Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Sykid

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    67

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Sykid

  1. Sykid
    Kreia is proof that just because a character is "old" doesn't make them boring.
  2. Sykid
    See, this is what I don't get. You don't think Rogues should be defined by an ability like Back Stab that gives extra damage, because stabbing someone in the back should do extra damage no matter what your class is. But you think Rogues should be unique for being able to climb up walls? Like Rangers or Druids or Monk or Wizards can't climb or move around fast?
  3. Sykid
    That's because bad systems have perverted/distorted your idea of what a rouge is or should be like. Since when? I've been playing Rogue-ish type characters in PnP, video games, and MMOs for about 20 years now. The "back stab" or "sneak attack" or any other name for an underhanded, premeditated attack from stealth, has always been a constant hallmark of the archetype. Since forever. Since it's earliest days, when D&D was still young it needed simple ruels. And since it was extreemly combat-oriented, rouges needed something. So they game them backstab. With more advanced mechanic that allow far more variation and complexity, and with more non-combat content, this is no longer necessary. Actually I can argue that it never really was necessary in the first place, it was just easy to implement. Think again. Your narrative for the evolution of rogues in RPG games makes no sense. Combat mechanics did not limit non-combat content in tabletop RPGs... Outside of combat was where the roleplaying took place, which is what defined the genre. The game could be as combat or non-combat oriented as the DM wanted it to be. Complexity had nothing to do with it. Winning combat by inflicting damage on an opponent isn't a class ability, it isa task; a task that different classes achieve through different ways. That has always been the case in non-MMO RPGs. How rogues inflicted damage was through using the skills that were unique to the rogue: sneaking and dirty fighting. This was done not because designers wanted something "easy" but because it achieved the desired concept of a class who could overcome physically superior opponents with cunning. The rules of the game may have become more sophisticated, but the core concept is still there. This is why "back stab" or "sneak attack" isn't going anywhere. And no, in the BG series there was no "DPS" class. All classes could lay down the hurt with the right use of their class abilities. The term "DPS" - as in, Damage Per Second - is from MMOs and doesn't even make sense when talking about a game that has a pause function and whose tempo is measured in iterating combat rounds.
  4. Sykid
    Don't presume to know what I think makes a class useful. I know all about Rogue DPS vs Utility debates. I've raged at the heart of them for years. The reality is there is no such thing as "utility" vs "damage" because Rogues should be able to do both, as all classes should. There is no MMO style trinity system in single player isometric RPGs, so this isn't a problem.
  5. Sykid
    This is an abysmal idea. To do such a thing would make the Rogue class a meaningless hodge podge of other classes. It would remove any identity or playstyle that would be unique to the Rogue, and replace it with limited versions of other classes. "Rogue" would simply mean "FigterMonkRangerWizardPaladinPriestChanterCipher"." If class advancement was so generic that specializations could simply be renamed and passed off as other classes, then there is no point in having different classes at all. It would be better to go with a classless system.
  6. Sykid
    Because then he'd be a Fighter. Really, any heroic class could be considered special forces. They are all specialists who are called upon do go beyond what common soldiers would need to do. I know, it wasn't meant to be taken literally. My point was to give him an example of the same logic being applied elsewhere. Ah, understood.
  7. Sykid
    This is an Infinity Engine style single player party RPG, not an MMO. There is no such thing as a "DPS" class.
  8. Sykid
    Because then he'd be a Fighter. Really, any heroic class could be considered special forces. They are all specialists who are called upon do go beyond what common soldiers would need to do.
  9. Sykid
    You have perfectly described the Bard class.
  10. Sykid
    That's because bad systems have perverted/distorted your idea of what a rouge is or should be like. Since when? I've been playing Rogue-ish type characters in PnP, video games, and MMOs for about 20 years now. The "back stab" or "sneak attack" or any other name for an underhanded, premeditated attack from stealth, has always been a constant hallmark of the archetype.
  11. Sykid
    Unfortunately, if you go about deconstructing fantasy RPG classes you will always find arbitrary distinctions in their design. A Ranger is a Fighter who likes bows and being outside. A Monk is a Fighter who punches things. A Barbarian is a Fighter who yells a lot. A Druid is a Wizard who really likes trees and nature stuff. The reason for this is that class mechanics are as much a description of a character's personality as they are a combat style.
  12. Sykid
    The difference between a Fighter and a Rogue is that a Rogue is someone who specializes in attacking an unaware and unsuspecting opponent. A Rogue makes up for lack of magic or combat prowess not just by using deceit and underhanded tactics, but by excelling at them.
  13. Sykid
    If we're going by D&D standards there's a lot of variance between editions. In 2nd Ed the Thief had more skills, but without the Stealth oriented ones (for Backstabbing) the only difference in skills is Open Lock and Find Traps. However, Bard had the widest access to Proficiencies, which would constitute what we consider "skills" in later editions. In 3rd Ed Bard had access to more skills, and in 4th Ed had access to more skills and had a bonus to untrained skills. Now don't get me wrong, I agree that Rogues are very much a skill based class. However, the skills aren't an end unto themselves; Rogues are specialists in stealth and subterfuge, which is why they have Backstab. Their skills play into this. And this is why I'm totally puzzled about the way Armor is going to work in P:E. Apparently Rogues will be able to wear heavy armor just like anybody else, but what is the trade off and what kind of playstyle is achieved? A Rogue without stealth and sneak attacks doesn't seem like much of a Rogue at all.
  14. Sykid
    There already exists a skills/utility/support archetype in fantasy RPGs: it's called the Bard. It's for people who like being average at a bunch of things and supporting specialized classes, while being not really great at one thing. The niche of the Rogue is stealth, cunning, and underhandedness. This is where the idea of "backstab" or "sneak attack" comes from. Take that away and there's not much left of the Rogue archetype.
  15. Sykid
    Hmm, no class armor restrictions? I wonder how full plate rogues would work...
  16. Sykid
    It took me forever to figure out the very first computer during the intro.
  17. Sykid
    I thought it was a great game. Yes, the bugs were bad but aside from that I enjoyed everything about it.
  18. Sykid
    Mad respect for Godspeed You! Black Emperor
  19. Sykid
    The main quest in the Underdark part of BG2. So many options to progress through the story! Alternatively, Vault 11 from F:NV was awesome in the sense that it was legitimately terrifying.
  20. Sykid
    Yes indeed, there is no sexism when games depict half naked 70 years old Bruce Lee. What was your point? The character whose body is the most exposed is also the one whose physique and attire are the most unrealistic. It's all the same stuff we've been arguing about, but... it's a man. If Forton was female I guarantee you complaints would have been made just like the female Fighter (forgot name). See, nobody actually cares about realism because this isn't supposed to be a realistic game. "Realism" is only used as an intellectual crutch when it comes to images female characters that certain people don't like, in an attempt to tell gamers and developers what should and should not be in games. So Sawyer said that armorers are in consensus against boobplate? That's nice. Is Obsidian going to consult armorers to validate the realism of all their art designs, or just the ones with breasts that people complain about? Terry English, a famous armorsmith, said this: "If you're doing historically accurate armour, you're really just copying what existed, whereas when you do the fantasy stuff, you're more artistic with it - it gives you the chance to design the outfits." It's not about getting pixellated eye candy. I don't think anybody here actually cares if boobplate is in the game or not. It's about opposition to Obsidian having to vet their artistic decisions though internet feminists whose opinions neither represent the majority of gamers nor have any real relevance to what makes a good game.
  21. Sykid
    Hey guys, I hear 70 year old members of monastic traditions aren't all built like Bruce Lee and spend their time stripped half naked and flexing their muscles. Where do I sign up to rage?
  22. Sykid
  23. Sykid
    The argument is more along the lines of, "We all know this is an unrealistic game in pretty much every way, so don't bring realism into it when really what you're trying to say is 'I don't want content I don't like.'"
  24. Sykid
    Totally agree. I also think that relationships help define NPC's as well, as expressions of their emotions and personality.
  25. Sykid
    Yes, so long as there are actually weapon sheaths instead of just having your sword floating at your hip.
×
×
  • Create New...