Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 by TrashMan
  • Like 6

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 7

"You know, there's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it"

 

"If that's what you think, you're DOING IT WRONG."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


*** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
  • Like 1

"You know, there's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it"

 

"If that's what you think, you're DOING IT WRONG."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Bill Gates' Son
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


*** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

JoshSawyer: Listening to feedback from the fans has helped us realize that people can be pretty polarized on what they want, even among a group of people ostensibly united by a love of the same games. For us, that means prioritizing options is important. If people don’t like a certain aspect of how skill checks are presented or how combat works, we should give them the ability to turn that off, resources permitting.

.
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Osvir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Jarmo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


JoshSawyer: Listening to feedback from the fans has helped us realize that people can be pretty polarized on what they want, even among a group of people ostensibly united by a love of the same games. For us, that means prioritizing options is important. If people don’t like a certain aspect of how skill checks are presented or how combat works, we should give them the ability to turn that off, resources permitting.

.
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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>

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...