Why rogue classes exist?

Why rogue classes exist?

big muscle warriors with high STR gonna do more damage anyway

Utility.

detecting traps
disarming traps
stealin' shit
stealthily unstealing(?) shit
sneaky breaky past guards to reach objectives
high burst ambushes
getting into un-get-into-able places

DEX will always beat STR

rogues are strategist, warriors are connon fodder

Warrior aint gonna disarm that trap and pick locks bruh.

And strictly speaking, magic users become infinitely better than warriors 9/10 times because of scaling differences.

>warriors wouldn't be a str/dex class
Memeing faggot

have you ever seen a big muscle warrior with shrunken steroid balls that makes thundering footsteps ever sneak behind enemy lines and one-shot their healers so fast, nobody can react

didn't think so, because you were too busy fucking giant horse asshole with your meaty dick everyone can see coming from 100 miles away

Can't have your Sir Chad d'Ancy without your Beta Rogue.

Fun

>pick locks
>when you can break it
>disarm a trap
>when you can just tank it

I always played a spellsword in 3.5 modules.

>Drow for weapon proficiency
>Wiz8/Ftr2/EK10-9th level spells, 16 attacks/round

Sneak attack bonuses, my man.

>when you can just tank it
>tank it
*snorting laughter*

Warriors have low life expectancy, low intelligence, zero comprehension of strategy, innate urge to listen to anything bigger than it no matter how terrible it sounds, and usually die of fatty liver by drinking themselves to death if they somehow survive being the cannon fodder of war. The only companionship in life they can ever hope for is a local sheep, or some poor cobbler's ugly daughter that is somehow uglier than local sheep.

Because groups exist. Rogue isolated from his party is just a liability. Solo rogues are a separate story, though.

Because...
*unsheathes daggers*
...the darkness is strongest
*slits your throat*
Pshh... Nothin' personell... kid

There's clearly something in there. I should stick my hand in to grab it, right?

being a dick ass thief and ruining other peoples enjoyment is fun

>picking locks when you can just cast a spell that melts metal on the lock
>sneaking when you can just cast an invisibility spell
>fighting when you can just cast a kill thing spell
>climbing when you can just cast a turn-into-bird spell

Wizards to need to be fucking gassed, they ruin everything.

Sure man, knock yourself out

Good luck tanking a disintegration trap, meathead.

You do realize that back in the day we could only cast so many spells per day and had to set them up beforehand, right?

>And strictly speaking, magic users become infinitely better than warriors 9/10 times because of scaling differences.
Usually, but there's also the possibility of it going the other way where magic quickly becomes far less useful if it doesn't scale.

>breaking locks leads to damaged/destroyed loot or weapon
>trap causes instant death
Didn't think that one through, user.

Next you're going to teleport away
*teleports behind you and takes you in a headlock*

>Usually, but there's also the possibility of it going the other way where magic quickly becomes far less useful if it doesn't scale.

Yeah but the number of modules where magic doesn't scale is vastly outnumbered by the ones where it does.

Spells are per day can't waste that shit on something a rouge can do for FREE

*was a hologram*
I'm all ready gone

This. A well placed stab/shot will kill something instantly that would otherwise require extensive fighting.

>tanking traps

The fact that you think you can do that kinda shows you didn't play D&D back in the day when most traps would just instagib you regardless of how tough you are. You were pretty much required to have a thief on hand.

>dat feel when I'm the weirdo who likes low to medium level games precisely because shit doesn't get out of hand at that point

Although I suspect that has something to do with how everyone is obsessed with BALANCE and spellcasters get their spells like it's nothing instead of something you have to work your ass off to get. I miss the days of having to find tutors and when spell scrolls were laying around like candy.

Implying Magic isnt straight up so OP that they have to tone it down in every game

Why use an axe when you can summon immortal golems or mindcontol your enemy
Instead its allways weak ass fireballs

I never really liked mixing magic and explosives, because to me, guns are kind of a superpower already. You squeeze a trigger and some guy is gushing blood. Magic!

>cast invisibility
Welp there goes all my level 5 spells per day
>cast open lock
Wrong box
>cast open lock
Wrong door
>cast open lock
Wrong chest
>cast nothing
Out of 2nd leve slots

Wizards can break reality and the rules, thats the point, but they can't replace real skill.

Just tell your DM you wait for a day and have a bag of holding with all the spell ingredients you'll ever need :^)

Unfortunately the "STR" in strength doesn't stand for "strategy."
It's the easy way out

In a CRPG module sure, you can just rest after every casting. But irl that's liable to get a miniature shoved down your throat.

Something people forget is that in most oldschool systems, warriors are super gear-dependent. Your stats don't matter nearly as much as you'd think compared to having a good armor and weapon.

Disarming traps, detecting hidden doors, picking locks and stuff like that.
Might and Magic 7 did them well, they weren't especially great in combat, but absolutely great for everything else.
>open chest without properly disarming it
>it fucking explodes in your face, one shotting the squishy mage

Ballistics truly is the best school of magic

Problem is most games never do magic right

In tabletops, specifically D&D, and a few others, magic is limited, not only by daily uses, but also by expensive as fuck materials

>Want to summon a godlike monster to kill that orc army, better get that super rare super valuable diamond that gets used up in the summoning spell

When everything became 'cast for generic mana' and you can restore mana with potions, or free rests between each encounter, games really made magic broken as fuck.

imagine if they removed magicka enhancing from potions, and you can only regenerate your magicka by resting in a bed in town, and levetate spells cost racer plums to cast every time you wanted to use levitate, or fireball costed firesalts

I just send random encounters at them until the magic user resigns himself to being worthless for the rest of the day.

>wait for a day
>owlbear shows up and reams your ass in your sleep

This is why I'm a spellsword, to save magic for buffing on tough enemies.

That explains why spellcasters lug around so much shit on them.

>Implying a bag of holding will always have exactly what you need when you need it
>implying resting between each encounter won't get your DM to just rock falls

I generally prefer mana

I like magic as something we all have but we are held back by our intellect

/tg/ fags invade vidya thread

In fairness there's a shitton of D&D module pc games

Both have 'games' in their titles.

class based mechanics have their roots in D&D, which is a /tg/ thing

> back in the day

fuck off, grandpa.

Dexfags are useless in modern gaming

>Sneak attack with Backstabber, so the damage dies are d8, Slaying Action allows you to sneak attack a second time if you expend an action point and Assassin's Point allows you to double the damage on the second sneak attack

If you have a decent amount of rogue levels (which you should if you have Assassin's Point), you're looking at a pretty ridiculous chunk of damage, before the fight even begins.

And then your DM keeps track of every spell ingredient you have and takes none of your shit when you complain you can't cast most of your spells, powergaming faggot.

Rogue classes are a relic of an age where the challenges of an adventure included traps, puzzles, diplomacy, and sneakiness. Very few modern games really allow you to use the skillset of a rogue type character, because all challenges have to be designed to be solvable by anybody.

Reminder that Warrior classes are for retards that hate any kind of variety in their games and only want to go "me strong, me smash!" all day

>3.5
>playing anything other than glorious Frenzied Berserker
I just can't be bothered with Vancian casting

>Yeah but the number of modules where magic doesn't scale is vastly outnumbered by the ones where it does.
Yeah, I know - I meant to have 'minority' in there somewhere, but the rewrote my post and hadn't realised I had forgotten it.
NWN is the game that probably stands out the most for this - arcane casting simply doesn't scale at higher levels, and utility and buffing isn't anywhere near as useful as it is in earlier games like Baldur's Gate, so in the end it's best to just be melee-focused.

Came to post this.

I have no problem letting the players rest. They should also be aware the world is going on without them, though.

ftfy

I fucking hate "rogues".
>train your whole life to defeat other people in swordplay
>obviously mastered the dexterous feats necessary to be a swordsman and have the armor to boot just incase the opponent out performs you a few times
>a fucking mugger piece of shit who has never worked hard in his life and has "street smarts" like being a nigger is worth anything is more skilled in combat than you are while using a dagger against your sword
>he has 0 armor and is much weaker physically than you
>b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but he's 2fast even though your training clearly would have taken opponent's speed into account and would have viable counters to all forms of combat using your sword

>Not having your warrior be buffed by a god/gods

The question is, does muscle mass and size gained through providence make them something else than a warrior, even if they do not have any powers beyond greatly enhanced physical strength and endurance?

LOLOL I FORGOT NO MATERIAL COMPONENTS TO SPELLCASTING FOR DRUIDS

GET FUCKED RETARDED WIZARDS LOLOLOL

Rogue is a catch-all term that doesn't really mean anything, though.

DND did rogues pretty well. Good skill monkeys that have limited combat potential w/ sneak attack.

druids have a shitty spell pool compared to wizards and clerics

in terms of power in an actual game
clerics > very well played wizards > druids> badly played wizards

Why doesn't everybody just play caster and nuke shit with their magic?

A rogue isn't going to beat a fighter in a 1v1 fight in most games. Only if the rogue sneaks up, uses a dirty trick, or gangs up.

Why do we have any physical jobs nowadays when robots can do them faster and easier?

Answer is the same, time, scope and resources are not infinite. Just because one mage can potentially unlock a chest with spells with the right materials and right circumstances, and another different mage can hurt someone with the right timing and right resources, doesn't mean every mage can do everything forever.

What "game" are you talking about?

So this is a rogue to you as well?

Guilty.

This may have been true once upon a time, but your comment does not accurately describe DnD druids for almost 10 years.

>Rogue is usually taken to mean a sneak that wields a dagger/bow and strikes from the shadows
>All rogues I played were knuckledragging thugs that beat people up in broad daylight for their money

I might have missed the point of the class a bit, but it was fun.

That's a scoundrel.

DnD 2nd edition, dnd 3rd edition, dnd 4th edition, dnd 5th edition, and the many videogames based on those rules

druids have a gimped shitty version of the cleric spell list, like in 3.5, or major damaging limitations on what they're allowed to do like in 2nd edition

In a pure DND environment, it makes sense to have a rogue. In fact, all classes have their chance to shine.

A highly skilled Warrior can take on a few...1-3 guys of lesser skill, at once, but realistically, falls when his opponents number in the dozens.Like, say, an enemy encampment has, or a tower.

A comparatively skilled Wizard is capable of felling many opponents, but he can do it once, maybe twice, and then he's useless.And, opponents of stronger will can sometimes resist his powers and break him before he can successfully bring them down.

A rogue is a master of stealth and can provide great support, but in direct confrontations, is less valuable.

In DND, they all are valuable, but in most games, where you play ONE guy, you dont notice this.You're always unstoppable.

I'd love to play a game with a small amount of realism. You know, the enemy fort has 4 guys on each tower, with crossbows or bows, and they basically bring you down with ease because you're an idiot trying to attack a fort by yourself.

Numbers matter.

in a general sense. what the guy said is true - rogue is an archetype. then you get your specialization like, I don't know; thief, thug, burglar, etc. being a rogue doesn't really directly mean "I sneak around and pick locks".

I think Hercules or King Gilgamesh or Conan the Barbarian could take out 4 towers with crossbowmen by themselves, and in DnD type games that's who you are. You're not some random weak faggot footman peasant. Maybe at level 1, but by the time you're level 5 you're superhuman, and by the time you're level 10 you're falling 100 feet and getting stomped by elephants without major problems

This. Rogues can't do shit in open combat.

Meh, it's all about terminology.
In DnD, originally the term was 'Thief', but that apparently wasnt good enough, since some people that not all "Thief's stole.

So it became "Rogue". But realistically, Bronn isnt a Thief or Rogue. The guy's a fighter, a higher leveled one, who specializes in more brutal combat, without mercy , rather than the courtly , honorable crap Knights participate in.

Shit, in 3.0 there even was a feat for it- Dirty Fighting.

Do you even know what a planar shepard is? No? Then you don't understand the druid problem, and you don't even play tabletop.

>You're not some random weak faggot footman peasant.

I think that was really always my problem with D&D. It's nice early on when you're an aspiring adventure and clearly a cut above the commoners, but you very quickly become superhuman and eventually demigod.

If you're going to use dumb obscure splatbook class variants then I counter with the fact that a level 5 wizard has infinite divine levels and can cast any spell an infinite number of times because Pun Pun exists

When you go beyond the core books in 3.5 you just get into retarded bullshit where every class is arbitrarily strong

is that a dumb paragon class?

>Current Year
>Not doing a full LUK build
You guys are like babies

Paladins have it easy since AD&D, though. Back in the day you had your Vow of Poverty. strict adherence to whatever code you followed and not to mention rolling JUST that right combination of stats to qualify for a paladin. So yeah, you were a priest + knight and that was great, but there was serious baggage involved and few chose paladins lightly. Shit, they weren't even in the original edition until later on.

it's a dumb paragon class which only exists in one specific game setting and isn't even unusually strong for a non-core prestige class, I'm not sure why he picked such a bad example of how to make a druid strong

>Luckfags
Literal meme stat. Get out of here with that +.5 to all stats and +5 to RNG shit.

Luck worked in Fallout 1 and 2 because you could get to 100% crit chance

Wasn't vow of poverty just one possible choice, though? You could choose vow of abstinence or vow of purity too, among other choices.

But yeah, it used to be that playing a paladin meant adhering to a strict code of honor which disallowed ambushes or even attacking a disarmed opponent before they can re-arm themselves. I liked it that way.

>rolling for stats

not even once. I realize that was back in the day when game was your life and people would spend days playing it, but that shit ain't gonna fly today.

Gygax must be rolling in his grave due to the changes to the paladin.

>guys, what if paladins could be of any alignment lmao

I disagree.
Most guards are level 1, and level 2.
Sergeants and Lieutenants usually reach 3, and Captains of the Guard are 5.

King Gilgamesh, Conan, all those guys are 9th level and higher- prepostreously high level in 2.0, or 3.0+ or above.

In settings like Faerun, though, some locations have LOTS of people being higher level, with some Kings having elite units full 100 4th level people.

But- yes, you're EVENTUALLY correct.
By level 7-8, if you're properly geared, you become inhumanly strong and overpowered, and can take on anything but GM fiat.

A GM can still take you down, but he has to make highly unlikely things take place- like, for example, having that the Baron's elite guard, are all 5th or 6th level, and numbering in the dozens, and that his guards are all 3rd level, which is just- no, relatively impossible.

But you have to flux thing around to make things challenging to players.SOMEHOW, there's a party of 5 6th+ level people around the corner.

Newish editions of DND did this so players can play Paladins with other players. Trust me, when you play with players, if SOMEONE wants to be a Paladin,everyone groans.Paladins cant condone selfish evil behavior, and players LOVE to do selfish, evil shit.

>ever rolling a paladin when you can be a cleric

Better in every way AND without moral constraints because you're not Lawful Stupid. Not to mention freedom from alignment shenanigans because there are priests for many gods, both evil and good.

>Modern games allowing you to break locks

wizards are mary sue pieces of shit. every weakness they're supposed to have to balance their strengths is invalidated because wizard is the class rpg devs self insert as. physical weakness is countered by protection magic. having to choose spells in advance isn't even a limitation considering other classes don't get to change their skill set at all. even spell limitations aren't really that significant when you consider a high level wizard can turn himself into an iron golem more times per day than a barbarian can get angry. then if all else fails the wizard can hide in his magical cuck dimension and nap to get his spells back.

It's the DM's job to set the tone of the adventure. If the party is going to consist mostly of neutral/lawful characters, allowing a paladin is justified. If the party consists mostly of chaotic characters, disallowing a paladin is preferable. Though I did take part in a campaign where three members of the party were chaotic or even evil criminals and the DMPC Inquisitor who had Geas'd them all and was taking them back to their homeland to face punishment for their crimes, so you can make clashing parties work if you design the entire campaign around that.

Cleric is for powergamers who choke on a million dicks on a daily basis, though. You don't want to be THAT guy, do you user?

To pwn in pvp