BetrayTheWorld

"The card you entered cannot be used for this payment. Please enter a different credit or debit card number." I'm trying to get in on the action, but your donation system won't accept my payment for some reason. Do I have any alternatives?

"To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable." -Barry Goldwater

This is true, to an extent. If I'm a scrawny, non-combat-looking guy, but I bluff you into believing that I'm wearing an explosive device and am just crazy enough to blow myself up along with you, I'm sure that can be intimidating. And that is all based off using the bluff skill and my charisma. The same could be said of using the intimidate skill. You don't have to look tough to say, "Hey, I DO have a weapon, and am willing to use it to make you have a bad day". On the other hand, as I've already suggested in this same line of debate, intimidate could be a "dual-statistic" skill that uses your highest attribute between strength and intelligence or charisma as it's base. We aren't limited to speech skills being based entirely on charisma. We can tie them to whatever we like with a new system. Anyhow, on a lighter note, Vin Diesel wins intimidate check before turning a guy's face into hamburger meat

While I'm right there with you in regard to allowing rogues to be built multiple ways, I think the highlighted part would need lots of work. If you read through your list of possible roles, they're far too narrow to limit to that number. If you did so, using your system, you wouldn't even be able to make a standard 3.5 DnD rogue who didn't have sneak attack. Only using the options you listed, if you limited to 1, it would be the crappiest crpg character ever, and at 3 it would likely be underpowered compared to the other classes available. Again, I like where your head is at customization-wise, but the specific numbers you mentioned are way off the mark, in my opinion.

What? Yes it does. The rest of your party waits a bit as the rogue does his thing. "But that is boooring" you might say? Your face is boring. You remember that post where I said I would no longer bother debating the issues with you, and neglected to mention why? This is why.

I think skyrim did a decent job, though you could end up with a rogue that could one-shot everything in the game near the end if you built that way. I actually don't mind the way nwn2 did sneaking/sneak attack. Sure, you have to suspend disbelief at the creeping around semi-invisible bit, but I'm ok with that. Without making it an extremely high-budget game, or focusing the game on sneaking mechanics, you're not going to end up with the highest polish on sneaking skills. So you have to make them functional before you worry about how good it looks. The inherent issue in party-based games is that the system you're talking about doesn't work when you have a party full of non-sneaky characters around your rogue. Oh, and to address the rest of what you were saying, I think rogues are typically already geared towards being the survivalist utility experts you're suggesting. They just get sneak attack as their primary combat ability in most games like this. We're not discussing how rogues are in MMO's and games like dragon age. We're basing our core idea of what a rogue is on what has been portrayed in "spiritual ancestors" of PE(BG, nwn, ID, PS:T, etc). P.S. If it's anything like nwn2's skill system, rogues actually DO make the best diplomats because they have all of the speech skills "in class", and get more skill points than any other class. So you could basically make your diplomat, be decent in a fight, and still be able to pick locks and handle most thief things only by sacrificing a couple skills like pickpocket.

Honestly, I don't think I like this idea very much. I would prefer Rogues progress somewhat like they did in 3.5E and Pathfinder. They get more skill points for level than any other class, have access to a wide variety of skills, get a backstab ability that progress as they do, have some evasion abilities, and get a choice of several different unique abilities(some boost skill use, others dodging, others backstab, etc.) after a certain level. I don't know exactly how the soul powers will benefit Rogues(or any other class for that matter) but I suspect that it will contribute significantly to the Rogue's progression design. I'm with you on this. I don't like the aforementioned idea simply because I feel that it limits choice too much. I don't want to be pigeonholed into playing a specific way. I'd like to have a vast array of options as far as skills, feats, and fighting styles go. Whatever idea gives me the most options to customize my character and how I play them is the idea I vote for. Ok, so I read your entire post, and I still have no idea which side of the fence you're on. You used some contradictory logic in different places. You say you don't think combat abilities are important to your rogues, yet you mention their specialized skillset for survival and that "they're focused on making sure it's quick and safe"...isn't that what backstab/sneak attack is all about? It's to represent a specialized ability designed to end a threat quickly while keeping the risk to oneself minimized. Second, I recognize that the primary people who care about a rogue's backstab/sneak attack are going to be people who play those characters. Other people, who tend to play other classes as their primary characters, likely won't feel too strongly about it simply because they normally don't benefit a whole lot from the sneak attack ability anyhow. They probably mostly control their own character and casters in combat, and find it tedious to position a rogue to maximize their damage output. That's fine.** I think you should be able to make your rogue the way you think he/she ought to be. I am all for being able to CHOOSE for your rogue not to have backstab/sneak attack. Perhaps make all the "rogue-like" skills be selected as feats first before they can be advanced. Create a formula to determine how many starting feats a character gets, and let them completely customize their rogue experience. In this case, everyone wins. With a finite number of feats, you could make tradeoffs to make your rogue less rogue-esque, and select non-rogue specific feats that draw you closer to another class. Not interested in the stealth/sneaking/sneak attack? Great, don't select those feats, and you can instead select martial weapons and medium armor. Now you have a second-class fighter who can pick locks and disable traps. I'm alright with this sort of system. I'm NOT ok with a system in which I get pigeonholed into someone else's idea of what a rogue should be. Give me Options or give me death. **Although this does make me question why they even bother posting in a thread about rogues if they don't personally choose to play them as their main character. I can virtually guarantee that if rogues lose the backstab/sneak attack, the people who are arguing for this to happen won't decide "Oh, wow, now I'm going to play a rogue. They're so much better!" The resulting conclusion is that they don't play them now, won't play them in the future, and must have lots of time on their hands to argue points in threads based on classes that have very little impact on their style of play.

I'm not opposed to some degree of this idea being implemented in game. Even in the wilderness a bit. It would allow you to essentially send out "scouts" to give you advanced warning about areas of the city/wilderness, so that if you have an area scouted, you might be more prepared when walking into an area that you'd otherwise find yourself ambushed. It could even add value to various character styles in allowing particular skills to effect their chance of avoiding trouble when off alone. Speech skills, hiding, sneaking, survival, etc...they could all factor in to determining whether your "scout" gets into a scuffle all by their lonesome or not. It -could- be interesting. However, I've seen games in the past who get too ambitious with scattered play ideas end up being mediocre games because of it. SoZ comes to mind. (I loved nwn2 and motb, but SoZ felt like their ambition in being able to do too much made the entire game feel watered down) EDIT: My entire point being, if you're going to consider something like this, make it awesome, or just don't do it at all.

I missed this on my first read-through of the thread. I was actually looking for it so that I could say, Aww, hell no. Simply doesn't fit with the RPG core, in my opinion. Something like this might work for a particular race if you explained it as, say...a race that had both divine and fiendish heritage. Basically, their choices in life led them closer to one side of their heritage than the other. But, for all characters, no way.

In a battle between roleplay and challenge, I'll take the roleplay. I pretty much agree with this, with the addendum that conversations have additional fluff text that allows you to flavor your speech to your character style, and while perhaps gaining the same result as another option (ie, defending the castle from the rebels), your reputation might be effected by a greater or lesser degree based not only on what you said, but also how you said it. Ex: "I'd be honored to assist in the defense of Dirtywood, Lord Ron." -or- "What are ya gonna pay me fer that? 2k, a'right, I'll do it, but you better pay up." Ultimately, the result is the same. You defend the castle. However, on one side the king thinks highly of you, and on the other he views you about as favorably as the corner grocer views the mob extortionist.

Could always copy and paste this into a new thread to be pinned with a request not to post in the thread unless you're adding new information to it. Mods might even be able to lock it so that it can't be posted in except by them, in which case updates could be PMed to the mod for insertion into the pinned thread.

You win.

No, that would be great. Rogues should get back to what they should be doing. First off, what rogues "should be doing" is subjective and entirely opinion-based. Second, it's obvious to anyone who bothered to read your posts in this thread that you are not someone who sets out to play a rogue class as your character. That being said, it is my opinion that people who don't want to play a class not be the ones who are consulted when determining how said class functions. It's obvious you want fighters to be able to backstab. Start a thread and argue the merits of that, rather than arguing to have something taken away from a class you're not interested in playing to be given to the one that you are. The first part of your idea has far more merit than taking backstab away from those who already have it. I could easily see fighters gaining the ability to backstab through the selection of feats/perks. I fully support a robust feats/perks system that allows such things to happen. That being said, if you disagree with me completely, then I am not going to argue with you further based on your other posts and responses. If you'd like to continue to take the hard line on this and not consider other people's play preferences, then by all means do so. But at that point we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Look at it this way: Fighters focus on ALL of the elements of combat. The learn proper techniques for parrying, using various types of armor and combat styles, using various shields and weapons, how to penetrate weak points in armor, anatomy of their enemies, etc. Assassin/Rogue on the other hand focuses their combat training entirely on AVOIDING said combat by making a singular devastating sneak attack, hoping to end it quickly without ensuing combat. It's all about the element of surprise. If you catch the enemy offguard, and unable to properly defend that weak point in their armor, or vital area, massive damage is and should be the result. And the difference is, while the fighter certainly may train for surprise attacks, that isn't their entire combat focus, as it is for the assassin. Also, the term "backstab" as referred to in most RPGs doesn't only count as an attack from behind. It's a surprise attack on a vulnerable location. That could be stabbing them in the face, so long as the attack comes as a surprise. Maybe they should simply change the name of the skill to "ambush" to eliminate the confusion that so often comes up from people who aren't inclined to play rogues. My first playthrough of any new RPG is always as a rogue. I'm not opposed to giving other classes the ability to learn and develop their backstab skill, but I don't think it should be taken away from rogues. I think the best way to handle it is to make a robust feat/perk system in which players can highly customize each class through the feats/perks that they choose. This way, a "dirty fighting" style fighter could be made, as well as the "death before dishonor" style fighter who refuses to use such methods. Let players PICK how they want to play their character through highly developed customization and all will be happy. But don't take away rogue's backstab. That would be tragic.

I am jealous of the amount of free time you must have. Good job.

I actually don't mind the nwn2 system of resting. Specifically in MOTB and SoZ, where you had a chance of being ambushed based on the "safety" of resting in that area. As far as suspension of disbelief with the crouching, it could be animated better, or give you a still screen of the party setting up camp before it says "8 hours have passed", but I don't personally think it's that important. Time passes, and you give your party time to do down-time stuff like memorize spells. I don't think there should be a "limit" on how often you can rest aside from time demands, as that makes no sense at all. I know people who work all week, resting 8 hours per day, then the weekend rolls around and they pretty much rest for an entire 2 days. The limiting factor on resting should be a dynamic world that progresses whether you involve yourself in what's going on or not. So if you have a dragon burning a village once a week, and you take too much time to get to him, he burns more villages, or a lich has to perform a particular ritual to become a demigod at midnight on a particular day...if you get there after that, you're facing a demigod instead of a lich. Alternatively, since many of you have concerns about resting as a mechanic that unbalances classes that have to "memorize" spells, we could simply have a system that doesn't utilize the daily spell memorization that D&D uses. If magic is properly balanced against other classes, it's conceivable that magic classes would simply have access to their spells at all times rather than having limited uses per day. For instance, if a single-target flame strike does comparable damage to that of an arrow or longsword hit, then that could be the mage's basic go-to attack, and with the correct feats available to other classes, even AoE spells could be balanced against physical skills/abilities.

Because you either can't, or refuse to read. As a roleplaying tool/element does not = pointless.

Story depth, and options. Lots and lots of options. Dialogue options, customization options, gameplay options, lots of feats/perks...it all adds to the replayability and immersion of the world, in my opinion.

I'll concede that you'd have an argument, but not a very good one. They can't be combined for this reason...Being good at making people afraid doesn't necessarily make you good at all of the other things that bluff entails. Why have LESS options? I agree that intimidate isn't as useful as bluff because it has far more narrow usage, and could generally be replaced completely by someone who is good at bluffing. That doesn't mean it has no place in an RPG, where character concept and vision rule the day. NOT which power is leetest. As a roleplayer, I may envision my character being a gruff, anti-social dude who is good at frightening people, but otherwise has very few social graces. For this character, it would make no sense for me to take the bluff(or "speech") skill, but taking the intimidation skill would fit nicely. There is not really any reason to eliminate it as a skill, even if the number crunchers among us consider it inferior to bluff if used in this way. Those who have no interest in the roleplaying value of the skill, and who would rather just use the best skill available can do so, and those who craft their characters based on a real character concept can do so without having their options limited by the number crunchers. Everyone wins.

I like where your head is at with several of your ideas, but I'd prefer to see this play style allowed through the selection of feats/perks rather than making a single class out of it. That way, various classes like rogue, fighter, etc could work elements of firearms into their playstyle in the degree that they choose. A rogue could semi-specialize in them to achieve the result you're proposing, or a fighter could take one or two feats to have an "ace up his sleeve" for just the right moment. Also, I'm a huge fan of the idea of customization through vast options. And such an idea is better served by having fewer base classes and more feats/perks that make your rogue, wizard, fighter, or cleric unique when compared to others who share their base class. Just my opinion though. Doesn't mean much.

Not all skills are built equally. i.e. survival in the majority of the NWN games/expansions. Sometimes there are skills you invest points into, then rarely have a chance to use them at all. It just works out that way. Yes, bluffing has far more diverse usage than intimidation. It's the nature of the beast. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the intimidation skill attached to a stat other than charisma to add more appeal to it, or have it be a skill that will use your highest stat between STR and CHA. Wrong. Just because you are super scary and ultra mean looking doesn't mean you are a good liar. You are lying when you tell them you will attack or else, because you don't actually intend to. Actually, if you have high intimidation skill, that means you're good at making people afraid, whether you do so through truth, lies, flexing your muscles, or smiling to show off your filed to a point teeth. So yes, it DOES mean you're a good liar, when those lies are specifically constructed to instill fear.

Technically, you can intimidate someone without intending to follow through with any percieved "threat". I know some people would say that's now considered a "bluff", and would fall under that skill, but it's not. To demonstrate what I mean, here's an example: Intimidate Dude has 30 ranks of intimidate, and 0 Bluff. Intimidate dude can say: [intimidate] Gimme dat kitten, or I'ma smoke yer arse. [bluff] Gimme dat kitten, or I'ma smoke yer arse. Both are legitimate, even if Intimidate dude has no intention of following through with his threat. Just because you don't -really- plan on killing a guy over a kitten doesn't mean you're any less scary, or that you couldn't apply your skill in intimidation to trying to manipulate your target. Ultimately, that's what this entire thread comes down to. The tags are there so that you can apply your skills to your conversations, and know which skill you're using. It's not an "I win" button. It's an "I'm using my skills that I've worked for now" button.

...To use your own movie as an example.... Hey now, that was MY movie. Make the right arguments for the right people.

In a word: Balance. Heavy armor had restrictions that made it unappealing for anyone who wasn't a brute strength fighter to give the brute strength fighter an edge. Because let's face it, being a "guy with a sword" isn't nearly as cool as being an uber-talented rogue, a holy warrior with divine powers granted by the gods, or an all-powerful wizard with the power of the universe at his fingertips. In D&D, arcane spell failure and armor check penalties were there specifically to provide balance. The in-game flavor that they used to justify it made sense in their world, and was fine. (The heavier armor you wore, the more material separating you from the energies of the world around you, and it makes the very precise somatic gestures necessary to control magic more difficult). Now, I'm not opposed to loosening up those restrictions at all. I like the idea of customizaion, and having the full-plate wizard and non-armored wizard both being legitimate builds, so long as they are just that. I don't want to be pigeonholed by the system into choosing to wear plate because that is far superior. I want the option to wear it because it fits with the vision I have for the character. Also, as always, balance needs to be considered. I am all for vast options, but I also don't want to see any classes shoved into the "bad" category due to uneven balancing.

I know a guy who once made 9 other guys back down from him using an all-out bluff. It's all about passion and delivery. The "circumstances" necessary to get the result you want MAY exist, or they could be part of the bluff, a complete fabrication that only exists in the minds of those you intend to manipulate. Smoke and mirrors, my friends. Here's a good example of intimidation in film. http://www.youtube.c...ed/co5xVHsMRV0 Now watch it again, and make the assumption he's out of bullets. Still damn convincing, huh?