this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
536 points (99.6% liked)

RPGMemes

14434 readers
656 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (25 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 16 points 1 month ago (13 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 1 month ago (5 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 1 month 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 1 month ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)