this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
493 points (99.6% liked)
RPGMemes
14007 readers
1130 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
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
In regards to the Rogue being a skill monkey, it really depends on what skills are needed. I'm in a campaign now where the druid's skills are far more important than the rogue's skills. There are a variety of campaigns you can make where rogue isn't the one with the important set of skills. Hell, detect magic is incredibly useful and something a rogue can't naturally learn.
In regards to being the face, there are several classes that have various face skills. The only real thing that Rogues have over other classes is Thieves' Cant, which other classes can now learn as a language.
I also wouldn't put the rogue as a front line fighter. They pump out damage, but so do a lot of other classes.
Im not saying the Rogue is the best at everything. I'm saying the Rogue is good at everything. You can take a class and replicate some of the stuff a rogue can do, but usually that means not being as good at other things. Rogues don't have to make that choice. That's why I don't like rogues. A wizard could be the face and a damage dealer, but they can't be the tank at the same time even though it's possible for you to make a tank wizard. A ranger can be good at stealth and fighting, but that would probably make them a bad face. With each other class there is a trade off. Rogues as a class are a bunch of desperate parts slapped together and called a class.
A rogue makes a very poor tank compared to other classes.
A rogue isn't the best tank, but that again isn't my argument.
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.
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.