Why do players like rogues/thieves?

[Wulfram]

The thievery aspect is the bit I'm not fond of. Happily it's not been obligatory lately.

 

[Dausuul]

For the rogue combat mechanic, I want something with the effectiveness of sneak attack and the style of backstab. I'm playing a 4E executioner right now, and it feels the way I think rogues ought to feel in combat. You aren't dancing around looking for opportunities to flank with the fighter. Instead, you're looking for a way to get around behind a high-value target (preferably a squishy caster-type), and stab that target to death while the rest of the party keeps the mooks busy.

That said, I agree with the sentiment that the rogue isn't really about backstab or sneak attack. The rogue is about being tricksy and devious and sneaky. Backstab/sneak attack is just there to give the rogue something to do when combat starts.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I agree. The heart of the rogue class is in its non-combat role.

I look forward to the day in which my D&D character can not be great in a straight-up fight, and not have that be a problem.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I like the agile, lightly armoured combatant bit, and acrobatic skills such as tumbling, climbing and jumping. The whole swashbuckler vibe really, swashbucklers are cool. They wear fancy clothes and have a lot of sex appeal. Think Pirates of the Caribbean.

Admittedly this doesn't fit the 3e/4e rogue perfectly. Sneak attack is a bit inappropriate for a swashbuckler. In fact they're not really strikers, probably more like defenders who can dodge really well, and taunt their opponents by waving their ostrich-plume feather hats in their faces. Plus witty repartee, obv. I like the idea of a character that's show-offy and charismatic and agile, but who can't really do anything. He doesn't do much damage, just bounces round the battlefield annoying people.

Hmm, yeah, you can't really do this in D&D. Class-based systems just suck, don't they?

 

[Mishihari Lord]

The stuff I love about thieves is the stuff I love about Tenchu:

• Sneaking around under the bad guys' noses,
• The tension of knowing that one screw up will put you into combat where you'll probably die
• Going where no one else can,
• Deadly surprise attacks,
• Solving problems more creatively than going up to the bad guy and whacking him with a sword, and
• The puzzle of figuring our how to maximize your abilities in a given situation

 

[El Mahdi]

It's nice to be the swashbuckling guy who fights using skill and wits.

From a gameplay point of view, being mobile and doing lots of damage is fun

Which doesn't require being a Rogue. A Dexterity based Fighter with mobility based Feats also fulfills the skills and role necessary for the archetype (at least for a certainty in 3e and 4E, though I think it was also possible even in earlier editions).

Case in point: Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (commonly known as the Three Musketeers) and their young friend d'Artagnan are not Rogues, they are Fighters (Soldiers with applicable armor proficiencies, broad weapon proficiencies, and military training). And they most certainly are archetypical "Swashbucklers".

If doesn't take a Class to be able to do things with Flair.

None of which is to say that Swashbucklers can't be Rogues, just saying Fighters can fill the role just as well.

Also (though not addressed specifically to you, Wulfram, but to the thread in general), they most certainly are not about back stabbing or sneak attacks. They fight face to face - with their speed, strength, and wits against their opponents speed, strength, and wits.

Now one can have a Roguish Swashbuckler, like a Pirate Errol Flynn, and back stabbing or sneak attacks definitely fit the character. But back stabbing and/or sneak attacking is not required to be a Rogue.

 

[howandwhy99]

Assassins kill people - often contractually for money. They steal what they want, spy on everyone, lie to everyone, sneak around, set traps, use poison regularly, and are generally in it for themselves. Sounds like the iconic D&D class, no?

The trouble is, D&D is not about being a murderous lunatic who goes around stuffing everything deemed valuable in their everplunging pockets. Yeah, I know that's the catchphrase, but the game can get very dull after awhile if hack and slash is all one does.

I think rogues have become sneaky, non-law abiding fighters who dish out the most damage. That's not really their role in my game, but they aren't inept at combat either (though they are better off avoiding it). That they can be the Assassin above without the bad reputation is why I believe they are popular. No rules to follow. Do whatever we want. Take whatever we want. They are probably played more as Bandits, than single-minded killers most of the time anyways. But because of thieves' class purview I think they naturally fall into the Neutral alignment and result in a different sort of game than one based on magic use, pure fighting, clericism, and basically any other core roles available.

 

[pemerton]

In fact they're not really strikers, probably more like defenders who can dodge really well, and taunt their opponents by waving their ostrich-plume feather hats in their faces. Plus witty repartee, obv. I like the idea of a character that's show-offy and charismatic and agile, but who can't really do anything. He doesn't do much damage, just bounces round the battlefield annoying people.[

Hmm, yeah, you can't really do this in D&D.

In 4e terms, that sounds like it should be a type of warlord, maybe (or could a tempest fighter work?). Hard to do at present, I agree.

 

[pemerton]

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

The last AD&D game I ran - which was quite a while ago now! - involved two multi-classed thieves (both of whom went thief-acrobat when they got the chance). Thief certainly added a lot to a PC in AD&D, and seemed to open up the door to an approach to play that was more light-hearted, without going all Tunnels & Trolls.

 

[SensoryThought]

Case in point: Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (commonly known as the Three Musketeers) and their young friend d'Artagnan are not Rogues, they are Fighters (Soldiers with applicable armor proficiencies, broad weapon proficiencies, and military training). And they most certainly are archetypical "Swashbucklers".

As I noted earlier, computer RPGs and D&D over the last 10 years have systematically redefined the rogue class as an agile, lightly armored and weaponed fighter. I would argue the musketeers are far more rogue than fighter under most people's definitions. Knights are fighters, swashbucklers are rogues.