What is a rogue to you?

[El Mahdi]

I Agree. Completely with BobTheNob (and who couldn't with a name like that...)

I see the Rogue from a Roleplay or Background standpoint first, and not just from a game or ability based standpoint. For me, the Warrior/Fighter has a military background. A Rogue might have similar combat skills, but they do not have a military background. I also don't agree with the Dexterity based premise. To me, Thugs are Rogues also - and that would likely be Strength based.

So for me, I define a Rogue as a non-military background, martial character - whether a Thief, Thug, Duelist, or Swashbuckler.

I believe the class can and should be able to model all of these archetypes...and more.



*(Incidentally, to accurately portray the Three Musketeers - which many incorrectly see as just Swashbucklers - one would need to build them as Warriors. Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and d'Artagnan are all members of the military, with all the skills, knowledge, and training that entails {armor, formations, tactics, strategies, multiple weapons, etc}. They are not Rogues...though they do have roquish character traits, which isn't the same thing. One is about what you can do and how you learned it - the other is about how you do it.)

 

[Hassassin]

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.

Great post, but this part I disagree with. I think the rogue is strong in combat, because he chooses the fights and situations where he will win. If he is forced to combat without getting a choice he should be in a significantly weaker position. That's why I don't think the rogue should have fighter level competence when caught with his pants down. Rogues have the upper hand only after they've earned it.

 

[mlund]

Real problem here: Fighter, Magic-User, and Cleric are vague job titles.

"Rogue," is a pejorative referring to someone's character as a dishonest person. Similarly "knave" is not a job description. Even "scoundrel" isn't, though it has been used as a core template for games like Star Wars and others before it.

"Thief," is at least a job description, but it is too narrow to use as a parent class like Cleric, Fighter, and Magic-User can be. Thief is a sub-class description specialized in dirty fighting, backstabbing, pick-pocketing, lock-picking, etc. There needs to be a parent class label that covers a more broad swath of characters based on combat finesse and being a skill-monkey.

- Marty Lund

 

[JohnSnow]

What is a rogue? That's a good question.

To my way of thinking, "rogue" is really another way of saying "trickster." Whether you call him rogue, thief, troubleshooter, expert, or burglar, he is the guy who survives by his wits, his guile and his skills. He can win a fight, not because he's a great combatant, but because he doesn't fight fair. Rogues cheat. They jump you in the alley when you're not expecting it. You bring a knife? He brings a sword. You're a better swordsman? He flings dirt in your face. You challenge him in the square brandishing a sword? He pulls a gun and shoots you (cf. Indiana Jones).

In a standup fight, he loses. So that's not much incentive for him to fight fair. He's a survivor, a sneak, and a con-man. He can fast talk you and pick your pocket.

The Grey Mouser. Mat Cauthon. Thom Merrilin. Captain Jack Sparrow. Indiana Jones. Han Solo. Odysseus maybe. These characters are rogues. More than likely, they'd lose a standup fight. So, instead, they rely on their wits - they set the battlefield, by being clever, smart, and not fighting fair.

But Robin Hood? The Three Musketeers? The Man in Black? Despite their limited use of armor and their swashbuckling natures, those characters are fighters. Sure, they have some skills, but their stock in trade is usually in skill at arms, not stealth and guile. Equal parts skill at arms and guile? Well, in D&D terms, we could very well now be talking about a ranger.

Multiclass fighter/rogues should be rare, and reserved only for the most balanced characters. If you can build a character by simply adding a couple skills or abilities to the archetype, they shouldn't be multiclassed.

 

[The Human Target]

Thieves sound disruptive to the game.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Thieves sound disruptive to the game.

That's my thought as well. We used to play this type of character, way back when I first started playing D&D. But after the 10th or so time that someone attempts to steal all the treasure you've earned while hiding under a table the entire time danger is near...you begin to think both in AND out of character that maybe you should replace that party member with someone who has morals and the ability to contribute by fighting monsters.

Which is why also one of the first characters I played was a noble Fighter/Thief who pictured himself a "Scout" or and "Adventurer"...he hated being called a thief, because he didn't steal anything. Not anymore. He learned his thieving skills by being a thief while he was younger and now uses them in order to seek treasures in ancient dungeons filled with traps. He no longer has a need to steal from anyone. Well, the living at any rate.

That character's name? Majoru Oakheart. Also my favorite character, and thus my namesake.

 

[SKyOdin]

I had an epiphany about the rogue/thief archetype recently while playing The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. I was thinking that the main character of the Zelda series, Link, was a generalist who covered all three major archetypes of fighter, rogue, and magic-user. The fighter part of his ability set can be seen in his skill with the sword, shield, and bow. The wizard side of his character can be seen in his skill with spells and magic. But, that leaves a pretty large set of his abilities left over: his skill with a variety of tools and items. Link relies heavily on tools like bombs or a grappling hook to overcome puzzles, get to otherwise unreachable areas, defeat enemies through unconventional tactics, and pilfer treasure off enemies. After thinking about this, I have come to like the idea that a rogue/thief is defined by his use of tools.

A fighter is good at using weapons. A wizard is good at using magic. A thief/rogue is good at using tools and items. After all, what rogue/thief leaves home without his lock-picks, grappling hook, and crowbar?

The idea of tools and items extends to rogue/thief specialties such as traps and poisons. I would even argue that the use of alchemical weapons like flasks of oil and tanglefoot bags are far more rogue/thief-like than fighter-like.

If you look at the extreme end-point of this idea, you find the likes of legendary tricksters like Perseus, who cleverly used a mirror to overcome Medusa's gaze, then preferred to use Medusa's severed head as a weapon to fighting people honestly. That kind of clever use of items and magic tools is a defining trait of tricksters, rogues, and thieves.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Just for the record, I like playing Rogues because I like playing sneaky, dishonest characters who wimp out of direct conflict and make off with the treasure while everybody else is still fighting. Perjorative term or not, it's a lot more appealing that playing a "Martial Finesse Specialist".

 

[Ahnehnois]

Thieves sound disruptive to the game.

Not as disruptive as paladins.

 

[Kzach]

I may have already posted this but I can't recall and can't be bothered looking back through all the posts but... I think everyone is confusing player problems with class problems.

I played thieves the vast majority of time I ever played AD&D and that was over many years with many, many groups. My character was always a miscreant and a troublemaker who often got the party into trouble at bars and taverns for his pick-pocketing or swindling, but he never stole from his brothers-in-arms; he wouldn't dare risk losing the people who would jump into the fray to save his sorry arse when he got caught with his hands in the Lord Regent's pockets...

Point being is that my thieves were a valuable member of the party and a beloved character by all, not a game-destroying nuisance that had everyone at the table asking me to leave. The amount of times his hidden hair-pin lock picks or belt-buckle knife or bag of caltrops or blinding powder or sleep darts or knife-in-the-back (of an enemy) or trap-finding/disabling or climbing saved the day, in addition to the ROGUISH way in which I played him, made him an enjoyable and fun character for EVERYONE at the table.

A dick player is a dick player, no matter what class they play.