The Role of Rogues?

[TrashMan]

From the last update it sounds to me like rogues will be DPS again.

 

I always hated that concept, as it rarely made any sense.

Why should rogues be DPS?

Why do they get backstab and extra damage, and others don't? There never was any sensible reason or explanation for it.

 

The first thing I'd do is remove the rouges backstabbing special power.

Anyone coming from behind would get a bonus to hit and increased chance of critical.

Fighter, mage, cleric - doesn't matter.

 

The rogues role isn't DPS. It's skills. And also support. Even without a special backstabing power, the rogues flexiblity and reflexes allow him to flank opponents and move around the battlefield (tumble, evasion) - being at the right place at the right time.

He's a pebble stat starts the avalanche (of enemy defeat) so to speak....he tips the scales in your favor.

 

Thats without taking into acount all the other thing a rogue provides to the party.

 

 

A rouge needs no backstabbing.

Edited October 4, 2012 by TrashMan

[curryinahurry]

Its Rogue, you should correct before the snide comments start.

 

Otherwise, good concept, I'll add some thoughts later.

[ravenshrike]

Rouges role is to change the color of skin tone on the cheeks. In the Victorian Era it was most associated with prostitutes.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist. Old D&D boards habit.

 

 

 

As for the reason rogues get special backstabs, that's because the rogue doesn't fight conventionally. Instead they specifically target those areas and use their abilities to give them a greater chance of hitting them. They don't even try to hit people in normal places, instead they always aim for the most vulnerable portions of a persons body. Also, in any properly run PnP game, rogues generally aren't great DPS. Sorcs priests and two-handed weapon fighters are. Hell, even in NWN, the rogues really weren't top DPS classes.

[TrashMan]

Its Rogue, you should correct before the snide comments start.

 

 

Can't edit the threat title I'm afraid.

 

I hate it when this happens. Typos..my immortal enemy!

 

MEh..don't care anymore. Grammar Natzi's can burn in hell for all I care.

[TrashMan]

As for the reason rogues get special backstabs, that's because the rogue doesn't fight conventionally. Instead they specifically target those areas and use their abilities to give them a greater chance of hitting them. They don't even try to hit people in normal places, instead they always aim for the most vulnerable portions of a persons body. Also, in any properly run PnP game, rogues generally aren't great DPS. Sorcs priests and two-handed weapon fighters are. Hell, even in NWN, the rogues really weren't top DPS classes.

 

So..you're telling me that fighters - poeple who spend their lives dedicated to combat and killing - don't know the human anatomy and vital areas of the human body...

And rogues, who mostly hide and use skills and generally avoid combat - do.

 

O.K. ... o.k.

 

That makes sense...somehow... in the bizzaro universe.

[IndiraLightfoot]

As long as there's diversity I'm a happy camper: And backstabbing abilities for any kind of class is not a bad idea at all. On a similar note, I think thieves, scoundrels, cutpurses, assassins need even more beef to their attacks and stamina. I think it is waste if having a rogue in the party is the same as the sneaky little helper - he/she open locks, disable traps, find secret doors, takes a careful listen and hear that faint fart of the bugbear two corners away.

[ravenshrike]

As for the reason rogues get special backstabs, that's because the rogue doesn't fight conventionally. Instead they specifically target those areas and use their abilities to give them a greater chance of hitting them. They don't even try to hit people in normal places, instead they always aim for the most vulnerable portions of a persons body. Also, in any properly run PnP game, rogues generally aren't great DPS. Sorcs priests and two-handed weapon fighters are. Hell, even in NWN, the rogues really weren't top DPS classes.

 

So..you're telling me that fighters - poeple who spend their lives dedicated to combat and killing - don't know the human anatomy and vital areas of the human body...

And rogues, who mostly hide and use skills and generally avoid combat - do.

 

O.K. ... o.k.

 

That makes sense...somehow... in the bizzaro universe.

Think of rogues being trained as pseudo-assassins. Not trained to fight in pitched battles. While technically the assassin class was separate in D&D, that was just because it had magic and poison use.

[Bill Gates' Son]

I'll admit that I hated how MMOs changed the class into some sort of main damage dealer.

 

I'll be fine if a rogue can specialize in combat, but hopefully we can specialize them using more utility. I would like something similiar to the Bounty Hunter in BG2.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Bill Gates' Son

[IndiraLightfoot]

BGS, you're absolutely right about rogues not being main damage dealer as some weird standard, but if you make a particular kind of rogue, it could happen. And bounty hunters in BG2 had a great charm about them.

[Caerdon]

As for the reason rogues get special backstabs, that's because the rogue doesn't fight conventionally. Instead they specifically target those areas and use their abilities to give them a greater chance of hitting them. They don't even try to hit people in normal places, instead they always aim for the most vulnerable portions of a persons body. Also, in any properly run PnP game, rogues generally aren't great DPS. Sorcs priests and two-handed weapon fighters are. Hell, even in NWN, the rogues really weren't top DPS classes.

 

So..you're telling me that fighters - poeple who spend their lives dedicated to combat and killing - don't know the human anatomy and vital areas of the human body...

And rogues, who mostly hide and use skills and generally avoid combat - do.

 

O.K. ... o.k.

 

That makes sense...somehow... in the bizzaro universe.

 

I couldn't agree more. Also, rogues always get abilities like "dirty fighting" - as if any fighter worth their salt isn't going to exploit every advantage they could possibly get in a fight.

 

I've always thought that there should be a separate but cumulative flanking and stealth attack bonuses - and character class shouldn't have anything to do with that.

[metiman]

I don't think rogues should be damage dealers in the MMO sense. That is, they shoudn't be particularly good at dealing continuous damage so that the only difference between rogues and fighters is their armor and maybe hit points. I do think rogues should have something like the 2nd edition backstab though. A single attack that they can make only once in a while when they have succesfully hidden that is devastating. Otherwise who is going to want to bring a thief along? I haven't had a thief in my party since 2nd edition games stopped being made. Before that I used to like them. I sure hope Obsidian isn't trying to balance the characters in terms of DPS like MMOs like to do. That would be awful.

[TrashMan]

So..you're telling me that fighters - poeple who spend their lives dedicated to combat and killing - don't know the human anatomy and vital areas of the human body...

And rogues, who mostly hide and use skills and generally avoid combat - do.

 

O.K. ... o.k.

 

That makes sense...somehow... in the bizzaro universe.

Think of rogues being trained as pseudo-assassins. Not trained to fight in pitched battles. While technically the assassin class was separate in D&D, that was just because it had magic and poison use.

 

 

Still don't make no sense. Do assasing magicly get extra damage?

Wht is it that an assasin has to justifies it? Again, anatomy knowledge isn't special.

 

Backstabing is going to be deadly no matter who does it..becasue you know..it's unexpected...from the back. Where your lungs and spine are.

 

 

 

As long as there's diversity I'm a happy camper: And backstabbing abilities for any kind of class is not a bad idea at all. On a similar note, I think thieves, scoundrels, cutpurses, assassins need even more beef to their attacks and stamina. I think it is waste if having a rogue in the party is the same as the sneaky little helper - he/she open locks, disable traps, find secret doors, takes a careful listen and hear that faint fart of the bugbear two corners away.

 

Beefier attacks?

Frankly I think HP should be normalized and dependant on attributeds, not tied to class.

Then you have more survivable mages and rogues.

 

Rogues are skill masters, usefull in so many ways AND decent in combat. Seriously, what more do they need? Why are they being constatnly pushed into a more combat-oriented role?

[Osvir]

As for the reason rogues get special backstabs, that's because the rogue doesn't fight conventionally. Instead they specifically target those areas and use their abilities to give them a greater chance of hitting them. They don't even try to hit people in normal places, instead they always aim for the most vulnerable portions of a persons body. Also, in any properly run PnP game, rogues generally aren't great DPS. Sorcs priests and two-handed weapon fighters are. Hell, even in NWN, the rogues really weren't top DPS classes.

 

So..you're telling me that fighters - poeple who spend their lives dedicated to combat and killing - don't know the human anatomy and vital areas of the human body...

And rogues, who mostly hide and use skills and generally avoid combat - do.

 

O.K. ... o.k.

 

That makes sense...somehow... in the bizzaro universe.

 

I've always had this feeling that an assassin/rogue is specifically trained to hit vital areas. With a dagger there is so little you can do, you need to hit vital areas for it to make real damage. Whilst the sword/halberd/axe do plenty of damage by simply "hitting", i.e. you don't need the same finesse and/or precision.

 

This being said, maybe specific weapons should have more of a backstab multiplier, whilst larger weapons have less of a backstab multiplier?

 

Rogue's are swifter more flexible, they could take that extra step (tumble), slither their arms around and strike that spot. Where the more robust warrior/fighter is trained for strength, and more in the ways of toppling his enemy. I feel that everyone should have a backstab multiplier, but the rogue should have more of it.

 

EDIT: Definitely for the rogue being more of a utility class. I just still would like to see it purposeful in battle.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Osvir

[TrashMan]

I don't think rogues should be damage dealers in the MMO sense. That is, they shoudn't be particularly good at dealing continuous damage so that the only difference between rogues and fighters is their armor and maybe hit points. I do think rogues should have something like the 2nd edition backstab though. A single attack that they can make only once in a while when they have succesfully hidden that is devastating. Otherwise who is going to want to bring a thief along? I haven't had a thief in my party since 2nd edition games stopped being made.

 

Why wouldn't you want a thief in your party?

Those guys are skill masters, smooth talkers, can do a helluva lot of stuff and are very usefull in combat.

 

Seriously, my thief in ToEE ROCKS.

From all the traps, caltrops, smokebombs, and all kinds of magical items they can use, an ungodly tumble score which lets them have battlefield mobility, and scouting ability.

 

Eitehr you people don't play them right or you just barge into rooms without any planing (which incidently also means you aren't playing them right).

[Jarmo]

Yeah. I don't like rogues being the damage dealers.

 

I can see the reasoning for it though. Having played D&D 1st edition, thiefs were pretty much worthless in combat.

Pretty much worthless all over, can't wear armor, can't hit worth damn, don't do much damage when they hit.

And they had to be about level 10 before they could even pickpocet, disarm traps or climb reliably.

 

Meaning, at lower levels they were almost as frustrating as magic users, at later levels they could offer some services

outside of combat, but in combat they were still useless.

 

Now.. I'd rather see them be just as good at fighting as Fighters, only with less HP and some bonus skills. Or something.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Jarmo

[TrashMan]

Definitely for the rogue being more of a utility class. I just still would like to see it purposeful in battle.

 

They already have a great purpose. It's called scouting/traps/items and tactical mobility.

 

 

Frankly, I think the biggest thing that is huring CRPG's is the abiltiy to save/load everywhere.

It utterly kills suspense and promts peopel to act far more reckless than they normally would.

 

Why scout with the rogue when you can just barge into the room, see who is in there and reload if hte battle looks too tough?

Why bother with traps - you can reload from just outside the room

[Caerdon]

Rogue's are swifter more flexible, they could take that extra step (tumble), slither their arms around and strike that spot. Where the more robust warrior/fighter is trained for strength, and more in the ways of toppling his enemy. I feel that everyone should have a backstab multiplier, but the rogue should have more of it.

 

I think the devs already confirmed that you can build a "finesse" fighter. They should be best at hitting the opponent's vital spots - along with the monk.

[Osvir]

I'm comparing with Baldur's Gate. What my experience was and how I have to think to make the thieves backstabbing authentic.

 

But you're right, this isn't Baldur's Gate.

 

Thinking about it a bit more too, a Rogue being a Utility class is great... but only if the Dungeon-mechanic is "floor-by-floor" challenge instead of "per-encounter".

 

To answer this:

I think the devs already confirmed that you can build a "finesse" fighter. They should be best at hitting the opponent's vital spots - along with the monk.

 

With this:

I've always had this feeling that an assassin/rogue is specifically trained to hit vital areas. With a dagger there is so little you can do, you need to hit vital areas for it to make real damage. Whilst the sword/halberd/axe do plenty of damage by simply "hitting", i.e. you don't need the same finesse and/or precision.

 

This being said, maybe specific weapons should have more of a backstab multiplier, whilst larger weapons have less of a backstab multiplier?

 

Now a sword still requires a lot of finesse in itself, but a dagger needs even more so to do any damage at all. A dagger to the knee is going to sting, cut a nerve perhaps, a sword will cut of the leg.

[metiman]

Yeah. I don't like rogues being the damage dealers.

 

I can see the reasoning for it though. Having played D&D 1st edition, thiefs were pretty much worthless in combat.

Pretty much worthless all over, can't wear armor, can't hit worth damn, don't do much damage when they hit.

And they had to be about level 10 before they could even pickpocet, disarm traps or climb reliably.

 

Meaning, at lower levels they were almost as frustrating as magic users, at later levels they could offer some services

outside of combat, but in combat they were still useless.

 

Now.. I'd rather see them be just as good at fighting as Fighters, only with less HP and some bonus skills. Or something.

 

Never played 1st Ed. That must have been in the 70s, right? I guess TSR must have figured out they were too weak and beefed them up for the 2nd Edition. Then in the third edition to me it seems like they were nerfed once again. That is, until the MMOs came and made them into leather armored offensive fighters.

[martix]

I fancy idea of classes having certain unique hooks.

Wizards are obviously the ones that can cast spells and only they will be able to.

Clerics should be reserved to the heal and buff role.

An idea could be reserving critical hits for fighters, allowing them to benefit from their supreme training as to be able to manage those feats.

 

A rogue then can rely on subterfuge and deception then, being able to perform special actions in combat like drawing attention, misleading opponents, generally guiding the flow of battle. That seems like a unique role, nobody has yet. You know, besides being the obvious skilled go-to guy out of combat.

</end of rant>

[Jarmo]

Never played 1st Ed. That must have been in the 70s, right?

 

Not quite that far. They sold "basic" D&D alongside AD&D (that being 2nd edition I'd guess) in the eighties.

The first red box only had rules up to 3rd level characters...

[Caerdon]

Frankly, I think the biggest thing that is huring CRPG's is the abiltiy to save/load everywhere.

It utterly kills suspense and promts peopel to act far more reckless than they normally would.

 

I'd love it if the game had no player-initiated saving and loading at all, even on easy. So many aspects of the game would benefit, and rogues would especially become much more interesting class to play. It'd be a huge win for tactical planning, spell preparation, scouting, trap detection etc. And it'd prevent sillyness like pickpocket - quickload - pickpocket - quickload...

[Osvir]

I fancy idea of classes having certain unique hooks.

Wizards are obviously the ones that can cast spells and only they will be able to.

Clerics should be reserved to the heal and buff role.

An idea could be reserving critical hits for fighters, allowing them to benefit from their supreme training as to be able to manage those feats.

 

A rogue then can rely on subterfuge and deception then, being able to perform special actions in combat like drawing attention, misleading opponents, generally guiding the flow of battle. That seems like a unique role, nobody has yet. You know, besides being the obvious skilled go-to guy out of combat.

</end of rant>

 

Taunt on Rogue for the win :D

[Caerdon]

Taunt on Rogue for the win :D

 

From the latest update:

 

Rogue - Contrary to what their name might imply, rogues come from many walks of life. They are cutpurses, thugs, and courtesans but also aristocrats, diplomats, and personal guards. Often separated by station in life, they are united by their reliance on wits, speed, and subterfuge to achieve their goals. The way of the rogue is not to stand toe-to-toe with the biggest brute in the room and exchange body blows, but to glance away in feigned confusion and slip an unseen blade between the brute's ribs as he turns his attention. When a room explodes in a storm of fire, the fighters grit their teeth, the priests pray for salvation, and the wizards fumble to find a spell to protect them, but the rogues just... disappear. They excel at being in the one place where no one's looking, at kicking people when they're down, at taunting a foe into turning its back on the rogue's ally while he or she nimbly skips away, and at being just too damned slippery to pin down.

 

I'm actually not a huge fan of that. I want enemies to behave intelligently, not to be mindless slaves to your taunts and other aggro-management skills.

[TrashMan]

I fancy idea of classes having certain unique hooks.

Wizards are obviously the ones that can cast spells and only they will be able to.

Clerics should be reserved to the heal and buff role.

An idea could be reserving critical hits for fighters, allowing them to benefit from their supreme training as to be able to manage those feats.

 

A rogue then can rely on subterfuge and deception then, being able to perform special actions in combat like drawing attention, misleading opponents, generally guiding the flow of battle. That seems like a unique role, nobody has yet. You know, besides being the obvious skilled go-to guy out of combat.

</end of rant>

 

No.

Unless you haev a good, sensible, in-universe reason why someoen can't do X, then you should never dissalow it.

 

Anyone can taunt.

Aynone can cause a critical (it's the definition of a Lucky Blow). Even the fumbliest of mages.