Why do players like rogues/thieves?

[Radiating Gnome]

Love rogues.

I'm with an awful lot of posters who have spoken already -- Rogues/thieves are fun because they can be/often must be creative/improvisational in combat -- and out of combat. They're the guys who solve problems in new and interesting ways (while others solve problems in similar, less-interesting ways). They're smart and resourceful and clever and use those gifts in lieu of powerful magic or heavy armor and heavier weaponry.

In my MMO play, I also favor rogue types, and one of the biggest bits of fun in those games is stealth -- once you've been able to sneak into a fortified position, kill the one target (or steal what you're after) and then sneak back out, it's VERY hard to play a class that doesn't do stealth anymore. It's very hard for a game like D&D to replicate that feeling, though. Especially without boring the other players to death.

-rg

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think the rogue is attractive because it's not a full caster or a fighter. People like to feel like an underdog, to be underestimated. Thus they pick a class without an in-your-face dominant ability and try to figure out how to be effective.

There is also the notion that the "rogue" concept is more appropriate to most people's games than a "paladin" or "cleric". After all, isn't the archetypical D&D game about killing things and taking their stuff?

Personally, I would be happy to see the backstab and sneak attack concepts separated. My solution was to give the rogue an attack bonus whenever flanking or when the opponent lost his Dex to AC (combat advantage in 4e terms) sufficient to bring him up to the equivalent of full BAB, and an equivalent damage bonus. The rogue gets an improved threat range, crit multiplier, and a small amount of extra damage, but only when the target has actually lost his dex, not from flanking.

I do think the versatility is important though. Non-backstabbing/sneak attacking options ought to be available for those who want to be spies, diplomats, scouts, or various other rogue-ish things. In fact, I'd be quite happy to see something bard-ish as a rogue variant.

 

[Mallus]

And what (if anything) does this suggest about class design for D&Dnext?

What strikes me is that a lot of these responses so far create a fairly compelling argument for "rogue/thief" not being a distinct class at all, as in OD&D, precisely because it maps to so many different action hero archetypes.

Almost all action heroes should be able to sneak a little, speak winningly a little, defeat a few cunning traps, etc. They're general skills for adventurers, and probably should be represented outside of class.

Of course, this won't happen in D&D Next -- thief-as-class in too deeply ingrained in the D&D tradition at this point.

So what I'd like to see is either 4e's combat-capable rogue, or an improved version of 3e rogue multiclassing, ie an approach that works as well for spell-casting rouge multiclasses as it does for non-casters, which works quite well in 3e.

Actually, AD&D-style multiclassing sans racial restrictions and prohibitive level limits would work well, too.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

What strikes me is that a lot of these responses so far create a fairly compelling argument for "rogue/thief" not being a distinct class at all, as in OD&D, precisely because it maps to so many different action hero archetypes.

Almost all action heroes should be able to sneak a little, speak winningly a little, defeat a few cunning traps, etc. They're general skills for adventurers, and probably should be represented outside of class.

Of course, this won't happen in D&D Next -- thief-as-class in too deeply ingrained in the D&D tradition at this point.

That is a good point. Maybe this is why the original was the "thief," though? Everyone could be a bit of a rogue, but the thief is more specific.

Combining your thought with mine, then such a system would let every class get access to general rogue abilities, as you said above. Then on top of that, the "thief" would be good at pickpocket, sleight of hand, opening locks--the stuff of outright stealing/conning.

You could do similar things with other classes. Wizards (if they want) can talk, climb, sneak, etc. but get core skill with the arcane for free. Fighters get to pick from a small set of athletic abilities for their free slot. A mixture of the 4E and 3E skill system might work well for that. You keep 4E, relatively broad skills, for the class-related stuff--arcana, thievery, athletics, religion, etc. But then perception, sneak, climbing, diplomacy you break into relatively more narrow bits--and then give every class plenty of picks to get the subset they want. (I can also see an argument for reversing the broad/narrow breakdown, for niche protection.)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Why? Because Loki is more fun than Thor. Odysseus more fun than Achiles. At least for me. And because on the trickery vs brute force scale, the monsters always have more force.

 

[TerraDave]

Its the archetype(s).

I have had many thieves and rogues in my game over the years and have never not had at least one in play over the last 20 years. And it wasn't really mechanical details, as many of those players only had a so-so grasp of those details when they choose the class.

Rogues are sneaky, clever, skilled, possibly acrobatic, tricksters and scoundrels. Who can break the rules. And may be charmers, or total jerks (or both). They come closest (if are not always a perfect match) for a vast range of legendary and fantasy characters.

Now, people may also play for narrower mechanical reasons, but from reading above, its in many cases to the extent to which the mechanics support the archetypes that they are popular.

Also, I have seen lots of cases where "roguish" characters are popular, ie other classes but also sneakey, swashbuckling, skilled, often in combination, etc. In my current game 2 of 5 are (virtual) rogues, in the least 2 of 3 were, in a 2E one at one point 3 of 5 (sometimes 4) were.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What this thread is driving home for me is that Sneak Attack isn't the point of the class.

You could have SA, or a Backstab, or none of those, and the rogue would still be an appealing option for archetype purposes.

I do think it should be AN option (it's become archetypal of D&D rogues), but it shouldn't be the DEFINING option -- rogues are much more than just a sneak attack delivery system.

IMO, this is sort of one of the ways 4e missed the boat on the class. It became much more pigeonholed in its role as "skirmishing damage-dealer." There's a lot more potential with the rogue than that one playstyle.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What this thread is driving home for me is that Sneak Attack isn't the point of the class.

You could have SA, or a Backstab, or none of those, and the rogue would still be an appealing option for archetype purposes.

This is why I thought the blog poll was bad. I don't think SA or Backstab need be integral to the class, but both No answers in the poll tacked on the "don't like SA/BS" riders. I do like SA, but I don't think it's necessary for the class. I'd also like to see it as an available option for the Rogue/Thief.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

IMO, this is sort of one of the ways 4e missed the boat on the class. It became much more pigeonholed in its role as "skirmishing damage-dealer." There's a lot more potential with the rogue than that one playstyle.

That same missing potential has been there for several classes from the start, and there is a jump in assumption there that is not warranted from the facts as we know them.

This whole conversation reminds me of a thing I read about a highly successful business man who got his start by supplying vending machines. He got significantly more sales than most of his peers in those machines, and his pay was based on that. Management noticed, dug and dug, and finally discovered that what he was doing was so common sense to him, that he didn't even think about it.

Unlike his peers, he made a point of keeping the machine filled, and then making his counts off of what was used, instead of what was left. If something wasn't touched, he'd swap it out for something else or double up on a popular item. Eventually, he would get the machine where almost every slot was almost empty right before he filled it again. He explained that if you let things run out, then people went with their second and then third choices--but they did not buy as fast because those weren't first choices. And if something sat too long, it was thought stale even if he swapped it.

If you make classes with too many extremes, all that tells you is that some people like some extreme parts well enough to put up with the other extreme parts. It doesn't tell you their preferences on parts.

 

[Mallus]

Combining your thought with mine, then such a system would let every class get access to general rogue abilities, as you said above. Then on top of that, the "thief" would be good at pickpocket, sleight of hand, opening locks--the stuff of outright stealing/conning.

You could do similar things with other classes. Wizards (if they want) can talk, climb, sneak, etc. but get core skill with the arcane for free. Fighters get to pick from a small set of athletic abilities for their free slot.

I like this.

Let's combine this with what the designers are already considering: automatic success on a skill check if your ability score exceeds the DC. Tie this to class, so a Thief automatically makes a hypothetical DC 15 Stealth check if their DEX is 15+. Non-thieves would still need to roll, but would have a fair shot if they were agile, and not bogged down with situational modifiers (like wearing heavy armor).

You'd also want to grant Thieves the ability to use things like Stealth in highly unfavorable conditions -- like the middle of a fight -- where other classes couldn't.

Other classes would have similar strengths: wizards can automatically make Arcana checks (but smart fighters wouldn't be mathematically excluded from doing the same), rangers can automatically track, and so on. This would be a fairly elegant way of handling places where strongly class-related skills also reasonably qualify as general skills.

Personally, I'd refrain from making talking a class-related specialty for any class, because I prefer RPGs to be like Talking Club.

The first rule of Talking Club is: talk about Talking Club. The 2nd rules is: everybody talks!