What is a Rogue?

[MesiDoomstalker]

I'm in the lengthy process of doing my own CORE rewrite. My ultimate goal of the rewrite is to close the gap in classes to be in the Tier 3 to Tier 4 range, which includes fairly extensive reworkings of all CORE classes. One thing I'm running into is mundane classes tend to lack cool options and tricks. So my solution is to spruce up classes a bit, adding new class features on top of refining and reworking their existing ones.

So, why am I here instead of Homebrew? Well especially with mundanes, I feel like I've hit a creative block on what to do to make them better and more interesting. I'm here, dear Playground, to crowdsource. What do you think is a Rogue? What should any Rogue be able to do? What should any Rogue fear? Strengths and weaknesses. What is the iconic Rogue? I'll take the opinions formed here as inspiration for my version of the Rogue. If anyone suggests something specific, I'll be sure to note and credit them (with their permission). I'll share mine.

I feel Rogues should always be ready for action. A Rogue always uses any and all advantages that come to him, no matter how dirty and underhanded they may be. They'll spit in your eye, hit below the belt, and drop your drawers if it means they'll get even a fleeting advantage. Above all, Rogues should never be trusted, not because they are dishonest, but because you never know what they'll pull.

[VoxRationis]

A rogue uses mundane skills, rather than combat or magic, to accomplish their goals. A rogue prefers to find ways to handle things subtly or with an oblique approach, rather than direct confrontation.

[Afgncaap5]

Regarding your question of what a Rogue should fear... I'd never thought about that before. Rogue is my favorite class, so I really like this question.

Now, mechanically what a rogue should fear is a spellcaster. However, even the briefest of glances at the history of literature demonstrates that rogues actually seem to be the secret weakness of spellcasters. So, that's not it. Archetypally it seems like the thing that a rogue should fear the most is a crafty but incorruptible paladin. Someone that the rogue can probably fool most of the time, but is steadfast enough that the rogue simply can't talk its way out of trouble on the rare time that the person actually catches them. Case in point, Jafar loses to Aladdin. But once Aladdin's location is known, Razoul is the one who can snare Aladdin and throw him in a dungeon.

I don't want to say that a Rogue would fear a Fighter, necessarily. But a Paladin or Knight, perhaps. Perhaps their armor makes them harder to sneak attack, or their commitment is able to ignore the rogue's sneaky tactics.

As for what a Rogue should be good at, they should be able to see things for what they are instead of what they're perceived to be. I don't read FR novels very often, but when I finally caved and read The Crystal Shard I thought it was hilarious and awesome to see what Driz'zt could do with some flour. (Yes, he's technically a Ranger, but I think that archetypally that's the sort of approach a rogue should take.) So, trap finding, trap preparation, fast talking, evading people in tight spaces, sneak attacking, that sort of thing.

If a Rogue could have some method of redirecting the focus of a deadly spell onto something else, it would fit. I'm not sure how you could do it mechanically, but all those never-miss save-or-die spells that wizards get? Rogues should know how to make sure that they can cause those things to miss.

[VoxRationis]

I've generally thought of the classic Wizard-Rogue-Fighter as a Rock-Paper-Scissors thing:
Wizard beats Fighter with crowd control and just plain magic blasting.
Fighter beats Rogue, by surviving the rogue's initial strikes and just brute-forcing past all the rogue's skill.
Rogue beats Wizard, by catching the wizard off-guard, while he's preparing spells or otherwise unprepared, and doing heavy amounts of initial damage, or by fooling the wizard's apprentices into all leaving, or doing something else sneaky that cripples the wizard.

Now, keep in mind I'm not saying this is the way it actually plays out. It's just what I imagine it SHOULD be, in a very rough manner of speaking. The Wizard's strength is preparation, and a rogue is excellent at striking in ways one hasn't prepared for. So if anything, I would make sure that you cut spells that do good jobs at mitigating rogue skills (so nothing that prevents them from hiding, nothing that sees through mundane disguises or forgeries, etc.), more than changing the rogue itself.

[Doc_Maynot]

A miserable little pile of Sneak Attack dice?

Castlevania, anybody?

[Grayson01]

The Rogue to me has always been the Archtypical Schoundral. Can prepare for anything, lives by their wits, back stabs the dickens out of you (lit & Fig), the theif who keeps on theifing. But the Rogue shouldn't be really locked into any one type. They should be one of the most versatile Mundane charcters, maybe even adding in a little magic dabbling if so chosing.

[zionpopsickle]

I've generally thought of the classic Wizard-Rogue-Fighter as a Rock-Paper-Scissors thing:
Wizard beats Fighter with crowd control and just plain magic blasting.
Fighter beats Rogue, by surviving the rogue's initial strikes and just brute-forcing past all the rogue's skill.
Rogue beats Wizard, by catching the wizard off-guard, while he's preparing spells or otherwise unprepared, and doing heavy amounts of initial damage, or by fooling the wizard's apprentices into all leaving, or doing something else sneaky that cripples the wizard.

Now, keep in mind I'm not saying this is the way it actually plays out. It's just what I imagine it SHOULD be, in a very rough manner of speaking. The Wizard's strength is preparation, and a rogue is excellent at striking in ways one hasn't prepared for. So if anything, I would make sure that you cut spells that do good jobs at mitigating rogue skills (so nothing that prevents them from hiding, nothing that sees through mundane disguises or forgeries, etc.), more than changing the rogue itself.

I think this is a really good summation of the basic concepts involved. Really, if I was going to do a core rewrite I would probably start with something like this.

[ericgrau]

"Rogue" used to be "thief", but they changed it to "rogue" to broaden the number of character concepts you can play with one. He's a vagabond, someone who goes against the grain. That's why they're usually chaotic, but not always. "Rogue" used to be a type of class rather than a single class, which also used to encompass bard. A class which likewise lives on the edge of the mainstream ways.

So a rogue should be tricky, sneaky, use unorthodox tactics, etc. They should also be broad enough that someone might not go after all of these things, but focus only on some of them or focus on an unusual aspect of rogueness.

They shouldn't be very good at the straightforward. Standing still alone out in the open and hitting things with a sword should be a bad idea. If they have any magic or special abilities, likewise using them to pound random targets without thought should be bad.

[squiggit]

Part of the problem is that the rogue CAN be a lot of things.

The cat burglar who never lays a hand on a single person, slinks into a room undetected and without leaving a trace and walks out with tens of thousands of gold in treasure is a rogue.

The brigand who's declared his a stretch of road his territory and 'offers' to have his crew protect wandering merchants can be a rogue (admittedly he can also be a fighter).

The undercover detective who needs to be able to make the worst scum of the earth think he's their friend and be able to slip from goal to goal without being spotted by his ertswhile allies is a rogue.

The trained killer who stalks through the shadows, swoops down and strikes, ending a conflict in one decisive blow is a rogue.

The core thing I think here is that the rogue uses some combination of guile, agility, stealth or force of will to slowly and carefully edge themselves into positions... and that when they do finally make their move it will be to devastating effect. They're willing to take risks, do things unorthodox, and almost always like to find the back door when searching for a solution. That's the essence of the character you should try to capture.

Other than that a rogue can be smart, charming or brutish and still carve out their own path, so I'd hope you'd try not to restrict how you play them too much.

[VoxRationis]

I mean, the Player's Handbook and Complete Scoundrel do a pretty good job at explaining the concept. A rogue lives by his or her wits, usually, and "is skilled at getting what others don't want them to get." Rogues usually focus on living in the margins of society or parasitizing it, rather than forging their own way as a fighter or ranger might, reinforcing it as a cleric or paladin might, or ruling it. They tend to be strongest when there are more people around them, even if those people are ambivalent or hostile to them. They are weakest when backed into a corner, with no options for oblique approaches, or when struck with such power that, in the words of Xykon, "tactics become irrelevant."

[MesiDoomstalker]

Part of the problem is that the rogue CAN be a lot of things.

The cat burglar who never lays a hand on a single person, slinks into a room undetected and without leaving a trace and walks out with tens of thousands of gold in treasure is a rogue.

The brigand who's declared his a stretch of road his territory and 'offers' to have his crew protect wandering merchants can be a rogue (admittedly he can also be a fighter).

The undercover detective who needs to be able to make the worst scum of the earth think he's their friend and be able to slip from goal to goal without being spotted by his ertswhile allies is a rogue.

The trained killer who stalks through the shadows, swoops down and strikes, ending a conflict in one decisive blow is a rogue.

The core thing I think here is that the rogue uses some combination of guile, agility, stealth or force of will to slowly and carefully edge themselves into positions... and that when they do finally make their move it will be to devastating effect. They're willing to take risks, do things unorthodox, and almost always like to find the back door when searching for a solution. That's the essence of the character you should try to capture.

Other than that a rogue can be smart, charming or brutish and still carve out their own path, so I'd hope you'd try not to restrict how you play them too much.

One thing I'd like to note, that you've hit spot on, is I want every class to have options. Enough options that you could build a character with the same class levels and be wildly different thematically and mechanically. So my ideal is offering options for the cat burglar, the brigand, the detective and the killer, so you could be any one or a mish-mash of them all. Thats what this thread is about. What makes a Rogue is not a single answer but many and knowing what my audience wants means I can create what they want.

[Telonius]

To me, a Rogue is a sneaky, opportunistic character. There's definitely a tendency to Chaos, but Lawful examples are possible. While not quite as genre-savvy as a Bard, he gets his share of, "just give it a thwap and it will work" moments. He takes advantage of his opponent's weak points. He fights with his brain and his speed, more than his strength. Rogues have a bit of a reputation for being cowardly, but it's not always deserved. They simply don't see the need to fight if the terrain isn't favorable to them. It's a very rare Rogue who doesn't see the value of a tactical retreat. They also have a bit of a reputation for being money-grubbing. While some are, most of them see money as a means to keeping themselves alive and happy, not an end in itself. They're not as strong or sturdy as a Fighter or as magically-protected as a spellcaster, so they try to squeeze every drop of utility out of their money as possible.

Any rogue should be capable of (whether or not they're willing to) stealing anything that isn't nailed down, escaping from most bindings, opening a lock, sabotaging a mechanism, sneaking through shadows, and gaining contacts in the city's criminal element. A rogue should be capable of being as good of a liar and negotiator as anyone, but it's not necessarily a key part of the class - more like something that he can choose to develop if he wants to, rather than something he gets as a default.

As for what he fears ... Usually, a rogue believes he can get out of any scrape he finds himself in. But he fears someone will find out what he loves, and use that against him. He's nervous when the situation seems to be getting out of his control, or when he feels he's being maneuvered into a dangerous situation.

[VoxRationis]

I know you're trying to go your own way, but I'd like to point out mechanically what defines rogues in D&D so far:
Skills.
The ability to use numerous skills to accomplish things through alternate methods is the core strength, and really the core ability, of rogues. Sneak Attack is nice, but a well-played rogue may never have to use it; steal a few coins from the orcs at the card table and they'll kill each other more effectively than you ever will. Evasion is great, but you've already failed at the core idea if that wizard is throwing fireballs or that dragon has awakened. Uncanny Dodge is just to make you less vulnerable to other rogues.
This especially applied in AD&D, where no one else got skills (besides nonweapon proficiencies) and backstab damage didn't scale as much.
Skills also allow diversification. A rogue might just use stealth and pickpocketing, or might be an expert trapsmith, or might rely almost wholly on social skills, or might focus on acrobatics and mobility.
Whatever you do, the rogue should have both the broadest potential and greatest realized skill set of all the characters. That allows them to pull off all those oblique approaches, all those guileful or out-of-the-box ploys.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

A miserable little pile of Sneak Attack dice?


Perhaps the same could be said of all precision-based classes...

Seriously, the term Rogue is a broad and general one on purpose, however there's a term I happen to really like: Scoundrel.

A Rogue is going to come in second in any fair fight. Which is why he makes damn sure he's not going to get suckered into one any time soon. And he's got all kinds of tricks up his sleeve to make certain that no matter what you think, there's always another angle he's got covered. He's skilled, but it is less book-smarts skilled and more life-lessons skilled.

Balancing a Rogue is a very tough thing to do, because so much of their ability to be effective depends on what they have available to them. For example, with Use Magic Device, they can effectively 'WBLomancy' their way out of nearly any situation with a sufficiently large enough 'bag of tricks'. However, taking away UMD really hits them with a harsh nerf-bat that would bring the class down almost a full tier. He also needs to be in a game where his entire class isn't replaced with a couple of spells.

For a Rogue to be relevant, his skills have to be relevant and not easily replaceable. Spells like Knock and Sense Traps make him obsolete.

I've often considered rewriting a Rogue as a variant of the Swordsage. It's got most of the chassis anyway, 3/4 BAB and a low enough HD that they really don't want to get hit too often. Swap out some of their more martial class abilities for more sneaky ones. Maybe yank out a few disciplines and leave them with something like Diamond Mind, Tiger Claw, and Shadow Hand. For those who want more of a Grey Mouser type rogue, there's always Beguiler.

[Averis Vol]

When I think of a rogue, what comes into my mind is the ex underworld member. He is either the enforcer who uses a quick tongue and a sharp blade to get his point (hehehe) across. He's the shadow in the edge of your vision who is never really there, no matter how hard you try to find him, he's just a mystery. For those he considers friends, he's a font of spare gold and appropriate connections, both legitimate and illegitimate, for whatever you could possibly need. And while you wont often see him in a fray, swinging a blade with the front liners, the surgical precision wounds littering your foes body are enough of a sign that he was there.

specifically for combat, he's the king of underhanded tactics. If you catch a rogue, and hes fighting straight, there has to be something wrong. He has an affinity for poison and tools, a number of common objects he turns into useful tools to hinder his opponents. He should also have the ability to disarm, re arm and build a number of traps and snares.

Also, the places he can't get into on a whim should include a kings vault or a mages inner sanctum. If theres something he wants in the local lords manse, nothing short of a specialized hunter should stop him from getting it.

Thats what I imagine at least.

[BWR]

The skill monkey. The Jack of All Trades and master of a few. They one with a wide variety of skills that knows a little of everything and is really good at some things.

They shouldn't be the equal of a fighter in straight combat, wizards should be able to toss off spells that do what the rogue can do only better, but the rogue should be the ultimate generalist. The one that no matter the situation can do something useful at the drop of a hat. Fast talking a guard, sneaking past the monster, finding and disabling traps, using that scroll that no one else in the party can, pull up some obscure bit of lore about local dignitaries, hit an unaware enemy hard, leap over a crevasse, sleight of hand, brokering a deal with a local lord; it doesn't matter, the rogue should have a better than average shot at it. If they don't focus on those abilities, they shouldn't outshine another class that does, but they should be able to outshine others who don't focus. A rogue that focuses should on the whole be better at skills than another class/type that focuses on skills.

[Larpus]

Honestly, I've always seen the concept never achieved of the Rogue as being batman.

Badass normal with gadgets, kinda like a mundane wizard in some ways.

Putting much more emphasis on planning and preparation than being a walking threat.

So I'd say to put more emphasis on item usage (and upgrading those to match, such as lowering costs and making them cheaper and/or more powerful for the Rogue).

Poisons is another thing that'd be up in the Rogue's alley, again, with the much needed buffing and cheapening.

[Slipperychicken]

When I think "Rogue", I think of the following attributes:

Fast
Sneaky
Clever

I think Rogues should be able to do the following:

Outpace opponents.
Easily traverse obstacles. This includes things like picking locks, swimming, evading/disarming traps, scaling walls, slipping out of bindings (such as ropes, manacles, and giant spiderwebs), and leaping over chasms.
Be highly elusive, especially when hidden or disguised. Both finding and catching a Rogue should be difficult.
Use a fighting style based on speed, misdirection, and dirty tricks.
Steal objects without being noticed.

I think Rogues should have some weaknesses:

Squishier than fighters (but beefier than wizards).
Disadvantaged when slowed or entangled, because speed is crucial to a Rogue.

And some strengths

Much harder to hurt because of their speed, tricks, and skillful maneuvering.
Much better at evading enemies than other classes.
Ability to strike from stealth, defeating opponents before they know what's happening.


I think that Altaiir (from assassin's creed) and Batman both embody qualities central to Roguishness.

I think that Rogues should not be restricted by alignment or personality. Any kind of personality can do what a Rogue does. A Rogue can be a crook, or a detective, or a bandit, or a hobbyist, or a locksmith, or countless other things. A Rogue can be a backstabbing goon, a stand-up human being, a caped crusader, or just an unfortunate soul trying to pay the bills.

[Curmudgeon]

The essence of the Rogue is guile (represented by a variety of skills) and stealth (represented less well). The iconic stealthy D&D class, the Rogue lacks the stealth enabler that other classes have: Hide in Plain Sight (see Ranger, Scout, Shadowdancer, and Assassin). It just perplexes me that the class doesn't have HiPS at all; instead, to fit the archetype of stealth it should have that ability earlier than any other class. Currently a Rogue character can get a poor form of Hide in Plain Sight with a template at ECL 2, or the best HiPS with a 1-level dip into Shadowdancer at ECL 7. I think Hide in Plain Sight ought to be a something that's at least a Rogue option, and no later than what's available now with a PrC dip. So maybe trade the weak sauce of trap sense (levels 3, 6, 9, ...) for Camouflage (all terrain) at Rogue level 3, and Hide in Plain Sight (all terrain) at Rogue 6.

[VoxRationis]

A lot of these people seem to be thinking of combat, and I would like to add that my idea of a rogue prefers to avoid combat if at all possible; when I refer to them being "backed into a corner," I mean they're out of strategic options and their sleeves have been emptied of tricks (or at least emptied of tricks that their enemies haven't accounted for). To me, the archetypal rogue is more likely to evade enemies, to use guile, rather than acrobatic fighting styles, to accomplish their goals.

[Techwarrior]

Rather than try and define the Rogue archetype, which others in this thread have done well already, I'll throw out some of what I consider to be iconic rogues from stories, books, and movies.

Friar Carl (Van Helsing). He has the Educated feat, and maxxed most of his intelligence skills over others, but is clearly an intelligent character, good with puzzles, and is clearly the skillful character of their group.
Kylar Stern (The Night Angels). Kylar grew up on the street, and had to learn early to take advantage of every opportunity he could in order to merely survive. He eventually probably took Swordsage levels, but his skillset is just so diverse that to not call him a Rogue is to me, almost criminal.
All of the Hobbits (Lord of the Rings). Each one of them has slightly different skills (Merry for instance, seems to have pretty solid Diplomacy), but they are all good at stealth tactics, and have various random skills that they use to amazing effect.
Tyrion Lannister (A Song of Ice and Fire). He's a master of social manipulation, and on several occasions simply put his opponent in positions where they could not act.

That's just a few, but it shows just how diverse the archetype really is.

[Dracio]

The biggest fears a rogue has being denied its dex bonus or being unable to deny others their dex bonus. They are dependent on being able to slip around the field of battle without drawing to much attention. They suffer the most when reduced to direct confrontation as their ac can be low and their only good save is reflex. One of their greatest assets is the fact that they are skill monkeys and can easily fill in the skill wholes of the party and still have points left over.

[Kennisiou]

A miserable little pile of sneak attacks.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'd also like to use Solid Snake as an example of a Rogue. Sure, he -can- kill people, but he's at his best when he can simply avoid them entirely, and his combat is most effective when his opponent doesn't realize it is coming.

He isn't going to be able to 'rambo' encounters and just go out into the open, guns blazing. That's going to get him dead very quickly. Instead, he's going to try and sneak around, maybe garrote one if he has to, and drag the body somewhere no one is going to find it.

I'd also point to Dishonored as a good 'rogue' example. He's got plenty of options. He's not the best in a stand-up fight, but he's got all kinds of ways to make you regret not spotting him first.

[DMVerdandi]

A thief, burglar, mugger, and criminal all rolled into one generic mess. I think that the late d20 use of talents would have defined the rogue a lot better than giving them all sneak attack. Also, making them weaker and less combat worthy is kind of silly. Yes, there is the thug/sneak attack fighter BUT really, what about being sneaky makes one less physically adept and less good at fighting.

A thief that cannot defend himself is often a dead thief, or rogue, or whatever you call it. But that is D&D for you. The stereotypes are retarded. If anything, I think the fighter infringes on the rogue's territory of being a combatant that isn't bound to things like honor, or tradition, merely going for what is unorthodox. So, some things I think are in order?

Either talent trees or new maneuvers based on the things that make the rogue who he is.
Sneaking, opportunistic striking, charming/intimidating, goin faster, and gathering information.
So in all, I would say a rogue is a denizen of the underworld. He lives and thrives there, because he has the abilities and skills necessary to live.

[Anlashok]

Yes, there is the thug/sneak attack fighter BUT really, what about being sneaky makes one less physically adept and less good at fighting.

The fact that you tend to be more lightly armed and armored and not necessarily trained for direct combat?



A thief that cannot defend himself is often a dead thief, or rogue, or whatever you call it. But that is D&D for you. The stereotypes are retarded.
The thief being in deep **** if he gets cornered by heavily equipped guards isn't a "retarded stereotype" though. It's kind of what actually tends to happen when the guy wearing regular clothes and equipped with a poorly made short sword or knife is forced into a head on fight with a professionally trained soldier wearing armor and with a decently crafted weapon. The idea that you drop easily in a head on fight and are therefore better off using guile and stealth is a pretty basic concept, so I'm not sure what the difficult part here is.

Sure, there is a degree of balance in it (If the rogue could sit on the front lines as well as the Knight while still being sneakier and skill-ier the Knight has no reason to exist. That's not a big deal though because the setup is a good one for verisimilitude too).

[NecessaryWeevil]

A Rogue is all about surprise: doing what "they" weren't ready for, didn't know was coming, didn't realize was an option. A Rogue is someone who, discovering that the System is stacked against him/her, decides to break the System.

[The Prince of Cats]

A rogue is the character who can get away, the one with options even when it all looks hopeless. Tumbling, climbing, bluffing, using escape artist and picking locks can all turn a bad situation into a slightly better one.

[TandemChelipeds]

Rogues are quick thinkers. Maybe this could translate into abilities that meddle with action economy; they may not do much damage, but being able to pull off a combat maneuver and an attack in the same round could make them very valuable to the rest of the party. This also supports their tendency to fight dirty. There are two major disadvantages here, of course: This isn't Pathfinder, so there isn't a unified CMB mechanic to simplify things, and the maneuvers in question tend to rely on Strength anyway. Give them some abilities that address that, and I think we'd have a rogue that functions like the fluff says they should. It may be unbalancing, though; I don't know.

Another thing to keep in mind is that they should have the option of some mild proficiency in magic. It isn't the focus of the class, of course, and it shouldn't be mandatory, but rogues are defined by their willingness to pick up any skills they can get their hands on, and in a world with magic, I see no reason that magic should be an exception to that. I mean, they can already disarm magic traps. They're halfway there as it is. Even if they can't pick up a few spells, maybe they could have some means of countering spells or otherwise interfering with wizards.

[Dimcair]

Rewriting core is about rewriting the rules.
The rules are for combat or challenges, not on how a character should behave.
Therefore I would suggest to focus on the combat/challenge aspect of the classes.

I want my rogue in a plain fight to have a chance to deal a massive amount of initial damage to a single target.
After that either try to reenter stealth (mechanicly speaking) or to assist the team in a more passive way. (Flanking, UMD, get to hard reachable places, etc. while relying on dodging attacks in some way).

Skillchecks
My problem with these is that a good DM will not put a deadly trap in front of you if no one in your party has any means of detecting them. Same goes for doors. Or machines. Or anything else for that matter. I think this is a big weakness of the class, not in game but out of game. My DM still thinks that a rogue has to be a skillmonkey and everything else comes second. Get rid of that.

[Bit Fiend]

IMHO what a Rogue should fear most is a fair fight. They should be able to deal with any and all tricks with tricks of their own. But when it comes to straight up trading blows and hoping you're better at it than your opponent, they should be completely and utterly screwed.

[TandemChelipeds]

IMHO what a Rogue should fear most is a fair fight. They should be able to deal with any and all tricks with tricks of their own. But when it comes to straight up trading blows and hoping you're better at it than your opponent, they should be completely and utterly screwed.

That's why they shouldn't focus on dealing and soaking up damage. Instead, in a fight, a rogue should focus on complicating things as much as humanly possible. For a rogue, there's no such thing as a fair fight. There's no situation where a rogue won't try to stack the odds as heavily in their own favour as possible. Rogues trip. Rogues feint. Rogues blind. Rogues disarm. Rogues bite if they have to. This is why I think they should be able to pull off combat maneuvers for a lower time cost, maybe at the expense of a penalty to the roll that decreases with rogue level.

[StreamOfTheSky]

As far as combat goes, all this "high initial damage", "screwed in a fair fight," etc... stuff annoys me. I hate the old school backstabber rogue, it's so boring (same freaking schtick) and yet also so frustratingly situational and swingy with no real settings between worthless and 1-hit-KO (theoretically; in reality they don't even tend to really outdamage other damage-based warrior builds even in ideal conditions).

I vastly prefer rogue as a pragmatic fighter who'll use dirty tricks and his surroundings and who is still decent at fighting even without those options, just a notch below the true warriors. One who survives in melee by being a "dodge tank" more so than a metal-laden actual tank and/or high hp "meat shield," with abilities to parry or evade damage and high AC. And who perhaps doesn't do assassination-level insta-gib damage at any point, but does get a lot of single-target debuffs to the point that he's better at it than a caster is, and is certainly decent to above-average at damage-dealing when the situation/tactics are going his way. And a warrior who more so than most makes use of his skills for combat applications (tumble, demoralizing with intimidate, disarming with sleight of hand, you know...). Getting options to sneak to an area to lay out traps and cleverly trigger them during the following battle (along with the purpose of spying/recon that he does it for already) would be awesome, too. The Pathfinder rogue talent cunning trigger is one of the few talents from that system that I actually really like, though it needs easier means of creating, transporting, and setting traps on short notice to be viable.

Much more fun to me than a throat-slitting gimp.

[VoxRationis]

See, I think that there should be support for a "dodge tank" style of play, but that's what a rewritten Swashbuckler should be.

[StreamOfTheSky]

See, I think that there should be support for a "dodge tank" style of play, but that's what a rewritten Swashbuckler should be.

Swashbuckler should BE a rogue.

[VoxRationis]

But there are lots of rogue archetypes that flat-out aren't meant for combat, whether with tricks or without. If you want a sneaky type who also is good at combat, play a multiclass rogue/swashbuckler.

[Techwarrior]

But there are lots of rogue archetypes that flat-out aren't meant for combat, whether with tricks or without. If you want a sneaky type who also is good at combat, play a multiclass rogue/swashbuckler.

I don't know about you, but I think Swashbuckler should be a Rogue ACF.

[squiggit]

I don't know about you, but I think Swashbuckler should be a Rogue ACF.

I agree here. Swashbuckler, to me, sounds like a Rogue who trades away stealth and thievery support for more combat abilities and probably some Cha based bravado.

Speaking of stealth. One thing that's always sort of bugged me is how a class whose most common archetypal portrayal is the thief slinking through the shadows... has absolutely no innate support for stealth? I mean yeah, hide/move silently are class skills for rogues but... that's it. No HiPS or any class features to do anything to support it otherwise.

[Sjlver]

I think the biggest issue with the rogue is it's lack of customization. The wizard gets spells and a fighter gets feats. However, the rogue gets to be either a combat rogue or a skill junky. Their combat usually focuses on getting the flank and dealing sneak attack damage. If it is a smart rogue, they'll have twf, craven, and the flanking feats. If they had more options during combat, that would be something. If it were up to me, I would take a note from pathfinder and give rogues rogue tricks every so often. Just something to give the player more options when making a rogue.

Whenever I played a rogue, I always found myself looking at the swordsage from ToB for the maneuvers and Assassin's stance. I think a prudent move would be to combine swordsage and rogue. This would give them more options in combat and keep skill junkies from being helpless in a full on combat scenario. Also, the players would have more options for customizing since they get to pick maneuvers. Escape is fine and dandy but sometimes a rogue just needs to drop someone. :smalltongue:

[Starbuck_II]

Personally, I find the rogue in South Park Stick of Truth to be great example.

It focuses on status effects like bleeding, lowering Armor (armor acts like DR letting you deal more damage), stunning, gross (acts like bleed in that deals damage but denies potions/lowers healing), and one big damage strike.

Most of Rogue maneuvers have you appear behind foe and strike.

[Toliudar]

One quick way to add a bunch of cool options for rogues: in the same way that only Trapfinding allows you to disable traps with a DC of 20 or higher, give mid to high level rogues the exclusive ability to access Epic uses of skills, at half of the listed DC / increase in DC. It's not game-breaking, but being able to pop a lock as a free action, or balance on water, would certainly be one step toward making up for the fact that you're not throwing shapechange around.

[Curmudgeon]

I think the biggest issue with the rogue is it's lack of customization.
There is customization, but it starts way too late, at level 10: the Special Ability class feature.

[Vhaidara]

I would say that Rogue options should include:

Garret (Thief): Garret usually has two or three routes into any given building undetected. He can hold his own against a single guard if he kills him quickly, but if things get weirder than that or if more guards show up or simply if he takes too long, Garret will die. You strike only when you have to, and only from stealth, and only once. This is the burglar, the second story man, the thief.

Altair (Assassin's Creed): Altair is a trained killer. He kills who he needs to. Stealth is preferable, but he is able to pursue his target if necessary. He can also hold his own in a fight, although, like Garret, time and numbers can overwhelm him. This is the murderer, the hit-man, the assassin.

Stragen (The Elenium and The Tamuli book series): Stragen is a noble bastard who runs one of the Theives' Guilds in the series. he is the epitome of a smooth talker, refined enough to fit in at any noble's party. And skilled enough to then break into the noble's vault when no one is looking. Stragen learns how to handle every aspect of thieving to some degree. This is the Renaissance thief, the con-man, the guild leader.

[Sjlver]

There is customization, but it starts way too late, at level 10: the Special Ability class feature.

Yeah I totally spaced on that but it does start a little late. If there were lower level options for special abilities, I think that would make the class a little more favorable.

[Coidzor]

Debuffs and other tricks that manipulate combat in their favor and the favor of their party along with the resilience and defenses to be secondary melee.

Possibly more access to or better ability to use inventive uses of the skill system to some effect or another or just straight-up skill tricks, though those are their own complication.


But there are lots of rogue archetypes that flat-out aren't meant for combat, whether with tricks or without. If you want a sneaky type who also is good at combat, play a multiclass rogue/swashbuckler.

Which is clearly a design flaw for anything having to do with D&D. Combat is a certainty, players need something to do while in it.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Alright awesome! Thank you all for your input. I'll try to compile whats been said into a concise list. If I missed anything its probably because I folded it into another concept presented.

What a Rogue should do:

Be sneaky
Fight dirty
single-target debuff
Sneak Attack (literally and mechanically)
Traps
Smooth Talking
Obstacle transversing
Opportunistic combat;


A Rogue should fear:

A straight fight
front lines
being in the open
Princess' Bed chambers in the morning
Lack of control


Mechanically Rogues should be:

Jack of All Trades, but can focus
Hide REALLY well (HiPS)
Fight with the terrain/ exploit situation/weaknesses
Options
Single Target Debuffs

I've already done some brainstorming on how to do some of these. Mainly as far as Options, Debuff and Skillful aspects, I've got the beginnings of a maneuver-like system. I call them Cheap Shots and Dirty Tricks. Essentially, Cheap Shots trade so many Sneak Attack die for various rider Debuffs, much like the feats in Complete Scoundrel and Complete Adventurer. Cheap Tricks is broader, but focuses on dirty tactics (throwing dirt, "whats that!?", etc.) and skill usage (Swift Action Tumble for example).

I have another question now! What should every Rogue be able to do, Skill wise? Specifically, what 5 Skills should every Rogue have on their skill list? Inversely, what 5 Skills should most Rogues not have on their skill list? I am planning on making Rogue's skill list flexible, somewhat like Expert but want a few constants.

[Slipperychicken]

Which is clearly a design flaw for anything having to do with D&D. Combat is a certainty, players need something to do while in it.

This. If you're playing D&D, you're all but guaranteed to fight stuff. The non-combat parts of D&D are like spindly deformed arms and legs sprouting the bloated torso of the combat system.

Playing a non-combat game of D&D is like using a bayoneted rifle to eat dinner: you can do it, but it'll be tremendously awkward and you'll quickly realize that it's easier to just eat with your hands.



I have another question now! What should every Rogue be able to do, Skill wise? Specifically, what 5 Skills should every Rogue have on their skill list? Inversely, what 5 Skills should most Rogues not have on their skill list? I am planning on making Rogue's skill list flexible, somewhat like Expert but want a few constants.

Within the context of D&D skills, Rogues would be good at stealth (yes, I think Hide and Move Silently should be the same skill), climb, perception (i.e. spot + listen), acrobatics (i.e. jump + tumble), and disable device, at least.

Also, I don't like the idea of skill lists. Any class should be able to use any skill.

[Vhaidara]

The answer for this one is that the list of 5 should not exist. Rogue is an extremely broad class.

Rogues shouldn't be summarized by what they can do. A burglar would need Stealth and Disable Device, but a highway robber wouldn't. They would need Perception and Intimidate. A con-man would need Bluff and Diplomacy, while an investigator (PI, not police) would use Perception and Sense Motive.

One recommendation I'm sure you've gotten is to use the PF skill set.

Also, do away with Trapfinding. If you invest the points, you should be able to do the job. I don't think any class without trapfinding has Search/Disable Device in-class anyways, so it doesn't even steal the job.

[MesiDoomstalker]

The answer for this one is that the list of 5 should not exist. Rogue is an extremely broad class.

I think you misunderstand. The list of 5 is, in the broadest sense, the most basic skillset of any Rogue. It doesn't mean other skills are excluded, just that taking the Rogue class gaurentee's those 5 skills (or whatever number I decide on in the end). The Rogue's Skill List will consist of the Constants (which is what I'm polling here) and then 10-15 (have to number fiddle) from a rather large list as your other skills. Its to make a Rogue broad but to narrow an individual Rogue's skill list. Also Options.

[Averis Vol]

Well, five is a way too few, seeing as a rogue needs hide, move silently, spot, search, listen, disable device, escape artist, open lock and umd, at minimum to do their schtick. classes who are based on skills really get shafted in 3.5, which is why I just switched to the PF skill set in my game.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Well, five is a way too few, seeing as a rogue needs hide, move silently, spot, search, listen, disable device, escape artist, open lock and umd, at minimum to do their schtick. classes who are based on skills really get shafted in 3.5, which is why I just switched to the PF skill set in my game.

You are thinking too broadly. You're thinking of a Rogue whose job is to scout and remove obstacles (locked doors/traps). Like I said above, the list of 5 is not his entire skill set. Its his basic set, that more skills are added onto. Hide is the obvious one.

[Vhaidara]

Then you run into the opposite problem of not being able to cover enough.
Acrobatics, Appraise, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Handle Animal (training animals to steal), Intimidate, Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (others) (in particular, History, Nobility, Engineering, and Dungeoneering all have some case), Linguistics, Perception, Perform, Profession, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Swim, Use Magic Device.

That leaves...
Fly, Heal, Ride, Spellcraft, Survival, and a couple Knowledges.

[Anlashok]

Well, five is a way too few, seeing as a rogue needs hide, move silently, spot, search, listen, disable device, escape artist, open lock and umd, at minimum to do their schtick. classes who are based on skills really get shafted in 3.5, which is why I just switched to the PF skill set in my game.

Consolidating skills like hide, move silently, spot/search/listen, etc. was really wonderful.

The rogue's amazing 8+int starts to look so much less amazing when you need to spend 6 or 7 skill points just to cover your basics.

Incidentally also one of the few things Wizards did right in their 4e transition, even if they took it too far the other way.


Its his basic set, that more skills are added onto.
The thing is that is a pretty basic set. Hide, move silently, disable device, open lock, search, spot, listen are all just your most basic line for rogues.

A swashbuckler might trade Hide and Move silently for Diplomacy and tumble, a highwayman might trade them for Initmidation... but with how horribly thinsliced stealth and perception are in 3.5 you can't really get a neat 5 basic skills.

[Coidzor]

I've already done some brainstorming on how to do some of these. Mainly as far as Options, Debuff and Skillful aspects, I've got the beginnings of a maneuver-like system. I call them Cheap Shots and Dirty Tricks. Essentially, Cheap Shots trade so many Sneak Attack die for various rider Debuffs, much like the feats in Complete Scoundrel and Complete Adventurer. Cheap Tricks is broader, but focuses on dirty tactics (throwing dirt, "whats that!?", etc.) and skill usage (Swift Action Tumble for example).

Sounds like a start. :smallsmile:


I have another question now! What should every Rogue be able to do, Skill wise? Specifically, what 5 Skills should every Rogue have on their skill list? Inversely, what 5 Skills should most Rogues not have on their skill list? I am planning on making Rogue's skill list flexible, somewhat like Expert but want a few constants.

Movement, Stealth, and Perception are the bare bones of what they'd generally want, with stealth being the most optional followed by some parts of movement. Unless you're also revamping things so that everyone's more skillful in general and can take on the trapfinding and trapkilling hats, that albatross still has to be worn by someone.

The problem is that they're still really broad unless you want to split the various archetypes into individual Classes/variants/sub-classes/Archetypes. Some are going to want the social skills, others are going to want to be able to deal with animals and magical beasts through handle animal, either having their own trained critters or using their training to manipulate the trained critters of those they're up against; and still others are going to want to play around with lesser magical effects through UMD.

They have less call for the Knowledge skills, but several of them they'd still want, especially Knowledge Local.


I think you misunderstand. The list of 5 is, in the broadest sense, the most basic skillset of any Rogue. It doesn't mean other skills are excluded, just that taking the Rogue class gaurentee's those 5 skills (or whatever number I decide on in the end). The Rogue's Skill List will consist of the Constants (which is what I'm polling here) and then 10-15 (have to number fiddle) from a rather large list as your other skills. Its to make a Rogue broad but to narrow an individual Rogue's skill list. Also Options.

Seems unnecessary, the nature of skill points would naturally limit their focus anyway.

Unless you're both including some reasonably inexpensive way of increasing number of skillpoints and yet also don't want classes maxing out their skill lists using it or something similar. :smallconfused:

[Lord Raziere]

A Rogue....

...is tricking the wizard into fireballing himself.

...is taunting the big monster so that they'll come charging, and then you lead them off the edge of a cliff while you still survive.

...is giving the BBEG a replica of what they want....that soon explodes in their face.

...is sabotaging their ritual by quickly sneaking in and using your dagger to break their circle, and watching it go out of control.

...is shouting out to one of the enemies "Hey, thanks for bringing them here, I'll pay yah when we're done with them!" as a complete lie to make them turn against each other.

...is doing anything to win. sure, they won't work in a white room, but rogues specifically avoid white rooms. yeah, sure, circumstantial you say, but thats the entire point, rogues are all about manipulating the circumstances around them. They're the ones that throw smoke bombs so that they can go around attacking people while they can't see anything, they're the ones that see everything as a weapon to be used, every piece of the environment, a potential way out. The worst place for a rogue is an open, nondescript field- but then again, you can get some bow and arrows, and maybe some other kinds of arrows for modified effects, and take advantage of the wide open space to start shooting every enemy you see from as far away as possible.

individual weapon styles are for fighters. a rogue is about using a bow when you need to assassinate or shoot down charging idiots, a blackjack when you need to knock people out, a dagger when you need to slit their throat, a cherry bomb when you need to take out a lot of enemies, and traps whenever you can, flexibility is key.

[VoxRationis]

I think the biggest issue with the rogue is it's lack of customization.

The rogue, right from 1st level, has one of the greatest breadths of variety of any class, in my opinion. The skill selection of a rogue can completely change how the character is played:
-Knowledge (local), Disguise, Forgery, Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy: The rogue is a master negotiator and the power behind the throne. He could be anyone, but he rules EVERYONE. The character might as well not come with your average adventuring party, but as low as 2nd or 3rd level, he can wreak havoc against leaders and rival organizations well beyond that which any of his fellows can.
-Jump, Tumble, Balance, Climb: The rogue is a master acrobat, skillful in open combat, particularly when the combat is a chaotic melee of friends and foes. He can also negotiate practically any terrain.
-Disable Device, Search, Open Lock: The rogue is capable of defeating any security system imaginable, even out-of-the-box magic traps.
-Hide, Bluff, Move Silently, Intimidate, UMD: The character is Batman.

[Eldest]

Skills that all rogues should at least have the potential to be good at.
Rogues should all have at least the potential to know how to hide. Stealth.
They should all be observant fellows, since they need to know the situation to take advantage. Perception.
They should be able to pull a quick like out of their rear if need be. Bluff.
They should be good at dodging and maneuvering. Tumble.

I don't know for number 5.

[AnonymousPepper]

How about, for combat, giving the Rogue a system similar to the PF Gunslinger's targeted shot system when he's able to sneak attack? Give him options on what his attack does. Let him - and him alone! - make attacks directed at different body parts, granting debuffs for several turns (1/2 rogue level + 2 turns, maybe 20+ rogues' effects are permanent until Restored as a capstone?). No target gives usual sneak attack dice, or target legs to knock prone, eyes to blind, torso for untyped stackable double crit range, neck for vorpal effect and/or silence, armor for AC debuff, arms to drop weapons, et cetera et cetera. In addition, give them swift-action combat maneuvers as a class feature.

And perhaps allow rogues of a certain level to crit/sneak attack creatures that are naturally immune to them, with a percentage chance scaling with their level, representing the rogue's learning of weak spots possessed by even the most exotic of beings over time. Not creatures protected by a Fortification-enhanced item - that will stay in place and in fact become much more useful as an ASA/SSA because sneak attack becomes that much deadlier.

This all would would be exclusively limited to rogue and some rogue PRCs - rogues fight dirty, and that's the best way to represent them in combat. They get a lot more flexibility in their attacks than other classes, where the only real choice is how much to power attack with.

[Bugworlds]

I think a Rogue is versatile. They are in control of a situation, but you wouldn't know. Leadership without authority, through ability and talent. They are wise, but not always intelligent. They rely on having the uperhand. Because of this, they fear a lack of control. Without their sneak attack, without their awayness of surroundings, without being the first to take note of the target; they are vulnerable. They fear vulnerability.

[Gwendol]

On the bard spell list you find Improvisation. I suggest giving the rogue that as a class feature as it is flexible, yet interesting and can in some way illustrate the master improviser archetype.
In D&D however I feel the lack of spellcasting is hurting the rogue, and that the factotum should really be folded into the class, maybe as an ACF.

Other than that, HiPS should be as natural to a rogue as rage to a barbarian. They really didn't succeed in that part.

[VoxRationis]

I think a Rogue is versatile. They are in control of a situation, but you wouldn't know. Leadership without authority, through ability and talent. They are wise, but not always intelligent. They rely on having the uperhand. Because of this, they fear a lack of control. Without their sneak attack, without their awayness of surroundings, without being the first to take note of the target; they are vulnerable. They fear vulnerability.

I'd say they're intelligent more than wise. Think of the Grey Mouser.
As for spellcasting, I'd have to say that your average rogue should be able to get by without magic.

[Sjlver]

The rogue, right from 1st level, has one of the greatest breadths of variety of any class, in my opinion. The skill selection of a rogue can completely change how the character is played:

Be that as it may, that rogue is summed up as a skill junky. You drop Str (and maybe a bit of con) for int (because dex is too valuable) for the bonus skill points. If you don't drop those stats, you have a combat focused rogue with some skills. Either way, you have to spend resources to become proficient in one or the other.

Also, Snowbluff wishes to remind everyone that anyone can have skills.

[Snowbluff]

Also, Snowbluff wishes to remind everyone that anyone can have skills.

Yeah. A bard has a bunch of skills and spells, as well as musical option. Spellthieves (especially Tricksters) exemplify this. Swordsages and other initiators have a large variety of options, on par with picking a specialization with a wizard.

[Toxi]

I feel any attempt to make the Rogue a jack-of-all-trades class will fail because there already is a jack-of-all-trades class in my books: The wizard. Spells are more versatile than skills in and out of combat, and while you don't have that many spells early on, the ones you can learn can be applied to a huge number of situations. Not to mention wizards have skills too. I don't feel any attempt to make the rogue a jack-of-all-trades will work very well because it'll be competing against Grease, Mount, Featherfall, etc.

That's not to say I wouldn't like a more versatile rogue with more useful options, but you can't make versatility its main feature in a game with so many different spells with so many different applications. You could try making the rogue more versatile in unexpected situations a wizard would not have known to prepare spells for, but it's tricky to do and relies a lot on how you GM.

Sorry if there's anything wrong with my first post here.

[Snowbluff]

Sorry if there's anything wrong with my first post here.
*gasp* Something more important showed up! :smalltongue:

Welcome to the playground! :smallbiggrin:

[Toxi]

*gasp* Something more important showed up! :smalltongue:

Welcome to the playground! :smallbiggrin:
Thanks.:smallredface: I probably should have lurked more but I got impatient.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I feel any attempt to make the Rogue a jack-of-all-trades class will fail because there already is a jack-of-all-trades class in my books: The wizard. Spells are more versatile than skills in and out of combat, and while you don't have that many spells early on, the ones you can learn can be applied to a huge number of situations. Not to mention wizards have skills too. I don't feel any attempt to make the rogue a jack-of-all-trades will work very well because it'll be competing against Grease, Mount, Featherfall, etc.

That's not to say I wouldn't like a more versatile rogue with more useful options, but you can't make versatility its main feature in a game with so many different spells with so many different applications. You could try making the rogue more versatile in unexpected situations a wizard would not have known to prepare spells for, but it's tricky to do and relies a lot on how you GM.

Sorry if there's anything wrong with my first post here.

I've got a Nerf Bat and I'm not afraid to use it! But seriously, I'm going to be tweaking, reducing and generally trimming down the effectiveness of spells. I'm not touching outside CORE (because I don't have oodles of free time) but at the very least the CORE options will be not uber broken.

[VoxRationis]

I feel any attempt to make the Rogue a jack-of-all-trades class will fail because there already is a jack-of-all-trades class in my books: The wizard. Spells are more versatile than skills in and out of combat, and while you don't have that many spells early on, the ones you can learn can be applied to a huge number of situations. Not to mention wizards have skills too. I don't feel any attempt to make the rogue a jack-of-all-trades will work very well because it'll be competing against Grease, Mount, Featherfall, etc.

That's not to say I wouldn't like a more versatile rogue with more useful options, but you can't make versatility its main feature in a game with so many different spells with so many different applications. You could try making the rogue more versatile in unexpected situations a wizard would not have known to prepare spells for, but it's tricky to do and relies a lot on how you GM.

Sorry if there's anything wrong with my first post here.

Well, this is advice so the OP can do a rewrite. We're talking about concept here. If the OP decides rogues should be more versatile, the OP can remove the spells that make rogue skills redundant.
That said, I always thought of things like knock and find traps as being obviated by the skills, rather than the other way around. Why waste spell slots on opening doors when the rogue can open infinite doors?

[Slipperychicken]

Why waste spell slots on opening doors when the rogue can open infinite doors?

You usually don't. You get Knock as a scroll and/or wand, and only take those out when the Rogue is somehow insufficient (i.e. fails even while taking 20, and you don't have time for conventional door-opening methods). And you cast Silence/Invisibility on the Rogue to turn him into Super-RogueTM for a few minutes, when you absolutely can't afford to have him fail.