Competition? No. Comrade. : rpgmemes

[–] Rose_Thorne@lemmy.zip 41 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This comes down to the niche they serve in the party.

To a Barbarian, another Barb is someone else beating things down. They can do their job more effectively together, and still have fun doing it.

To a Rogue, a second Rogue is just someone who's going to steal all the good shit from the first, who stole all their good shit from the rest of the party while everyone else slept. If you had to dedicate a full night to just quietly stripping the armor off the Paladin, do you really want some prick who's going to turn around to steal the armor you just rightfully stole‽

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

So, what you're saying is we know people that choose rogue-like characters are narcissistic.

People that choose Barbs, on the other hand, very much loving the party they're with, even if they have no idea what's going on.

[–] BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago

Its cause you really only need one person good at a skill in the party. Once you have one person with high thievery (or, any other skill, really), each addition of another character with that skill is worth less and less.

While, combat focused classes are kind of the opposite. Hard to have too many combat classes in most dnd-likes, and the more classes you have narrowly focused on combat, the better the party is at that task.

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Hot take, rogues shouldn't exist. It's more entertaining for any other class to do their job. Every hero from fantasy is a thief at some point, but a specialist just takes most of the jobs adventurers do, and throws them into one pile. You parties will be more useful without a rogue.

For example, fantasy's most famous burglar wasn't a rogue. Bilbo was a commoner who was hired as a burglar. Do you think the Hobbit would have been better if Bilbo was amazing at his job?

[–] BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Big disagree, though still upvoted you cause that is a hell of a hot take.

Sneaky stabbers are cool, and I like skill monkies. Not just 'the theivery havers', but also the bag of tricks, the preppers. Batman is basically a rogue.

And, sure, it can be interesting to have the party be bad at Stealth on purpose. To have to bumble their way through everything. I don't think Rogues are strictly necessary. But I like that they're an option.

[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I mean, I can kind of understand the perspective. Having one party member being responsible for non-combat skills is suggestive of an extremely combat-focused game design. I come from systems where having skill monkies isn't practical due to the breadth of the skill system; someone doing the job of a rogue in D&D would have to wildly outlevel the rest of the party.

Then again, those systems are typically more grounded than having PCs become powerful enough to butt heads with demigods after a year of adventuring, so D&D having a bit of a cartoonish vibe to it is very much in character. It's not a flaw, it just feels different. I still think it's kinda funny, though.

"Here's Joe, he hits things with a sword and is athletic. There's Bob, he gets angry and hits things with an axe and is athletic. Over there's Jim; he turns into animals and hits things and knows stuff about nature, plus he's athletic. Lucy here hits things with a blessed mace and can heal people and is athletic. And that's Wayne, our salesman locksmith armorer medic seaman carpenter commando."

[–] BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Rogues aren't really designed to be good at everything, they are designed to be very good at a few skills (in 5e). Bards are the 'generalists' (which, imo. is blatantly OP considering they are also good spell-casters).

PF2e is where they just kinda get all the skills (along with investigators).

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 2 months ago

Bards wouldn't exist without rogues. They're just a symptom of the problem.

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

When you break it down D&D is a loop of talking to things, exploring, killing things, and stealing. A bad class is only good at one of those things, AKA ranger. While a good class is good at three of those things, AKA a bard. Rogues are good at all of those things without sacrificing anything.

[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The same is roughly true of games with a more broad skill system, e.g. The Dark Eye with its dozens of skills. However, those systems tend to spread out abilities between party members by making it impractical to have all skills but affordable to have some. I actually like that a lot since skills can give depth to a character and can tie in the backstory in little mechanical ways.

To construct an example party:

The warrior is, of course, a good fighter proficient in several weapons, but also has good knowledge of strategy, tactics, and the history of warfare, knows how to treat wounds and maintain his equipment, and has the leadership skills to maintain morale in combat. As the son of a vintner he has a surprisingly refined palate regarding wine.

The wizard has detailed knowledge about the arcane, astronomy and astrology, speaks several languages (especially ancient ones), and knows his way around myth and legend. Coming from a culture of sailors, he has a basic understanding of how to operate a boat and navigate on the sea.

The social character is a formally trained courtesan. Along with weapons-grade charisma, she has skills in seduction, rhetoric, games, singing and dancing, plus a broad but shallow education that ~~ahead~~ allows her to maintain light conversation on any topic. A weak fighter, she excels at any kind of social interaction.

The last character is a dwarf who lists his occupation as "craftsman". He likes to take things apart. Like locks, traps, mechanisms, doors, or people who get handsy with the courtesan. He also knows how to treat wounds, diseases, and poison, stemming from when he was a healer's apprentice.

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago

This is why I take into account class and background before setting a DC when I run D&D. That's my back end way to try and apply this subjectivity to skills.

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sure it's nice to be able to do everything, but that has warped the game loop into making rogues unusually useful compared to the other classes. Rogues can be the skill monkey, the face, the front line fighter, and the trap guy all while not having the ability score crunch of a class like monk.

They're good at everything that isn't fighting while being good at fighting. I as a player like rogues too, but if DnD were an MMO no one would pick other classes. As a game designer it's too much stuff in one package. Take those abilities and break them up and give them to the entire party, and you have a more rounded group with advantages and disadvantages.

[–] BedbugCutlefish@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, if we're talking DnD 5e, rogues are one of the weaker classes.

In part, its cause they're only okay at combat. Pretty good damage (but not amazing), only moderate control options, and little defense, while relying on modes of attack that require work to function (sneak attack, stealth)

And, they do work as a skill monkey, but Bards are just kinda... better, at almost everything, on that front. Magic is just generally overtuned in its effectiveness, so really, a Wizard can be a better skill monkey, if they prep utility spells that day.

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago

When I say rogues shouldn't exist I'm talking about AD&D all the way up through the editions to 5th (Haven't played with the latest updated rules). Each edition had their own attempts at balancing the class, but my take is that the class should have never existed. The game would better off without them.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've only played rogue once, but they seem to have a niche as being sneakier than the rest of the party. They pile levels into detecting traps, sneaking, and getting those sweet backstabs (or whatever the class feature is called).

You're right that adventurers often ~~steal~~ liberate, but rogues in D&D have a bit more than that going on.

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 2 months ago

Your refutations highlight my qualms. They're way more than that, and that's the problem.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago

Wizards: let's compare notes

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

NGL, as a DM, multiple players with backstabbing abilities are a big problem to overcome. The odds begin to stack up in favor of the party. You start looking for monsters with the awareness of a beholder, but just a tad less lethal.

Then the mage starts hurling fireballs to remind you that you also need more fireproof options.

RPGMemes