When are rogues "really" necessary anymore? if at all...

[Emirikol]

The longer I've been playing, the more I'm starting to feel genuinely sorry for rogue characters. It doesn't seem to me that they're ever crucial to any portion of the game anymore. They don't have any skills that aren't duplicated by others or simply surpassable with spells or brute force..or diplomacy.

Are rogues really "ever" necessary anymore?

jh

 

[Salthorae]

It really depends on what you're allowing in your game. If you allow every single thing from every book put out, yeah you can probably do away with rogues, but I've had characters toasted by so many traps in my gaming life that I wouldn't recommend getting rid of them entirely...

Sure your Cleric (if you have one) may be able to detect that mechanical trap ahead with Find Traps, but can he disarm it? Dang, too bad... and that's the only way out of the dungeon with a raging Terrasque behind you too...

 

[Darklone]

IMHO, whether rogues skills are useless or not depends on the DM. At higher levels, this is shifted towards spells vs skills, but till level 12 there shouldn't be a problem to rock with skills.

Many PCs in my games had been rogue multiclassed. And they loved it.

 

[delericho]

In the core rules, Rogues have the unique ability to detect traps. Sure, there exists a spell to do it... but it relies on the character in question having fairly decent Search and Disable Device skills, which is by no means a given.

In the expanded rules, there's no 'need' for the Rogue, since the Beguiler, Ninja, Scout and Spellthief all have the trapfinding ability and the skill points to back it up.

However, I'm not sure this is a bad thing - I'm inclined to think players should be playing a given class because they want to, and not out of some perceived need to fill a niche. As such, I consider this a boon, and wish something similar would be done to remove the 'necessity' for a Cleric (which even the Favoured Soul is a weak substitute for).

 

[Crothian]

actually in the game as it exists today nothing is necessary

 

[Unkabear]

Are rangers? if you want a fighter you can just go fighter and clerics and druids are far better at divine spells. Are monks...come on, if you want to deal damage go fighter or barbarian. But still there are people that like the flavor of such classes. I like to play a rogue. The Wizard then can focus his spells in other areas than the plethora of spells needed to replace the rogue. And in situations where the DM keeps the characters in play for long stretches and does not let the players stop whenever the wizard or sorcerer need to rest to regain spells they are invaluable.

Yes when a DM lets the party find a convenient place to rest whenever the party runs out of spells and the party does not need to have the wizard save all of his spells for when they get into battle then yes the rogue can be redundant. But with a little of the love given in the PHBII they can make devastating archers with a crossbow. They can still be more than effective scout. The wizards spells have limited durations while a rogue can stay hidden and scouting for hours on end. But this does lend to the DM having to have a special session where the rogue is featured. Though truth be told the rogue may think that they are entitled to this time as the rest of the adventure would seem to make him feel unloved as the fighter and wizard steal the spotlight during battles and other times. Let the other players know how it feels to have to wait for the rogues actions.

Really in the end there needs to be a small amount of understanding from the rest of the party. The Wizard should not be out to replace the rogue (the look at me I am the most powerful member of the party and you are no longer needed syndrome) and the DM may need to every few games or so set up a situation that will spotlight the rogue. Though in my opinion the DM should be finding ways to make all players feel useful and spotlight them every once in a while. Some characters/players spotlight themselves just fine. Some characters/players need a little bit of attention from the DM to enjoy the game enough not to get their character killed and replace them with a redundant party member.

Yes the Wizard CAN replace the rogue. But why not let the rogue free up those spell slots that do the rogues functions for other spells that might come in handy for the party. Plus a wizard with grease and a rogue with crossbow sniper, rapid reload and rapid shot can become very good friends and deal out a great deal of damage.

But that is my opinion. Everyone is entitled to thier own.

 

[Frida]

The rogue is such a flexible and adaptive class that they can always find something usefull to do in any party. You dont have to stick to the traditional rogue nieche. You can have lots of fun with picking unussual skills. Use magic device lets you use magic items that no one else in the party can master. And with multiclassing the possibilites are endless.

 

[Unkabear]

IMHO, whether rogues skills are useless or not depends on the DM.

I guess that says it better than I did. But thanks for the rant anyway.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

IMO, stealth is always useful, and sneak attack kicks butt.

However, stealth, Search and Disable Device aren't party skills. The rogue can't use the former near the party (and scouting by themself is often suicidal) whereas the latter don't contribute much to the spotlight. Furthermore, I don't think traps are all that good for the game. They instill paranoia ("we have to have a rogue [or devote spell slots] to finding, disabling or avoiding traps"), and WotC's fresher ideas for traps don't require a rogue to fix, or even give the rogue much of a bonus. ("You get a tiny boost to AC and Uncanny Dodge." Woo.)

Most rogues I've seen play like stealthy fighters. They use stealth to try to get an extra sneak attack, but not to scout (due to the suicidalness), and once combat starts, they tumble, flank and sneak attack, competing with (sometimes outcompeting) the fighter for damage.

While many rogue skills (eg Bluff) are useable by other classes (eg bards), they're still useful for that role if there isn't that other class (eg bard) in your group.

IMO rogues are not required, but are useful.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I've never seen other spellcasters waste their time duplicating the rogue when, you know, they already have a rogue. Even when spellslots are so available that they can spare them for those spells, there's only so many spells a spellcaster can cast at a time, whereas a rogue is a rogue 24/7.

Honestly, if the spellcaster is duplicating the rogue, it's a player issue. The game having sufficient flexibility to not require any given class is a bonus, not a minus, since sometimes, people don't want to play a fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard.