is a rogue to you?
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
No, that's a fighter. You answered your own question. If I decide I want to be a sword-using magic-user in AD&D and gather up all the magic items usable by fighters (some scrolls, potions, rings, wands, staves, misc. items etc.) as best I can, wear robes instead of armor...that still doesn't make me a magic-user.
I can in character say, "Hey, I'm Merlin the Mighty, feel my magical wrath" but that doesn't make it so. I still advance by the fighter chart, and I'm still not eligible for spellcasting abilities.
Again, I say: make a swashbuckling guy, call him a rogue, leave thieves to thieving. Better still call him a swashbuckler, leave rogue as a level title for thieves.
I was going to write another one of my usual posts, grabbing quotes from throughout the thread and responding to them specifically. However, instead I've decided to go back to the titular question: What is a rogue to you?
A rogue to me is the guy who doesn't play by your rules.
He's Han Solo. Indiana Jones. Other characters not played by Harrison Ford. The Dread Pirate Roberts. Captain Blood. Some variations on Robin Hood. Bilbo Baggins. Mat Cauthon. Catwoman. The Black Cat. Bond... James Bond. The Doctor. Batman.
He's a liar and a cheat and the most trustworthy person you know.
He sneaks about in shadows and stands out in a crowd.
If he wanted your stuff he'd already have it.
I categorically reject all suggestions he should be weak in combat. Nonsense. There's two types of adventurers that aren't that great in combat: low level ones and dead ones. If you want to roll up a character that sucks in combat, more power to you. Just don't go saddling any classes in my Player's Handbook with mandatory incompetence.
Is he the toughest guy around? No.
Does he use big weapons or wear shiny armour? No.
But he's probably not tied down to your ideas of what a fair fight are. His idea of a fair fight is the one where he walks away without a scratch while you and yours lie dead and dying.
He might do it through being stealthy. He might do it through relying on a little help from his friends, catching foes who are distracted. He might do it by making you underestimate him. He might do it by just being that good and that fast. When he's really on his game, he just might trick you into doing it to yourself.
It shouldn't be called backstab. It shouldn't be called sneak attack. It's "Catch them with their pants down". It's "Mock them until they forget to defend themselves". It's "Bring a gun to a sword fight". It's "Shoot them under the table while they're still busy uttering threats".
He can deal with traps, climb walls, and pick locks. He can do these all well, he might even be the best, but he's not the only one who can do them. He never was.
Locked doors, traps, pockets that need picking and walls that needed climbing all predate the introduction of the Thief class. They still occur in campaigns where nobody plays a Thief or a Rogue. The idea that only one class should be good at these things is rubbish, as far as I'm concerned.
No class should (or even reasonably could) be dominant in all aspects of any area of the game. Everyone should be able to contribute meaningfully in combat, exploration, and social interaction. Each class should do so in ways that suit that class.
A rogue should be able to be roguish in all things. Combat, exploration, and social interaction. He should be able to distract you, charm you, intimidate you, manipulate you, mislead you, and catch you off your guard. He should climb walls and social ladders. He should be able to escape traps, disarm traps, and set traps, including verbal ones.
That's what a rogue is to me, anyways.
A rogue to me is the guy who doesn't play by your rules.
He's Han Solo. Indiana Jones. Other characters not played by Harrison Ford. The Dread Pirate Roberts. Captain Blood. Some variations on Robin Hood. Bilbo Baggins. Mat Cauthon. Catwoman. The Black Cat. Bond... James Bond. The Doctor. Batman.
He's a liar and a cheat and the most trustworthy person you know.
He sneaks about in shadows and stands out in a crowd.
If he wanted your stuff he'd already have it.
I categorically reject all suggestions he should be weak in combat. Nonsense. There's two types of adventurers that aren't that great in combat: low level ones and dead ones. If you want to roll up a character that sucks in combat, more power to you. Just don't go saddling any classes in my Player's Handbook with mandatory incompetence.
Is he the toughest guy around? No.
Does he use big weapons or wear shiny armour? No.
But he's probably not tied down to your ideas of what a fair fight are. His idea of a fair fight is the one where he walks away without a scratch while you and yours lie dead and dying.
He might do it through being stealthy. He might do it through relying on a little help from his friends, catching foes who are distracted. He might do it by making you underestimate him. He might do it by just being that good and that fast. When he's really on his game, he just might trick you into doing it to yourself.
It shouldn't be called backstab. It shouldn't be called sneak attack. It's "Catch them with their pants down". It's "Mock them until they forget to defend themselves". It's "Bring a gun to a sword fight". It's "Shoot them under the table while they're still busy uttering threats".
He can deal with traps, climb walls, and pick locks. He can do these all well, he might even be the best, but he's not the only one who can do them. He never was.
Locked doors, traps, pockets that need picking and walls that needed climbing all predate the introduction of the Thief class. They still occur in campaigns where nobody plays a Thief or a Rogue. The idea that only one class should be good at these things is rubbish, as far as I'm concerned.
No class should (or even reasonably could) be dominant in all aspects of any area of the game. Everyone should be able to contribute meaningfully in combat, exploration, and social interaction. Each class should do so in ways that suit that class.
A rogue should be able to be roguish in all things. Combat, exploration, and social interaction. He should be able to distract you, charm you, intimidate you, manipulate you, mislead you, and catch you off your guard. He should climb walls and social ladders. He should be able to escape traps, disarm traps, and set traps, including verbal ones.
That's what a rogue is to me, anyways.
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
That's fine, that's still not a thief. That's a chaotic (neutral/evil/maybe good) fighter.
This is sorta where I am as well. The image of the "rogue as a fighter" just never sat well with me...cause its just a fighter in different clothes. It just struck me as a pointless piece of design cause it would have been better to just kit up a fighter in leather with daggers.
The thing is, I wanted the rogue to be different from the fighter. Fill a completely different game space. I want ALL the classes to have different game spaces. I want the rogue to be sneaky, to be clever and underhanded and able to face every situation through improvisation and clever solution. The thinking mans character.
Then, when you want those guys in the middle ground (swashbuckler, muskateer, indiana jones) thats when you multi-class fighter theif.
The more he becomes a "fighter in leather with sneak attack", the more I yawn.
Remathilis
Legend
I'd love to see the Rogue adopt more of his thief persona; stealth and trap-finding, good at infiltration and detection, as well as getting the goods.
That said, I now find the AD&D Thief class incomplete. I'd like to take some of his finesse attacks (sneak attack and weapon finesse) and agility/dodge ability (uncanny dodge, evasion) and bring those also into the mix. The AD&D thief is a special snowflake; his talents lay out of combat (like a cleric) but he lacked the cleric's combat prowess. Likewise, he was squishy like a mage but lacked the mages sheer power (all thief skills are roughly level 1-3 level spells, usable at will but with spell failure). I also wouldn't mind a few new skills added to the Thief's bag of tricks; Bluff, Tumble, and Spot are almost as Iconic as Hide, Move Silently, or Pick Pocket.
In short, I'd like a Thief/Rogue who is primarily about skills and sneakery, but with some backup ability to fight and some decent defense. I'd like to see the "striker" part secondary, but not totally gone and the Skill part almost unmatched by any other class.
That said, I now find the AD&D Thief class incomplete. I'd like to take some of his finesse attacks (sneak attack and weapon finesse) and agility/dodge ability (uncanny dodge, evasion) and bring those also into the mix. The AD&D thief is a special snowflake; his talents lay out of combat (like a cleric) but he lacked the cleric's combat prowess. Likewise, he was squishy like a mage but lacked the mages sheer power (all thief skills are roughly level 1-3 level spells, usable at will but with spell failure). I also wouldn't mind a few new skills added to the Thief's bag of tricks; Bluff, Tumble, and Spot are almost as Iconic as Hide, Move Silently, or Pick Pocket.
In short, I'd like a Thief/Rogue who is primarily about skills and sneakery, but with some backup ability to fight and some decent defense. I'd like to see the "striker" part secondary, but not totally gone and the Skill part almost unmatched by any other class.
Top-level class should not define your ethics or personality. "Thief" is way too charged a term, and "rogue" is probably pushing it.
The game needs a parent-class for people who specialize in Martial Finesse - and that's the Rogue. That's expressed in Dex-based combat and access to a broad cut of physical and social skills.
From there you have specializations:
Thief - Sneak Attack, Thievery, Better Stealth
Hunter - Range, Traps/debuffs, Better Nature
Bard - Magic, Music, better Social Skills
Contrast with the Fighter - specialized in Martial Power. That's expressed in Str-based combat, the most broad selection of arms and armor, and endurance / toughness based abilities.
From there you have specializations:
Slayer - Two-handed weapons, damage specialization
Knight - Heavy Armor, "Stickiness"
Warlord - Inspiration, Teamwork Attacks
- Marty Lund
The game needs a parent-class for people who specialize in Martial Finesse - and that's the Rogue. That's expressed in Dex-based combat and access to a broad cut of physical and social skills.
From there you have specializations:
Thief - Sneak Attack, Thievery, Better Stealth
Hunter - Range, Traps/debuffs, Better Nature
Bard - Magic, Music, better Social Skills
Contrast with the Fighter - specialized in Martial Power. That's expressed in Str-based combat, the most broad selection of arms and armor, and endurance / toughness based abilities.
From there you have specializations:
Slayer - Two-handed weapons, damage specialization
Knight - Heavy Armor, "Stickiness"
Warlord - Inspiration, Teamwork Attacks
- Marty Lund
I never said it was a thief. I said it was a rogue.
All thieves are rogues, not all rogues are thieves.
No, it's not.
Is it really? Ya see, this is where we disagree. In my opinion the "Finesse Martial" character is a fighter with a high dex and character options to back it, and if the wants that coll skill based stuff he multi-classes rogue.
I guess thats the rub of this thread. There is a disagreement between people who see the "Rogue" archtype as combat "enhanced" and those that dont.
I know which side of the fence I sit on,and im very interested to hear arguments from all. I just wish those arguments werent always so...conclussive. As if those posting them had some insight the rest of us dont.
Mattachine
Adventurer
I guess some folks are really hung up on terminology. Alas.
Similar Threads
