PDA

View Full Version : Rogues



shadow_archmagi
2009-11-29, 05:31 PM
So, is it just me, or does this archetype seem like a bad idea for a D&D game? I mean, it seems to me that his archetypal things are

1. Stealing
2. Sneaking
3. Bypassing Traps
4. Sneak Attack
5. Lockpicking

Now, the thing is, that, um... Stealing? It seems to me that, traditionally, you get loot from killing things. Anyone you didn't want to kill, you probably also didn't want enraged about the loss of their stuff. "Make a skill check. If you succeed, you get a bit of loot. If you fail, there are serious consequences for the whole party."

Sneaking requires the rogue to leave the party (since making Move Silently checks is pointless when six people in armor follow you around) which means that every player but one can't do anything (or they can, but they have to take turns, since there's only one DM). Also, if sneaking goes wrong, the Rogue is screwed.

Bypassing traps. Somehow, traps never seemed... fun? I mean, I dunno, the traditional trap system just doesn't seem that great. "Roll a die. Party takes damage on anything less than an eight." I realize this is odd because, you know, EVERYTHING amounts to rolling dice, but traps seem really basic without much to do with them (obviously creative DMs can do fun things, but if we're using creative DMs we can assume ANY rule is fun)

Lockpicking. Like traps, this really feels like "Oh hey. You have a rogue. Looks like you don't take random penalties and miss out on this room"

Myrmex
2009-11-29, 05:42 PM
Now, the thing is, that, um... Stealing? It seems to me that, traditionally, you get loot from killing things. Anyone you didn't want to kill, you probably also didn't want enraged about the loss of their stuff. "Make a skill check. If you succeed, you get a bit of loot. If you fail, there are serious consequences for the whole party."

Stealing is a good way to acquire resources without the consequences of killing everyone. Have you ever seen Ocean's 11 or any heist movie? You could arm yourselves to the teeth with assault rifles, armor, and explosives, run in, kill 50 people, and then... deal with the consequences of being an idiot. Or you could lift it without anyone being the wiser.

In most societies, theft is a lesser crime than mass murder.


Sneaking requires the rogue to leave the party (since making Move Silently checks is pointless when six people in armor follow you around) which means that every player but one can't do anything (or they can, but they have to take turns, since there's only one DM). Also, if sneaking goes wrong, the Rogue is screwed.

Sneaking is great for the rogue to gather recon, let the party casters prep all the right spells, and then go in with an edge they wouldn't have had otherwise.

In my current game, the rogue/conjurer will sneak behind important targets, then use benign transposition to change places with the buffed party fighter. It is highly effective.


Bypassing traps. Somehow, traps never seemed... fun? I mean, I dunno, the traditional trap system just doesn't seem that great. "Roll a die. Party takes damage on anything less than an eight." I realize this is odd because, you know, EVERYTHING amounts to rolling dice, but traps seem really basic without much to do with them (obviously creative DMs can do fun things, but if we're using creative DMs we can assume ANY rule is fun)

I've never really been a fan of traps, either, but they make sense. How else are you going to defend your cave as a CR 1/4 creature?

There are also ways to prevent the whole party from taking damage, such as not all standing adjacent to the rogue when he disarms a trap.


Lockpicking. Like traps, this really feels like "Oh hey. You have a rogue. Looks like you don't take random penalties and miss out on this room"

Yes, because when you don't have a rogue in your party, all the monsters and NPCs unlock their doors for you.

erikun
2009-11-29, 05:45 PM
It doesn't fit well into D&D 3.5e, you're right. Back in D&D 2nd ed, though, stealing and sneaking were far more relevant. Stabbing someone in the back would deal up to 5x damage, which would severely hurt tough opponents and might kill a wizard outright. There was no "Spot check", so having a high percentage on pick pockets or stealth was a better solution that a likely-deadly fight. (The fact that fights were actually dangerous, not just HP drains, is another factor.) Lockpicking wasn't something that could be bypassed by a 2nd level spell or a trip to MagiMart.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-11-29, 05:53 PM
Sure. "Old-school" players have always complained about thieves because thieves didn't exist in OD&D.

They're viewed as a "self-justifying" class because skills didn't exist then. You just roleplayed the act of finding traps or whatever and the DM arbitrated. In consequence, parties would bring along a ten-foot pole by default and poke at the ground to detect pit traps. If you don't ask, you don't find it (unless you're an elf and can autodetect secret doors).

In effect, traps are puzzles. You have to describe the specific actions to avoid, bypass or disarm them. And this is part of the appeal of older editions.

Considering the fact that fantasy characters like Conan are often portrayed as a part-time thief, it was assumed that adventurers were supposed to do this sort of thing (e.g. prying giant rubies out of the eyes of a heathen idol). Adventurers are disreputable vagabonds by default.

For the most part, other players justify thieves in older edition by saying that while any player can do what the thief does, the thief does it better. The thief gets an automatic percentage of success above-and-beyond what a normal character is capable of.

Temotei
2009-11-29, 05:55 PM
In my current game, we only have two players--it's FFX-d20, by Zeta Kai, and one is a bandit (basically a rogue, but with a few new tricks I actually like better than the rogue's). The other is a summoner (essentially a healing cloistered cleric with summoning, but tier 3 or 4). I've also ruled that the summoner gets a few orisons, just to buff up and stuff, because otherwise, the summoner gets hardly anything at the first levels. So he'll buff the bandit, the bandit sneaks in, takes out one monster, and the summoner will come in with all of his super-strength and smash things after. Pretty effective...until we get to the invisible enemies. Which are my favorite. :smallbiggrin:

But yeah. Sneaking is really good. Stealing helps even good rogues. Imagine walking into a dungeon and encountering a decked-out fighter. He's obviously far stronger than your party, and he's evil, but he doesn't want a fight because he has nothing to gain. Steal from him. Cool magic items! :smallamused:

Traps are kind of boring unless you do cool stuff with them. A pit trap is boring. A pit trap that's really obvious, has spikes at the bottom, and a bull rushing monster? Hooray! :smallbiggrin:

Starbuck_II
2009-11-29, 06:01 PM
Now, the thing is, that, um... Stealing? It seems to me that, traditionally, you get loot from killing things. Anyone you didn't want to kill, you probably also didn't want enraged about the loss of their stuff. "Make a skill check. If you succeed, you get a bit of loot. If you fail, there are serious consequences for the whole party."


That isn't how D&D works. The skill check is a to see of you got the item. If you fail, you didn't.

In addition, spot checks are opposed to your roll to saw if they saw you try to take it.

Seriously, failing to steal doesn't = being found out in D&D.
Reason 1: Spot isn't a class skill for most classes (Fighter, Barb, Wizard, etc)
Reason 2: Unless you didn't make the skill level appropriate (max skill points), you won't fail unless you have bad luck.

Sleight of hand check DC 10 (steal a single coin or coin shaped object) and DC 20 to steal a small item.

A level 1, Rogue has (assuming 14 Dex) 4 ranks = +6 modifier. He rarely fails stealing a single coin, and has a 40% success rate of stealing a small item.

A Warrior is unlikely to spot this very often due to cross skill issues.

Curmudgeon
2009-11-29, 06:50 PM
Sure. "Old-school" players have always complained about thieves because thieves didn't exist in OD&D.
If by that you mean "Original Dungeons & Dragons", they've been around since the Basic & Expert books. Since the game was still called Dungeons & DragonsŪ then, before the name change to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, they're part of the original game. Thieves are described starting on page B10 (page 10 of the Basic Rulebook).

Kastanok
2009-11-29, 06:54 PM
My advice: get out of the dungeon. D&D games are far more exciting and entertaining when they're varied. Sure dungeon crawls have their place but imagine the possibilities presented - especially to a rogue - operating in a fairly-friendly city. You've got temples, you've got manors, guilds of thieves and assassins, their guild houses, the sewers, the pubs...

Stick a first level rogue in the middle of a bustling metropolitan town just as the kingdom's army arrives and let them go. I had a great time playing a simple Alladin-style parkour pick-pocket, running from street to street and over roof tops, working out how to get that day's breakfast while finding out why said army was there and what was happening. Then as all hell breaks loose, as a low level essentially non-combatant, manning mounted heavy-crossbow points and running ammunition and alchemist's fire between firepoints. Brilliant! And a job perfectly suited to a rogue.

Or a one-person thought experiment game (mapless, but the DM had a clear idea of the location in his head), where again I played a rogue, about 12th level here, exploring a great dimension-hopping mansion. All by myself having to deal with various unpredictable traps and such without the aid of a spellcaster. When I got the idea of how to best get through most doors (rope-arrow through the ceiling, hang down on rope to unlock door and avoid chest-level trap) the DM shuffled things up a little on the fly and threw a towering (to a halfling) shield golem or something at me.

In short, skill-based rogues make great soloists. Or semi-soloists when they go ahead and scout for the party like mentioned by others above. Try and play a rogue in a non-optimal fashion, without an optimal party set-up. You'll have a lot more fun in the end.

ericgrau
2009-11-29, 07:14 PM
So, is it just me, or does this archetype seem like a bad idea for a D&D game? I mean, it seems to me that his archetypal things are

1. Stealing
2. Sneaking
3. Bypassing Traps
4. Sneak Attack
5. Lockpicking

Now, the thing is, that, um... Stealing? It seems to me that, traditionally, you get loot from killing things. Anyone you didn't want to kill, you probably also didn't want enraged about the loss of their stuff. "Make a skill check. If you succeed, you get a bit of loot. If you fail, there are serious consequences for the whole party."

Sneaking requires the rogue to leave the party (since making Move Silently checks is pointless when six people in armor follow you around) which means that every player but one can't do anything (or they can, but they have to take turns, since there's only one DM). Also, if sneaking goes wrong, the Rogue is screwed.

Bypassing traps. Somehow, traps never seemed... fun? I mean, I dunno, the traditional trap system just doesn't seem that great. "Roll a die. Party takes damage on anything less than an eight." I realize this is odd because, you know, EVERYTHING amounts to rolling dice, but traps seem really basic without much to do with them (obviously creative DMs can do fun things, but if we're using creative DMs we can assume ANY rule is fun)

Lockpicking. Like traps, this really feels like "Oh hey. You have a rogue. Looks like you don't take random penalties and miss out on this room"

1. Good thing they're rogues now and not thieves anymore. There are 2 dozen skills to choose from depending on your archetype. Stealing stuff after doing #2 is nice though.
2. D&D has fairly good and usually completely ignored rules for sneaking. No nat 1's, no nat 20's, items to boost it into the stratosphere, taking 10's (both sneaker and enemies on watch) and distance penalties mean usually you can't be seen period. Not even 5% of the time. Well, as long as you have cover, but the enemy won't be checking behind everything (negating cover) unless they already know you're there. But typically this doesn't happen, you botch one of your dozen rolls, and you're alone so you're screwed.
3. Good traps are puzzles, lousy traps are rolls only.
4. Be it a focus or icing on the cake, everyone tends to like this one.
5. Anyone can break down doors or use spells to bypass them.

So in short the problem is:
1. N/A.
2. The DM.
3. The DM.
4. N/A.
5. The PC or the DM.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-11-30, 01:14 AM
1. Good thing they're rogues now and not thieves anymore. There are 2 dozen skills to choose from depending on your archetype. Stealing stuff after doing #2 is nice though.
Those skills ostensibly existed for all players even when they weren't explicitly codified. Percentage just means auto-successes that you don't roleplay because you're handwaving the thief off as being that skilled in that particular field of expertise.

Mr. Fighter can sneak but that's more dependent on the measures he decides to take and DM arbitration. You just have to come up with a specific plan of action instead of rolling some pre-defined resolution mechanic. The thief is just better at sneaking because it he has a special provision that lets him automatically succeed on a roll.

This doesn't strike me as much different from the way 3e works. The Rogue is still pretty limiting because it still remains a class-based system. His cross-class skills will just suck. He has a pre-defined skill for lying, but hell, that can be roleplayed anyway and that turns a social encounter into a puzzle.

Shnezz
2009-11-30, 09:31 AM
Yeah, I've played about 3 sessions as a 4E rogue, and I'm already... screwed to the wall, for acting rogue-ish.

[/rant]
I avoided pickpocketing my teammates, picked a paltry sum off a peasant in the market, and it wasn't that bad. So, I wandered around, looking for a house to rob. Successfully distracted the guards with fire, got in, grabbed a lot, and as I'm about to get away, the DM says "You're surrounded."

I guess a level one, after making an UNGODLY amount of high skill checks, and getting into a fight leaving him with 2 hp remaining, still can't possess any wealth. So, he drops the guards on me. I make an acrobatic's check (Thank you +9) to climb to the roof, leaving all the loot not in my pack or pocket's behind.

So what happens? The guards fire arrows up. Five arrows shot into the air, hoping they come back down on the roof to hit me, and wound me enough to stop me. I thought they'd have a huge minus to hit. Nope. Bled on the roof until they threw me in jail. [/endrant] Edit: I think the DM fudged the rolls, because I couldn't see them... :roach:

Anyway... I think I now hate my rogue.

Harperfan7
2009-11-30, 09:34 AM
Anyway... I think I now hate my rogue.

Screw that, hate your crappy DM!

Shnezz
2009-11-30, 09:35 AM
Screw that, hate your crappy DM!

True... But if I can't use my rogue-ish-ness-ocity then he feels hobbled... and thusly, I dislike my rogue too.

BRC
2009-11-30, 09:38 AM
Yeah, I've played about 3 sessions as a 4E rogue, and I'm already... screwed to the wall, for acting rogue-ish.

[/rant]
I avoided pickpocketing my teammates, picked a paltry sum off a peasant in the market, and it wasn't that bad. So, I wandered around, looking for a house to rob. Successfully distracted the guards with fire, got in, grabbed a lot, and as I'm about to get away, the DM says "You're surrounded."

I guess a level one, after making an UNGODLY amount of high skill checks, and getting into a fight leaving him with 2 hp remaining, still can't possess any wealth. So, he drops the guards on me. I make an acrobatic's check (Thank you +9) to climb to the roof, leaving all the loot not in my pack or pocket's behind.

So what happens? The guards fire arrows up. Five arrows shot into the air, hoping they come back down on the roof to hit me, and wound me enough to stop me. I thought they'd have a huge minus to hit. Nope. Bled on the roof until they threw me in jail. [/endrant] Edit: I think the DM fudged the rolls, because I couldn't see them... :roach:

Anyway... I think I now hate my rogue.
That's less "Rogues Suck" and more "Your DM dislikes you taking initiative".
Now, I could understand him not wanting you to have the money, he could be prickly about WBL, but after you gave it up I think having the guard's shoot you was a little much.
Also, dropping the guards on you like that smells of DM nastiness, namely because of "Your Surrounded". If it had been "The Guards have put out the fire and are now searching the house/waiting outside the exits", but the guards suddenly popping out and surrounding you dosn't sound right.

BlackSheep
2009-11-30, 10:33 AM
True... But if I can't use my rogue-ish-ness-ocity then he feels hobbled... and thusly, I dislike my rogue too.

Are you playing by yourself, or with a group?

Shnezz
2009-11-30, 11:11 AM
Are you playing by yourself, or with a group?

There was a group, but our fighter was off getting drunk, our cleric went to sleep, the warlock slept with a bartender, and the paladin was off doing "holy things" (AKA: He missed that session.)

nyjastul69
2009-11-30, 01:06 PM
Sure. "Old-school" players have always complained about thieves because thieves didn't exist in OD&D.

They're viewed as a "self-justifying" class because skills didn't exist then. You just roleplayed the act of finding traps or whatever and the DM arbitrated. In consequence, parties would bring along a ten-foot pole by default and poke at the ground to detect pit traps. If you don't ask, you don't find it (unless you're an elf and can autodetect secret doors).

In effect, traps are puzzles. You have to describe the specific actions to avoid, bypass or disarm them. And this is part of the appeal of older editions.

Considering the fact that fantasy characters like Conan are often portrayed as a part-time thief, it was assumed that adventurers were supposed to do this sort of thing (e.g. prying giant rubies out of the eyes of a heathen idol). Adventurers are disreputable vagabonds by default.

For the most part, other players justify thieves in older edition by saying that while any player can do what the thief does, the thief does it better. The thief gets an automatic percentage of success above-and-beyond what a normal character is capable of.

Thieves didn't exist in the wood grain/white box of OD&D. They do however exist in the first splatbook for the game, Supplement I: Greyhawk. This book also contains the Paladin.

incubus5075
2009-11-30, 03:08 PM
Until recently I have ALWAYS played a rogue. They just appeal to me. They are in my opinion one of the only classes that can adventure solo. Lots of goblins around? SNEAK ATTACK!!! Come across a dragon, hopefully level appropriate, sneak in, steal, run like hell. Seriously they have a skill and ability for anything. Only thing more self reliant is a batman wizard but a rogue only needs himself. Wizard needs books, components, etc to be effective. Plus magic feels like cheating. Recently played 4th ed and the rogue is the heavy hitter of the group and the skill nazi. Only person who does more damage is the ranger IF he hits with all of his attacks. Rogue=WIN in my book. Plus for RP wise they are great, hitting on the damsel in distress and stealing under the kings nose is fun :)

shadow_archmagi
2009-11-30, 03:16 PM
They are in my opinion one of the only classes that can adventure solo.

Unfortunately, the game isn't based around adventuring solo. While it's been said numerous times that recon is practical, I still can't see why it's a good thing to have the entire party twiddling their thumbs while you go off and have your solo adventure.

Theodoric
2009-11-30, 03:17 PM
Recently played 4th ed and the rogue is the heavy hitter of the group and the skill nazi. Only person who does more damage is the ranger IF he hits with all of his attacks.
Agreed on the 4E damage thing. A Brutal Scoundrel Half-Orc rogue with the Backstabber feat does huge amounts of damage at lvl 1, and can do so while rolling against Reflex with Piercing Strike. (with combat advantage, a short sword DEX18 and STR16, that's +9 to hit vs Ref, and 1d6+2d8+7 damage on an at-will)

Tyndmyr
2009-11-30, 03:19 PM
Until recently I have ALWAYS played a rogue. They just appeal to me. They are in my opinion one of the only classes that can adventure solo.

Oddly enough, stealth types probably have the highest mortality rate so far in my solo dungeon. Check with the Neverending Dungeon, they're more trap heavy, rogues might be less screwed there... Maybe. It's gestalt though, so that helps shore up rogue weak points.

Anyhow, rogues are definitely not the only soloers, or even close to it.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-11-30, 03:22 PM
Thieves didn't exist in the wood grain/white box of OD&D. They do however exist in the first splatbook for the game, Supplement I: Greyhawk. This book also contains the Paladin.
Nonetheless, a specific kind of purist is likely to think that thieves have no place in traditional D&D for reasons of freeform roleplaying and flavor. That is, the setting assumes that adventurers are thieves in one form or another at one time or another. Typically, all adventurers need to deal with stealth issues, traps and locked doors at some point and that rolling for those tasks ruins the problem-solving aspect of the game.

Generally though, the percentage-based skill system of thieves assumes nothing other than that the thief gets a special provision to do things in situations that the DM would otherwise rule to be impossible for other characters. Not to mention that there are strong archetypes that revolve around the notion of a professional thief. The thief is just has the leg-up on the plebs who don't know how to do things like blending seamlessly into the shadows.

horseboy
2009-11-30, 03:27 PM
Unfortunately, the game isn't based around adventuring solo. While it's been said numerous times that recon is practical, I still can't see why it's a good thing to have the entire party twiddling their thumbs while you go off and have your solo adventure.

Yeah, it's one of the reasons why deckers are usually NPC's in Shadowrun. It's hard to time it just right so everybody else can go watch NCIS and hey, it might be an Abby heavy episode so everyone wants to watch.

ken-do-nim
2009-11-30, 03:27 PM
Nonetheless, a specific kind of purist is likely to think that thieves have no place in traditional D&D for reasons of freeform roleplaying and flavor. That is, the setting assumes that adventurers are thieves in one form or another at one time or another. Typically, all adventurers need to deal with stealth issues, traps and locked doors at some point and that rolling for those tasks ruins the problem-solving aspect of the game.

Generally though, the percentage-based skill system of thieves assumes nothing other than that the thief gets a special provision to do things in situations that the DM would otherwise rule to be impossible for other characters. Not to mention that there are strong archetypes that revolve around the notion of a professional thief. The thief is just has the leg-up on the plebs who don't know how to do things like blending seamlessly into the shadows.

Just an fyi: OD&D thieves did not have a trap finding ability; only a trap removing ability, so the OD&D style of play with descriptive search remains intact. The complaint about OD&D thieves is with the sneaking, as it implies the other classes can't do it.

Another fyi: AD&D came out before the Basic/Expert rulebooks you are quoting from, though not before the original (blue) basic rulebook.

Fhaolan
2009-11-30, 03:34 PM
If by that you mean "Original Dungeons & Dragons", they've been around since the Basic & Expert books. Since the game was still called Dungeons & DragonsŪ then, before the name change to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, they're part of the original game. Thieves are described starting on page B10 (page 10 of the Basic Rulebook).

There was an edition before the Basic books (published three years earlier), but it's not common knowledge. Sometimes this edition is called the 'White Box Edition', but that's not technically accurate as it was actually brown. The white box version was a reprint of these rules put together later as a collector's edition. There was also a blue-book edition that didn't have 'Basic' on the cover, but the rules in it are almost identical to the later ones with the 'Basic' label. The classes in the White-Box edition were Fighting Man, Magic User, and Cleric. The different races didn't have their own classes at that point, Hobbits (not Halflings, that came later) were automatically Fighting Men for example. Thief (and Paladin for that matter) were added in the first ever D&D supplement: Greyhawk. Monk and Assassin were added in Blackmoor. Eldritch Wizardry added Druid (and psionics).

LurkerInPlayground
2009-11-30, 03:35 PM
Just an fyi: OD&D thieves did not have a trap finding ability; only a trap removing ability, so the OD&D style of play with descriptive search remains intact. The complaint about OD&D thieves is with the sneaking, as it implies the other classes can't do it.

Another fyi: AD&D came out before the Basic/Expert rulebooks you are quoting from, though not before the original (blue) basic rulebook.
I'm not speaking strictly about OD&D, since I am also referring to AD&D skill percentiles as well. So arguably, the trap-finding simply continues the trend started by the sneaking skill.

drengnikrafe
2009-11-30, 03:46 PM
Allow me a couple of words to show why rogues are very useful.
Role.... Playing.
Now, to explain. Take a fighter character with the standard array (11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10). How many skill points does he get at first level? 8. Now, take a rogue with the same array. How many skill points does he get? 32. Which is more versitile when it comes to doing whatever you want within a town? My opinion rests with rogues.
Furthermore, I find the key thing about rogues is not just the things you've stated, but also that mass of skill points. Rogues are capable of all sorts of stuff; virtually anything you want them to be. In my opinion, anyway. If everything was limited in scope of skill points, you would be fairly limited in your abilities to do random things.
My final opinion: Rogues are fun to play. If you play them as a cliche, they will come out as a cliche, but if you play them however you want within the bounds of reason (which is a better way to play, IMO), you will actually have fun.

PinkysBrain
2009-11-30, 03:51 PM
Bypassing traps. Somehow, traps never seemed... fun? I mean, I dunno, the traditional trap system just doesn't seem that great.
The alarm trap is a traditional trap ...

Aron Times
2009-11-30, 04:09 PM
I'm looking for a 4e game where I can play my rogue crossbow sniper. Sneak Attack from 325 ft. away with no penalties for the win!