Full Class Rogues

Remove all ads!

Does anybody play a full rogue anymore? In my gaming group it's rarely done (except for me), because the only reason to play a rogue is apparently for the extra skill points, and up to Level 2 for Evasion.

I've played a fair few online D&D CRPGs (NWN, NWN-II, DDO, etc.), and nobody seems to play a full rogue. Granted, on the computer rogues aren't all that great.

But, in P&P, the same thing seems to happen. I lost my 'cool' the other day when we sat down to play, I asked my PCs what class/race they were. There were no rogues. There was a monk. But no rogues. "Because everything else can be done by other classes." they said.

Me with my meta-gaming knowledge as it is, knew that those 'other classes' couldn't really substitute for a rogue until later on.
So, my reaction; Simple.

I had my PCs get to a dungeon, I put a trap in front of them. With absolutely stupid DCs to combat. And a Reflex DC of 50 (basically undodgable). The party triggered it, everyone died.
I looked at them all, and said "Somebody roll up a rogue."

Not exactly a finnesse approach, but someone did roll up a rogue. But only because they were forced. I wonder; Does anyone play rogues willingly?

 

I think that approach is wrong. If you're forcing them to create a rogue, why do you not force them to make a character of every base class? Force them to make a bard. Force them to make a wizard AND a sorcerer. Force them to make a ranger. Force them to make a druid.

You get my point? You shouldn't force them to play something they don't want to, but on the other hand you shouldn't allow everything too. A group of nothing but Fighters shouldn't be banned, it should be greatly discouraged. Same with classes that are banned in the campaign you are playing.

On the other hand, I would just outlaw cherry picking for the good stuff like 2 levels of Rogue for evasion, one or two levels of Fighter for the extra feats, one level of Ranger for dual-wielding, two levels of Paladin for the extra saves... You get my point. Best solution is to just ban it.

 

My gaming group has thieves aplenty. Our class to avoid is the cleric. Out of 8 campaigns, we've had 4 clerics, 2 of which are in the same campaign.

I don't know why, but usually there's a certain RPG class gamers won't play.

An idea to get someone to be a thief is to create a boss NPC/monster that can only be killed by sneak attack damage. Yes, there are classes out there that get pseudo sneak attacks (such as the scout with its skirmishing), but (iirc) the ones that do give true "sneak attack" are thievish anyway.

 

Rogues are common sights for my group, too. I typically have one or two players that start as rogues or I have a wizard take rogue levels to become sneaky.

My players like to stealth it up. Honestly, half the time I send them into combat, my foes can't even find them! They always seem to get a round or two of attacks before I can even begin to land a hit on them.

But I've learned to balance things out. Bathing the area in bright, nearly painful light takes care of lower level rogues and arcane spells can either tag or locate those sneaky players.

For me, anything goes, within reason. I typically do not allow my players to play ECL characters of +2 and greater until much later in the campaign. I also do not allow them to "commit suicide" to get a new character. Had a player try for five sessions in a row to pick a fight that would get his character killed. I wouldn't let him have it. Even tried jumping off a cliff once. I just had an angel save him and bless him with a ring of feather fall that he couldn't remove!

My players are power gamers. Oddly, though, they see classes like monks and rangers as being weaker compared to classes like fighters and rogues. All classes get great abilities that allow for anyone to find something they like. If my players go all "meat" and no cleric, I make potions good for 3 uses rather than one. If, my players go with out a rogue, I'll give them a shady guild member who is out to steal their gear and the item they are questing for unless they set up some form of fail safe.

You shouldn't punish your players. They don't like it and you don't like it either. You are the DM. It's your world. Bend the rules just a little bit.

 

I make a lot of uses of rouges or rouge type monsters when I DM (ambush, ambush, ambush!), but I personally don't like playing as rouges when I'm simply playing a PC. I tend to gravitate towards characters who can easily adhere to traditional honor and rouges, even lawful ones, have a particularly difficult time being honorable.

I can do a pure rouge as a cohort just fine, but I have to have someone whose primarily offensive capabilities don't revolve around fighting dirty. Playing an underhanded character and all rouges end up that way one way or another is just something I don't end up doing. I'm opposed to the use of the bluff, disguise, forgery, hide, move silently, sleight of hand skills 99% of the time because they feel cowardly (hence I don't enjoy playing bards too much either).

What it boils down to for me is not so much that I don't like the rouge class, after all, I think, the rouge is probably the most useful class, I don't like the type of character the class represents. I'm much more comfortable as a fighter, barbarian, or cleric (I'll pass on the paladin, don't like being LG).

 

So you killed off an entire group of characters solely because they had no rogue in their midst? Wow.

Not every party requires the archetype niches filled. You don't always need a fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue. I've gamed with groups of 2 clerics and a ranger, a rogue/cleric/druid/wizard group, etcetera.

It is your task as DM to provide a fun (and challenging) time for your players. You write and shape your campaign so that their characters'll have a hard but not impossible time. You don't NEED to implement traps. Not every dungeon is trapped, not every cupboard boobytrapped, etcetera.

You basically cheated them into a Total Party Kill, for no other reason than to prove they might need a rogue. (and you failed at that, since even a rogue would've had significant trouble with that incredibly imbalanced trap)

Congratulations, you suck at DMing101.

 

In all the games I have played or DM'ed we have only had a single thief (my own very first character, that died in OUR suprise attack round in the first combat we had!) and that was back in AD&D 2E. We also had one fighter/rogue in D&D 3.5E once, he survived a single evening.

We have usually managed with either A: Lots of healing, or B: A very handy ranger that keeps rockings spot/listen/search checks all the time and manages to walk everyone "around" the traps for the most part.

A group does not require to have a rogue, but I understand what you mean. I have had troubles getting most of any players I have played with to pick anything else but Warriors (fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin style) and the only thing I HAVE forced them to is at least taking one character with access to healing spells within 2 levels (cleric, druid, bard, paladin).

I have found that if you have a good cleric on the group, everything else can be "fixed" (or Dutch taped!) as long as the other players don't send him up front.

But yeah, I miss players taking rogue every now and then. I often like them myself, but tend to have easier time coming up with characters and backgrounds for other kinds of characters myself.

 

I agree with Faragon that was a harsh thing to do, forcing a style of play upon players is wrong. However I've quite often payed Rogues and Rogue/Bard. I personnaly dislike power gaming and a Rogue/Bard isn't really power gaming Just a silly old chaps who enjoy cheating at cards, stealing now and then and the good ol' « Suggestion-like » Bard song.

« I swear I did not steal the diamond, it just spontaneously appeared in my hands! »

 

I find that a "pure rogue" may not be my style, but multi-classing where the rogue is not just for huge skill points and evasion is nice. I like mixing rogue with sorceror or fighter. It gives you a "cover" so that you can spring your "other talents" from out of no where...

 

Maybe that's a good reason to call them thieves instead of rogues?

 

Yeah, I get what you guys are saying. I didn't want to nuke the entire party, but I did it anyway.

Anyways, it was a good session anyway. And the person playing the rogue ended up having a grand time. Partly because I had planned the campaign with the idea in mind that at least one of my players would be a rogue. Since it didn't happen, I forced it.

It was a good experience for the player too. As he only ever plays 'Warrior' types (which isn't really role-playing is it?), making him play a rogue made him change his "I draw my sword and charge." approach to most combat situations.
Long story short; He likes his new rogue, and his favourite 'standard' class is a rogue now.

So while I did do a 'bad' DM'ing thing. It turned out alright in the end.

It takes a while, but my players consider me a 'good' DM (But I'm not a Good DM, my players have a lot of laughs when I decide to be an Evil DM), so they weren't too fussed when I gave them a 'hint' for someone to have a rogue.

Few other things I don't allow are the munchkining/power-playing, and 'commiting suicide' to start again. But I reward good role-playing. A lot.

 

Did you tell them ahead of time that a rogue would be required? Also might I suggest including other classes with similar features. Like maybe the classes from the complete adventurer for instance. A spellthief can be fun to play. Great for tormenting casters. I do hate it when people play games with all very similar types of PCs. Best way I can think to get the idea across is to be sure to include skill instances early on and make sure they know the kind of campaign that you're DMing. That way if they're dumb enough not to heed your warnings they either die early or fail to complete tasks that prove fatal later. I try to lay out a world with tasks and instances already in place predetermined. That way when they fail to be able to complete a task due to not having the necessary skills it can come back and bite them. They'll learn a heck of a lesson when they all die at lvl 10 because they screwed up on char. creation causing them to miss something at lvl 2.

 

Why is that? I play two kinds of characters; warriors and Bard-types, but does that mean that I do not roleplay just because those are the two types of classes that I enjoy playing the most?

 

ofcourse it is.... when you play as a bard. Obviously I joking. I think he means the whole "I just want to hack and slash with a big tough axe wielding retard" gameplay you see from many who only play with warrior classes. Many sorcerers do the same thing. That doesn't mean that there aren't people that like to play a warrior role in a group and actually quest and roleplay. After all you can play a warrior class that is has deeper roots, like a Samurai sent to find the remedy for his lord and regain his honor for having failed to protect his lord from being poisoned.

 

I don't see what's wrong with simply playing a mercenary that do what has to be done to earn his money. Not everyone has to have a dark, brooding past, some guys are just that, "some guys."

 

Register, I was just giving an example of a warrior class character that is there to do more than just kill stuff and pick his nose. One that could actually make it interesting in different situations outside of fighting. Here's a different example then, since the last one was too dark for you. How about a young Knight following in his fathers footsteps, because the stories his father told him were so captivating, and being so young and inexperienced he won't shut up about all the stories his father told him.

 

Some might consider it a weak choice, but I always love mixing rogue with a bit of wizard levels. Just the style I like playing I guess.

 

Silvershield, I bet you'd enjoy playing a spellthief. It's in the "Complete Adventurer."

 

Not entirely. With 2e rules I LOVED backstabbing. With in the introduction of 3e I had to get used to the 'sneak attack' which was quite hard and in truth still is quite unsatisfying. With that said I definitely wouldn't give it up just to steal a spell. I'd take a rogue/wizard any day.

Although back on topic, the first character I ever played (Got into D&D through Baldur's Gate) was a thief, or rather 'rogue' now. Still my favourite character.