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‽

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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).

> Bilbo was a commoner who was hired as a burglar. Except that no one starts out a campaign as commoner, but as a class. If you are going to put Bilbo into any D&D class, it is rogue.

Tolken wasn't using D&D to write the Hobbit. Rogues didn't exist. They used fantasy to inform D&D. Bilbo is a commoner, and just because there isn't a commoner class in the book doesn't mean anything. Gary says you can be a dragon if you want to. I would strongly disagree that Bilbo is a rogue. What rogue like qualities does he exhibit?

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 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.

If you were playing Bilbo in DnD 5e, the class that makes the most sense to give bilbo is Rogue. Commoner isn't a class; bilbo could only be one if he was an NPC. Does he exactly map onto the DnD rogue chassis? No, he doesn't, but he maps *worse* onto every other class.