What is a rogue to you?

[Tom Servo]

What is a rogue to me?

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsW/17876-3763.jpg

Seriously though, to me the rogue is a bit like a field goal kicker in American Football. He has a specialized niche that is just as crucial as, but different from, what the rest of the team is doing. And like the kicker his contributions can be overlooked or taken for granted.

While this specialized role can be minimized if the DM is not providing opportunities, I think that is okay too. Playing a rogue often involves using your wits, outthinking the opposition, trying things outside the box, etc. As a rogue you don't wait for your moments, you make your moments. A rogue is not a passive play-style and it's not for everyone (my opinion of course).

This counts in combat as well. When I've played a rogue I find that not having as crucial a role as everyone else in combat frees me up for all sorts of mischief. I'll join the monk's grapple to see if I can help, I'll go after something dear to the BBEG forcing him to split his attention, I'll throw dirt in the eyes, I'll taunt, I'll aid, I'll banter, I'll tumble, and when the opportunity presents itself I will backstab/sneak attack. A creative rogue can be the ultimate x-factor in combat.

To echo others, I don't like the rogue as another type of fighter. You'll never have the most powerful character with a rogue, but you can sure have the funnest.

 

[dangerous jack]

To me, a Rogue is the guy who's going to beat you and you won't see it coming. Whether he bluffs you, sneaks up on you, sets a trap for you (or lures you into one), or taunts you into making a mistake.

Contrasted with the fighter, who will beat you by being stronger, tougher, or just plain better with a sword (or bow or whatever).

So I'd love to see fighters being the martial warriors that focus primarily on strength, con, and dex, and straight up combat and weapons and armour mastery. And rogues being the martial adventurers that use primarily int, wis, and cha, and skills mastery. Get them away from being put in the dextrous-guy box.

Which is not to say that a rogue couldn't be an accomplished swordsman who goes toe to toe with a fighter. But he's going only going to beat the fighter if he can bluff/taunt/etc (like [MENTION=55966]ferratus[/MENTION] says above... he "cheats").

As for thieves, I think that's better left to a theme like assassin.

(As an aside, I'd also change 4e skills so that only Acrobatics is based on Dex, and Stealth derives from Wisdom for the perception angle, Thievery is Intelligence for understanding how things like locks work. But that may be a bridge too far for some...)

 

[Li Shenron]

In AD&D there was always the 'thief' until 3e co-opted the class and called it a 'rogue'. In my mind, however, rogue is the catch-all term for thieves, swashbucklers and assassins, but none of these three are the same thing, they simply share similar basic attributes.

For me, a rogue will always be a thief...

I think I like the idea of the rogue class to be wider than just a thief, and I think ideas such as swashbuckler to expand the combat side, assassin for an out-of-combat offensive option, dungeoneer/scout, and even ninja (but without eastern-themed baggage) are all good ideas.

But I also have the feeling that the expansion of the rogue class should never come at the price of abandoning a thief-like "soul".

However I also realize that my predominant image of the rogue/thief is someone like Indiana Jones... someone who is more about stealing from a place rather than pickpocketing, and who fights only when there's no way out, and fights dirty if he can (see the famous duel against the swordmaster where Indy just shoots him with a gun).

 

[BobTheNob]

Let me say, I do long for the old BECMI days when rogues had a purpose other than "the guy who fights differently to the fighter". That had a niche and whos value was beyond question.

But we have moved on

So, I would like to see rogue as "the improvisor". Hes not a dead set killer in a fight, nor is he narrow bound to the pick pocket or trap monkey (though he can do those well). Hes the guy for the players who like to come up with creative solutions, and I would like to see a mechanic beyond simple skill rolls to reflect this.

For instance, who out there knows FATE? Probably a few. Well, in FATE you have fate points (sorta like your luck) and one of the options you have is spending these to create "minor narrative shift".

For instance.
Player : You know, I think the rope holding up the light fitting in this pub is frayed and weak and would snap given enough encouragement
DM : Oh do you?
Player : Yes I Do. Can I spend a Fate point for it
DM : Done
Player has just injected narrative he then uses to throw a dagger and try to cut the now "frayed" rope.

This is just an example, but THATS what I want from my rogue. He swings from ropes high in the mainsails of the ship, he kicks over that conveneintll placed barrel of oil, throws that pinch sand sand he happened to have in his enemies face, manages to crawl into that nook in the wall as the bolder crashs down the corridor...and all of this modeled WELL BEYOND a limiting d20 roll. Something he can do uniquely.

 

[Spatula]

My 1st D&D character was an elven illusionist/thief (an illegal class combo in 1e, but my brother the DM allowed it), and I've always loved the idea of playing the thief/rogue/bard since those days. But I will say that having "thief" written on my character sheet back then meant that none of the other players would trust me, regardless of my in-game actions. And in later games I saw players behave rather poorly to the rest of the group and justify it because, hey, it says "thief" on their sheet.

I think the name change to rogue was a good one for that reason. But also, I think that "thief" is just too specific a concept when the other main class options are "every kind of warrior", "priest of any faith", and "student of all kinds of magic." 3e/4e really opened the class up to allow for all sorts of skillful, sneaky rogue-ish archetypes, and not just the dishonorable pickpocket and lock opener. And that was a good thing, IMO.

 

[Kzach]

For those mentioning the thief player as a trouble-maker I'd like to point out that the thief class should not be blamed for this but rather the player themselves. In every game I ever played a thief, I only ever upset a player once (I secretly poisoned his katana so his next hit would be devastating and apparently touching his penis-equivalent was a no-no) and he was a bit of a douche anyway.

A problem player is a problem player, regardless of what class they choose to play.

 

[Sunseeker]

A rogue is above all else, a sneak.

Everything they do is about doing it with garnering the least amount of attention possible, be that thievery, damage, tricks, traps or exploration.

I don't feel Swashbucker's are really a subset of rogues because swashbucklers are not by and large, sneaky. They can be, but swashbucklers tend to veer more to the "flashy" side. A rogue could include a ranger/tracker though.

But overall rogues do one thing better than everyone else and that is being sneaky. If what you do hinges on not being seen and not getting caught, you might be a rogue.

 

[Skyscraper]

In AD&D there was always the 'thief' until 3e co-opted the class and called it a 'rogue'. In my mind, however, rogue is the catch-all term for thieves, swashbucklers and assassins, but none of these three are the same thing, they simply share similar basic attributes.

For me, a rogue will always be a thief. Thieves are my favourite class to play and always have been, throughout any game whether pen & paper or video. But it seems that, more and more, the 'thief' concept within the rogue sphere is slowly dying off and being replaced with what I would call swashbucklers and assassins.

Part of this is the focus on combat that both 3e and 4e brought to the table but also it seems to have a lot to do with newer gamers bringing in newer concepts of the class, most of which seem to be born of video games like World of Warcraft. Now... I know that's a contentious issue and I don't subscribe to the theory that 4e is a WoW clone, however I do understand it to be a well-documented fact that WoW and other video games did have an influence on the development of both 3e and 4e.

So... where has my beloved rogue (read: thief) gone?

My primary purpose as a rogue (thief), in AD&D games was to a) cause mischief, b) steal whatever wasn't bolted down*, and c) sneak into wherever he shouldn't.

Then of course there was the miscellany of spying and trap detection/disarming, and the occasional (ie. NOT every single turn), brutally effective BACK (ie. NOT from any direction) stab. I wasn't a combat-wombat. I didn't wade into battle with my flashing rapier. I didn't stab people with dark magic. I just had fun.

I miss playing thieves. Yes, I was THAT guy who always played a kender or a dexterous elf. But dammit if everyone at the table didn't love me for it.

So I guess my ultimate question is in regards to how 5e will treat the rogue (thief) and since we (the people) have all the power and say in what makes up this new edition, I'd like to hear from everyone what THEY think a rogue is and how it should be represented in the new edition. Obviously, I want to see the return of a real thief who isn't completely overshadowed by the swashbuckler and assassin branch of the class.

*Provided he didn't also have bolt cutters.

Couldn't a thief stab an unsuspecting victim in the gut? Why only the back?

Couldn't a thief decide that he's not cleptomaniac?

Couldn't a thief decide that sneaking alone into any unauthorized area is too risky and he would rather just bluff his way in?

You describe your way of playing the thief, which sounds like great fun to me. There are other ways, which are probably great fun too.

What I take out of your message, is that it would be fun to have a thief build within the rogue concept, that addresses your option. For example, perhaps the combat-expertise of the 3E/4E rogues is one option you can trade for another skillset.

This being said, I mostly agree that rogues had become primarily killing machines in 4E, and that any skills they had took the backseat to their damage-dealing capability (IMO anyway).

 

[KesselZero]

I'm all for moving rogues/thieves back towards a skill-focused class. Back in my 2e days I played thieves almost exclusively, but with 3e (and even more in 4e, as codified in the Striker role) the rogue seemed to become a class that was all about doing max damage by fiddling with the stealth rules (and they never got the stealth rules right on the first try anyway). I loved playing rogues/thieves who were smooth-talking trap-disablers, but I never wanted to play one who was a tactical combatant trying to take best advantage of the rules to do max damage.

I realize this is totally my opinion; I'm sure lots of folks love the tactical aspect of more modern rogues. Maybe that's the difference between the rogue and the thief in 5e, as has been suggested.

As for swashbuckling fighters and that sort of thing, I personally would like the fighter class to be as variable as possible to encompass almost every martial fighting style. If your main interest is being awesome in combat with a weapon-based style, there should be a fighter build/kit/archetype for you. I'd love to see the fighter capable of being the best archer, swashbuckler, and armored fighter; then the ranger, rogue, and paladin make up for each respectively by having other powers.

/biased opinion

 

[howandwhy99]

Rogues are Thieves

Dictionary says dishonest or unprincipled person or a savage, self-destructive loner.

I prefer a game tilted towards teamwork, so I'll just take the Thief. Anyone can be the other without archetype.