The Role of Rogues?

[Hormalakh]

Too much abstraction is bad. And unnecessary given the processing power of computers.

 

Abstraction isn't a by-product of computer processing power. It has to do with what we as players/devs think is important in making the game fun, interesting, or unique. Abstractions are quite common in all aspects of play (and even in other parts of life) and as long as they don't take the player out of the immersive feeling, then they shouldn't really make much of a difference.

 

Would you be OK with your fighters being able to backstab/sneak attack as a bonus, but your rogues being able to get a higher bonus if they did a backstab/sneak attack? If not, why? How is it any less of an abstraction to think of "fighters" (which is in itself an abstraction - we don't really classify anyone in the world as either a fighter or a rogue) as those able to deal the most damage? Wizards can deal high amounts of damage. So can barbarians. Yet, we don't have problems with them and don't think of them as "DPS lame-os." Those classes are also abstractions.

 

This does not mean that the thief will necessarily do more damage with a dagger than what a sword would do (absolute increase in damage), but there is a bonus there that increases the damage relatively higher for a rogue than a fighter. A thief wielding a dagger might do 1-4 damage, but 5-10 backstab damage. While a fighter holding a sword might do 1-10 damage, while backstabbing can cause 3-14 damage.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Hormalakh

[JFSOCC]

Why are classes different?

One answer is so that you can have distinct playstyles for different players. Does this limit the player?

Yes. deliberately.

Is that a bad thing?

Depends. I wish to role-play my character and that does mean I want a fair amount of customization of how I play him or her, I also want my character to be distinct enough from other characters that we don't overlap much in how we play.

I'm fine with limiting backstab bonus damage to rogues, or making it higher for them than other characters. I usually play my rogue character as a jack of all trades who is weak in combat, as long as I can keep doing that, I'll be satisfied with the rogue.

[TrashMan]

Abstraction isn't a by-product of computer processing power. It has to do with what we as players/devs think is important in making the game fun, interesting, or unique. Abstractions are quite common in all aspects of play (and even in other parts of life) and as long as they don't take the player out of the immersive feeling, then they shouldn't really make much of a difference.

 

Abstraction is a product of computer and human brain processing power.

Simplification of something to make it more easily understandable.

 

 

Would you be OK with your fighters being able to backstab/sneak attack as a bonus, but your rogues being able to get a higher bonus if they did a backstab/sneak attack? If not, why? How is it any less of an abstraction to think of "fighters" (which is in itself an abstraction - we don't really classify anyone in the world as either a fighter or a rogue) as those able to deal the most damage? Wizards can deal high amounts of damage. So can barbarians. Yet, we don't have problems with them and don't think of them as "DPS lame-os." Those classes are also abstractions.

 

No, I wouldn't be OK with that.

Classes may be abstraction themsleves, but that doesn't mean you should throw logic and consistency away. rogue has no buisness beign a DPS class. A mage or fighter do.

 

A rogue does simply doesn't need extra damage.

[Alexjh]

No, I wouldn't be OK with that.

Classes may be abstraction themsleves, but that doesn't mean you should throw logic and consistency away. rogue has no buisness beign a DPS class. A mage or fighter do.

 

A rogue does simply doesn't need extra damage.

 

There is a difference between being a DPS class and being a "spike" damage class though. The base level of a rogue's attack should be below that of a fighter, I don't think anyone is disputing that, but circumstantially they should be able to do more damage in certain single attacks. Perhaps, if we seperate it down into three levels of things - facing, aware and unaware and this basically prevents your DPS problem.

 

If a rogue attacks a person who can see/sense them, they get no bonus and do sub fighter damage.

If the rogue attacks a person who is not facing them but is aware they are there, then they get a partial bonus, say, increased critical range or slight damage bonus.

If the rogue attacks a person who is entirely unaware they are there, they get the full backstab bonus, but this then sets the person they've stabbed into aware mode/possibly triggers them to turn around and therefore cannot be repeated against that character in the rest of the encounter.

 

Basically, it only lets you get one full sneak attack in against each opponent per encounter, rather than letting you just stand behind them constantly getting backstab bonuses.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Alexjh

[Hormalakh]

^What he said. I think you just have an issue (why exactly, I don't understand) with rogues causing any substantial amount of damage.

 

Could it be that the rogue has more "abilities" or "skills" that other classes don't have? If so, then we have to consider combat skills and non-combat skills for different classes and compare these.

[DeathQuaker]

I want to play a game where someday the sneaky guy who deals with traps and cons his way out of things is a different class/role from the lightly armored skirmisher who exploits enemy weaknesses rather than deals damage via brute force. Call one the "thief" or "scoundrel" and call the other "skirmisher" or "guerrilla" or whatever.

 

The two could multiclass if that is what you wanted, but I feel that automatically and integrally tying what I feel are two different concepts into one class makes a class overall weak because it tries to do too much.

Edited November 14, 2012 by DeathQuaker

[TrashMan]

No, I wouldn't be OK with that.

Classes may be abstraction themsleves, but that doesn't mean you should throw logic and consistency away. rogue has no buisness beign a DPS class. A mage or fighter do.

 

A rogue does simply doesn't need extra damage.

 

There is a difference between being a DPS class and being a "spike" damage class though. The base level of a rogue's attack should be below that of a fighter, I don't think anyone is disputing that, but circumstantially they should be able to do more damage in certain single attacks. Perhaps, if we seperate it down into three levels of things - facing, aware and unaware and this basically prevents your DPS problem.

 

They don't need it.

They will already be flanking the most of all classes, which means they will be getting the flanking bonus the most.

 

Also, I don't see why for a class to be usefull on the battlefield it has to be a big damage dealer.

 

 

Basically, it only lets you get one full sneak attack in against each opponent per encounter, rather than letting you just stand behind them constantly getting backstab bonuses.

 

 

No, I'd rather they get their insta-kill attack only outside of combat. I want my rogue to be like Sam Fisher - sneaking around and breaking peoples necks and sabotaging before the rest of hte party storms in.

[Alexjh]

No, I wouldn't be OK with that.

Classes may be abstraction themsleves, but that doesn't mean you should throw logic and consistency away. rogue has no buisness beign a DPS class. A mage or fighter do.

 

A rogue does simply doesn't need extra damage.

 

There is a difference between being a DPS class and being a "spike" damage class though. The base level of a rogue's attack should be below that of a fighter, I don't think anyone is disputing that, but circumstantially they should be able to do more damage in certain single attacks. Perhaps, if we seperate it down into three levels of things - facing, aware and unaware and this basically prevents your DPS problem.

 

They don't need it.

They will already be flanking the most of all classes, which means they will be getting the flanking bonus the most.

 

Also, I don't see why for a class to be usefull on the battlefield it has to be a big damage dealer.

 

 

Basically, it only lets you get one full sneak attack in against each opponent per encounter, rather than letting you just stand behind them constantly getting backstab bonuses.

 

 

No, I'd rather they get their insta-kill attack only outside of combat. I want my rogue to be like Sam Fisher - sneaking around and breaking peoples necks and sabotaging before the rest of hte party storms in.

 

In my eyes there are fundementally only a fairly limited number of things a character can do in combat.

 

They can damage an opponent

They can heal an ally

They can weaken an opponent

They can strengthen or protect an ally

They can add extra participants into the fight

 

There are other things, but more or less, everything broadly falls into those categories. Rogues certainly aren't for healing, buffing or summoning, so that leaves us with damaging and weakening. Secondly, a class can either be mono-targeting (usually weapons) or multitargeting (usually spells). Rogues are weapons based. They are not a front line class, so they shouldn't be doing damage on a scale with barbarians, fighters, paladins, or and rangers in that context.

 

I'm all for using rogue's Sam Fisher style, but firstly I would consider snapping necks or slitting throats to be grouped within the context of a "backstab" (or more accuratly a sneak attack) but your Sam Fisher approach runs up against an obstacle in the sabotage department purely because it would make them overpowered otherwise. If you were making a game just about being a rogue and there was a bandit camp ahead, you could sneak up and throw a little vial of poison into their stew on their campfire, taking out the entire camp without anyone knowing you are there. That is undoubtedly cool, as would be cutting the ropes on tents to trap enemies inside them knifing them in the confusion or just sitting in the woods nearby picking them off with a crossbow when they go for a pee in the bushes.

 

BUT

 

This is a party based game, and this means that all party members should be equally valid. What happens if rogues are played as you describe them, is depending on situation, they become like playing on god-mode OR they are a massive liability in a standing fight of any sort. That's not balanced either way.

[Ragnexis]

Reading through alot of the comments and ideas I have to agree with Trashman on the backstab for Rogues. It really can be done by any class and a good example would be a mage. Mage goes invisible goes behind and stabs person in the back with a dagger with great knowledge on the human antomy causing a great deal of damage.

 

A rogue in a sense is more like Garrett from the thief games who mainly avoids fights and sneaks around enemies disarming traps and picking locks to reach the objective and not really combat orientated. Rogue would benefit more from being a support/utility class and have viable support abilities in combat such was throwing flash bangs at enemies or even sneaking behind an enemy and tripping them over working with the fighter in a coup de grace move to kill their opponent. Rogue can also setup surprise traps used to hurt and weaken their enemies with the party luring the enemy back into those said traps.

 

Just my opinion on the matter and most of the posts are personal opinions though backstab in the end can be done by anyone with a weapon. Some weapons though are better at backstabbing than others.

[BetrayTheWorld]

^What he said. I think you just have an issue (why exactly, I don't understand) with rogues causing any substantial amount of damage.

 

QFT.

[Continuum]

The concept of rogues as primary damage dealers has mostly come from games where players only control one character but group with or fight against armored warriors and magic users. If a lightly armored sneaky class can't do more damage than a heavily armored opponent, then they are completely pointless in mass combat.

 

In a party based RPG, the rogue does NOT have to match the damage output of the warriors and spellcasters. The rogue just has to pull their weight enough in a fight to be worth having along for their various utility skills.

 

The balance should come in how skills are allocated. Whether by class designation or skill allocation, it shouldn't be possible for one party member to simultaneously be able to absorb the most damage AND produce the most damage or there is no reason for a variety of party members.

 

I think the whole "why can't warriors backstab" argument should boil down to what type of weapon and armor they plan to specialize in. In my mind, the critical damage bonus of backstabbing/sniping comes in using a type of weapon that can more easily reach vitals on a precise hit but do less damage on imprecise hits. Small, fast penetrating weapons like daggers or arrows. In a frontal assault these types of weapons do crappy damage compared to larger swords, axes, maces, etc.

 

Every character should get bonuses for flanking/rear attacks. Certain classes/builds, like the assassin-type rogue, would specialize in combat styles that allow them to quickly or stealthily obtain the flanking/backstab position. Heavier weapons and armor naturally encumber that type of fast movement. Assassin type weapons should have lower normal damage but have higher critical multipliers when backstabbing/sniping. This makes sense. A dagger does much less total trauma than a mace but it's much easier to quickly and accurately stick it in a guy's heart or lung.

 

If a warrior wearing heavy armor and carrying a five foot sword is in the position to get a free shot at an opponent's unprotected back, then yes it should result in a devastating amount of damage. The dagger would have a higher critical multiplier than the sword, but the sword's larger base damage would result in an equivalent or greater fatal amount of trauma. The key equalizer is the likelihood of an armored warrior obtaining that positioning and the likelihood of an opponent turning their back on a five foot sword, and that's what the combat system should reflect.

 

The point is that you can't exactly have everybody in the party be sneaky dagger-stabbers in light armor and expect to take on armored opponents. You need the armored warrior to be able to survive going toe-to-toe with them. Similar, the guy taking point is going to want the armor and the sword, not armor and a dagger to try to shiv his opponent swinging a mace at him.

 

There's a rational way to balance this out where rogues deal more sporadic, precise critical damage while warriors deliver the constant output of heavy frontal trauma. The total amount of physical damage the warrior deals out in heavy frontal attacks should exceed the rogue, but the rogue's skill at backstabbing should encounter less mitigation (armor/shield/parry). There are perfectly logical reasons why different weapon/damage types balance different combat style and why no one character would be able to rationally swap the weapons/armor in midfight to flip between frontal assault and backstabbing/sniping style combat. In combat backstabbing should not receive as high of a multiplier as ambushes on a completely unaware opponent that is not in combat.

 

The fact that a class specializes in backstabbing/sniping makes sense. It's all in what you devote the practice to learn. All people are not equal at stabbing key points. A surgeon may have precise knowledge of human anatomy, but unless they spend hours and hours practicing how to quickly and precisely perforate said anatomy, it does not make them a skilled backstabber. Similarly, a warrior has a finite amount of time to train and practice. If he plans on fighting in heavy metal armor 90% of the time, then he's going to spend the vast majority of his practice time on using weapons and techniques that work well in heavy metal armor, not on how he might get really good at sliding behind his opponent with a dagger while wearing very light armor.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Continuum

[Sabotin]

First I would like to say that keep in mind that all game mechanics are an abstraction. In dnd, number of attacks is not supposed to be the number of times you swing, hp is not supposed to be a health gauge and back stabs are not just "hitting from the back". This is just the crunch behind the fluff. For games it would be a) too complex to implement and b) too abstract for people to comprehend what is happening if they've tried to make it more "imaginative".

 

Why other classes can't back stab? Here's my rationalization. It's not about hitting someone in the back (ok, it is, up to a point), it's about hitting someone in the back precisely.

Out of combat this can be done rather easily, but I think the "d&d term" for that is Coup de grâce, which everyone can do.

In combat I would say it's another matter. With all the flailing and moving, even an unaware opponent becomes hard to hit in a weak spot. Not to mention different kinds of armors and combat styles the opponent can be using - some weak spots can not be there or some new ones can appear. I would say that the combination of a rogue's observation skills, his dexterity and his quick wit are required to make an efficient back stab. That is also my reasoning behind why they use light armor and weapons (as to not impede their skills) and subsequently why they hide (as to not die from their lackluster defense).

 

Traps wise I think balance is needed to make rogues useful. Referencing other games, traps can be of 2 kinds - those that injure and those that kill.

In games where they kill a rogue is required, period. If you don't have one you will need to reload a lot. The player can get frustrated due to the feeling of being forced to use a certain character or play style.

In case the traps are there just for some damage it happens often that a rogue is useless in this aspect, due to either tough fighters all but ignoring the damage or healing being readily available.

I can't really think of much that could be done to fix this, since everything can be undone with a reload...

 

Then you have the standard, stealing, picking locks, fast talking etc. that a rogue would have expertise in. Could other characters do it? Sure, but I doubt they have time with all their combat training, book reading and meditating, hehe. I hope there won't be multiclassing either. In my mind a level 1 rogue should be someone who grew up as a rogue, not a commoner who took 1 level of it. I don't think a class based game has the required scope to show that someone is now learning to do x instead.

 

In conversations I would like to see rogues having the ability to "outsmart" people. Instead of just being charismatic or convince someone to tell you something there could be some roundabout arguments or confusing questions basically tricking someone to reveal extra information, maybe even without them knowing it. Perhaps incorporate various scams to improve prices or get money and ways to gather information. Something that could be called street smarts.

[Osvir]

1. I respectfully disagree, and actually do agree with :1) Off-combat, the Rogue is pretty good, if only for the wide variety of class skills. However, there are other skill beasts as well (Scout, Bard, Ranger, Factotum etc.) so removing Sneak Attack would leave little motivation to select a Rogue over the others.

 

If the Rogue had some Class specific abilities in town (Street Smart) that makes it easier to Gather Information, Find Quests, Get Gold and so on and so forth I would choose him over something else. Combat is not everything.

 

What is important is the Adventuring aspects. How does he benefit the group in the Adventure? Is he charming? Difficult to catch? Sneaky? Knows to use the alleys better than others? Can climb up the wall and sneak into a window, which your Fighter in Full Plate Armor wouldn't do as adeptly.

 

I recommend taking a thought or two at "Tasks", being able to send out Party Members in cities on Tasks. One such Task could be "Burglary" or "Business/Gather Information".

 

* Burglary would be sending out your Rogue to loot homes for Gold. Even loot Shops (if there were any in the AoE Ring). This way you could even hit 2 places in the town at once, your Rogue is off in to the Northwestern section, and you take care of the South Eastern section. A Cipher in your party could call back the Rogue instantly (but at a penalty to the loot he could've gotten). Your guy sent on Burglary could be caught and set into Jail, or talk himself out of it with some gold. He could get attacked by Thugs in an Alleyway and you have to come to his aid.

Mechanically: Press "M" -> Right-Click on Map -> Choose Tasks -> Choose Burglary -> Who will do it? -> Place AoE Ring -> Rogue Leaves Party for a duration of time

 

* Business/Gather Information Gather Information, you send off your Rogue and he is sent to Gather Gossip, Quests, Handle Business (grab the Gold that you earned). Being able to handle stuff that are mundane, making you not have to walk around the entire town just to find a Quest Giver or manage the business. In and Out type of thing. The Rogue wouldn't just give you the quest, but he would pin-point where the Quest giver is so you still have to talk to him.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Osvir

[Osvir]

Edit time ran out but.. Rogue... for some reason I've fallen into Tarot art xD

 

The Fool

[FlintlockJazz]

Whatever happens, I do not want Sneak Attack built into a rogue as standard: it then means to get the most out of the rogue you need to make use of sneak attacks, as they are balanced for it's use and are often useless in combat otherwise. Even when Sneak Attack is an option it's blatantly obvious the devs expect you to take it sooner or later for the class, or you are limited to dual-wielding sneak attacker and bowman (I'm looking at you DAO). Again, I see no reason why it should also be limited to rogues.

 

OK, here's the question then, what do you propose as an alternative? If you are going to take it out sneak attacking as the primary option, what are you adding back in to make rogues more than a cut rate fighter?

 

The ability to do dirty tricks, to shut down mages as they cast spells by distracting them, increased battlefield mobility allowing them to get around the battlefield in order to take out high priority targets (and not by dealing huge damage but by being able to actually get to them), CC abilities etc.

 

The fighters should not be relegated to the role of 'tank', and if they are and there is aggro management like taunts then I will lose interest. Obsidian have already said that they want lightly armoured fighters to be viable, which means that they need to be something other than just a soak to damage. The rogues were described thusly in the Kickstarter:

 

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.

Whether they pack a pair of daggers, a fine rapier, a slim bow, a stubby pistol, or a brutish club, rogues haul a carnival of pain with them wherever they go. If their natural tendencies weren't dangerous enough, their affinity for skullduggery allows some talented rogues to tap into their souls to perform amazing stunts: fading from view in plain sight, briefly cloaking their allies in a veil of shadow, imbuing their weapons with a soul-eating venom, or even becoming so insubstantial that blades barely hurt them.

While rogues are known for their stealthy nature both in and out of battle, many of them are quite talented with machines and contraptions of all sorts. High-born rogues are often very knowledgeable about esoteric, while many low-born rogues are well-equipped to survive in the wild.

 

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/321413

 

So my view of the rogue is of one who can get into and out of situations, so they'll appear and lay into the mage just as he is casting a spell, disrupting it and poisoning the mage to boot, and then disappearing while ensuring the same thing doesn't happen to his party's mage. Hell, reading the above I actually wonder if Obsidian plan on the rogue being able to tank somewhat themselves, as it mentions taunting enemies to stop them attacking allies, though I hope it's not a simple aggro taunt.

[Osvir]

While rogues are known for their stealthy nature both in and out of battle, many of them are quite talented with machines and contraptions of all sorts. High-born rogues are often very knowledgeable about esoteric, while many low-born rogues are well-equipped to survive in the wild.

 

Steampunk??

[BetrayTheWorld]

1. I respectfully disagree, and actually do agree with :1) Off-combat, the Rogue is pretty good, if only for the wide variety of class skills. However, there are other skill beasts as well (Scout, Bard, Ranger, Factotum etc.) so removing Sneak Attack would leave little motivation to select a Rogue over the others.

 

If the Rogue had some Class specific abilities in town (Street Smart) that makes it easier to Gather Information, Find Quests, Get Gold and so on and so forth I would choose him over something else. Combat is not everything.

 

What is important is the Adventuring aspects. How does he benefit the group in the Adventure? Is he charming? Difficult to catch? Sneaky? Knows to use the alleys better than others? Can climb up the wall and sneak into a window, which your Fighter in Full Plate Armor wouldn't do as adeptly.

 

I recommend taking a thought or two at "Tasks", being able to send out Party Members in cities on Tasks. One such Task could be "Burglary" or "Business/Gather Information".

 

* Burglary would be sending out your Rogue to loot homes for Gold. Even loot Shops (if there were any in the AoE Ring). This way you could even hit 2 places in the town at once, your Rogue is off in to the Northwestern section, and you take care of the South Eastern section. A Cipher in your party could call back the Rogue instantly (but at a penalty to the loot he could've gotten). Your guy sent on Burglary could be caught and set into Jail, or talk himself out of it with some gold. He could get attacked by Thugs in an Alleyway and you have to come to his aid.

Mechanically: Press "M" -> Right-Click on Map -> Choose Tasks -> Choose Burglary -> Who will do it? -> Place AoE Ring -> Rogue Leaves Party for a duration of time

 

* Business/Gather Information Gather Information, you send off your Rogue and he is sent to Gather Gossip, Quests, Handle Business (grab the Gold that you earned). Being able to handle stuff that are mundane, making you not have to walk around the entire town just to find a Quest Giver or manage the business. In and Out type of thing. The Rogue wouldn't just give you the quest, but he would pin-point where the Quest giver is so you still have to talk to him.

 

While I think some of these are good ideas if implemented properly, I don't think that it would necessitate taking staple combat abilities away from the rogue. You can expand on these things with a class, thereby making them more interesting, without taking anything away, and it won't hurt balance.

 

Basically, these are game mechanics that are already realistic and accounted for in various versions of PnP D&D. They just aren't normally implemented in cRPGs.

Edited November 18, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[Osvir]

Well, combat is combat. How are people going to play with the Rogue during combat? How do they want to play? I haven't followed this thread entirely but to a start it felt mostly like "What is a Rogue?" and then people argued what a Rogue was. Then there was debating on "What is the philosophy of backstab?" and it's still there...?

 

Little have I seen on how people actually played in Baldur's Gate with the Rogue or what the purpose of the Rogue was in their group. Mine was a female named Akasha. Like a Mage, mostly staying out of combat altogether because she was focused the second she came up close, she almost never hit anything either which was weird in my opinion, so I equipped her with a sling. I used her as a scout, trap finder and lockpicker, never really did any pickpocketing. Did some pickpocketing in Baldur's Gate a long long time ago (got a cursed item I couldn't remove from my inventory or something like that ).

 

I personally think that if weapon abilities are directly tied to classes it'll be easier to handle every single class. A Fighter with Daggers? Give the Fighter Sneak Attack when he gains a level in Daggers. Pof! The Fighter could even suddenly be a "Fighter/Rogue" (in essence), Main Classing as a Fighter with Fighter Class Abilities with Rogue Weapon Abilities.

 

What we currently are looking at, from Official information, is that P:E will have a Quest based experience system. That is all cool and such but it leaves no room for Combat.

 

Questing = Important to your Character and perhaps your Class. It is the journey that your character takes and he gains experience for it. Bam! Alright I'm with Obsidian here I love this.... but I am also becoming better with all my weapons that I am using doing Quests, now I'm started to get rubbed the wrong way.

 

Weapon Experience = Exactly how experience works in Baldur's Gate. You take down an enemy, you get 15 Experience, but this time you get it for the Weapon you are wielding. Not like TES where you "Hit once = gain experience" "Hit twice = Level up" but mechanically like Baldur's Gate. So YES you could become a Master Swordsman and still be Level 1 Class/Character.

 

Obviously you won't though, because experience is limited in a game like P:E, if it will follow the same trend like IE games.. when 8'000'000 being max experience you can get right? (whilst in a game like TES it is abundant and almost unlimited) you'd have to progress at some point to the next area where there are Quests, which levels up your Character and Class. A Level 8 Fighter with Level 5 Sword Mastery (Capped) would be way stronger than a Level 1 Fighter with Level 5 Sword Mastery (realistically speaking, you'd max 1 or 2 weapons if properly implemented). I am advocating for this idea because it solves so many issues all at once, and if it interests you please read my Wall of Text in my signature, link should be right above word "Dimensions".

Edited November 18, 2012 by Osvir

[Vhostym]

Firstly, I haven't read the last 5 pages of this thread so I apologize if this has already been mentioned.

 

What strikes me as odd about the rogue is that there are only a few common ways to differentiate him from a fighter, he can either be a strong DPS or he can be a strong DOT. The OP obviously doesn't like the idea of a rogue being DPS because he/she feels that there is no reason that a fighter should not be able to do everything a rogue can. The issue I see with that view is that the only combat viable way to play a rogue (and while I recognize that in a good pnp or even computer game there would be ample opportunities for a rogue to flaunt his/her skills such a perfect situation cannot be assumed) would be to work with the concept of "bleeding wound," where the rogue darts into combat, strikes an enemy and then runs out and waits for the enemy to either die of blood loss or become weak enough that he/she can then dart back in and finish him off. While I think that this concept of rogue is both interesting and more realistic, (it would synchronize well with the poisoner archetype) at least in d&d it does not work well at all. This is because in d&d lingering damage is just too low to be viable. If P:E changes this I think that this is another way to play the rogue and while, in theory, a fighter could do the exact same thing, he would have no reason to do so thus providing the rogue with its own combat role, albeit a niche one.

 

The problem with this is that it's difficult to make damage over time effective enough to merit its use. While you can kill an enemy with a minimal amount of risk using this tactic, it is also extremely slow and prone to being heavily overshadowed by the fighters ability to take down the enemy in two hits. Unless you can provide an AOE version of the standard DOT effect anyone capable of fighting will do something else and the rogue will still end up as an inferior fighter.

 

On another note, I have never personally experienced a situation where the rogue ever really outshone the fighter with regards to damage (granted my experience lies solely in 3.5e so I can't comment on 2e or 4e). In general I feel that sneak attack is more of a consolation prize for the rogue. Unless he has hips or a bow he has to be in melee range to use a sneak attack and with the exception of level 1 enemies, he almost never brings them down in one blow. Unless my DM is much crueler than yours, the first thing most enemies do after the rogue sneak attacks them is turn around and attack him, so the rogue has to immediately run away. Even with a bow he has to be within 30 feet to sneak attack and so the enemy can pretty easily attack him afterwards. So while in theory a fighter would be capable of doing a sneak attack, I believe that from a game-balance perspective the rogue does not gain untoward power by possessing it while a fighter of equivalent level would gain a much larger benefit. I could support these views with numbers but this post is already pretty wordy and I don't really want to run the calculations.

 

To conclude: d&d values damage potential, and so rogues possess sneak attack in order to allow them to play a skirmishers role in combat. Despite this they still do not generally outperform their peers (at least while reliant on sneak attacks, umd and other skills tend to be far more potent) so while realistically there is no reason for a fighter to lack sneak attack abilities, from a balance perspective the rogue class requires them (at least for inexperienced players).

[JFSOCC]

Combat wise, I can see myself playing a rogue as a debuffer/hexer. Weakening tough opponents, not through damage but skills that weaken defense, reduce stats, lockdown skills. interrupt spellcasting, or create false targets making the enemy waste their useful skills on air.

 

I can see the rogue as a dirty fighter, and I can see the rogue as a force multiplier support character.

[FlintlockJazz]

While rogues are known for their stealthy nature both in and out of battle, many of them are quite talented with machines and contraptions of all sorts. High-born rogues are often very knowledgeable about esoteric, while many low-born rogues are well-equipped to survive in the wild.

 

Steampunk??

 

I was wondering that myself! :D

[Hertzila]

While rogues are known for their stealthy nature both in and out of battle, many of them are quite talented with machines and contraptions of all sorts. High-born rogues are often very knowledgeable about esoteric, while many low-born rogues are well-equipped to survive in the wild.

 

Steampunk??

 

I was wondering that myself! :D

 

I'd certainly hope so. If the most technologically developed nations are on about reneissance level, the popularity of mechanical contraptions should be on the rise.

Rogues also kind of make sense for that kind of specialization, after all who else would need all kinds of devices for different things. Wizards are another possibility for combining steampunk and magic together for even more bizarre stuff but I can't see them actually using the mech-stuff much. If you want to go the hammerite route, priests could also fit.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Hertzila

[LordBlade]

I feel that a Rogue's job should focus on being a "thief" not an "assassin".

 

A rogue should be made around utility and support. Detecting and disarming traps. Picking locks and pockets. Stealthing to scout ahead. And often the con man.

Their combat skills should be minimal because of the dedication needed to master all the other skills. It's the same reasoning behind why a mage would have poor combat skills, because all their training is focused on magic so they have little put into melee and such.

 

I think that a backstab bonus for rogues is appropriate however. It's not so much a matter of knowing anatomy and such, but being able to take advantage of a situation.

Yes, a fighter can attack from behind, but generally you know he's coming. In a fight you're always trying to keep track of all opponents, so while you might leave yourself open to attacks from behind you're also somewhat aware of when they come and will try to avoid them. When that clanking wall of steel comes at you you're not totally off guard. Meanwhile the rogue's backstab bonus is more focused on their traits as a rogue, such as hiding in shadows and such. They get the bigger bonus because they are waiting for the best time to strike, when the enemy has no clue they're there.

 

Any fighter will learn decent anatomy and know where to stick a sword, but their focus will be on training how to swing it and how to block. Learning how to fight an opponent head to head. Meanwhile the rogue doesn't put in as much training in such areas (hence they are weaker in straight up fighting) but spend a lot of their time honing other skills, such as learning the best place to put a dagger, as well as their skills with the thiefly arts.

 

Rogues should NOT be a DPS class. They should be a support role. Their main role should be OUTSIDE of combat. Their combat role should be limited, doing little actual damage for the most part, but they are given the backstab as a way to be somewhat useful in combat while still relying on their stealthy skills. They can also be given skills such a smoke bombs, poisons and other distractions to help support the real fighters in a group. Abilities that won't damage much but will help the others in the party have a better chance of taking down the enemy.

 

And yes, a good fighter will learn all the tricks of the trade. But when you're in close combat with an enemy you don't have the time to rummage through your items to find the right bombs and powders to use all the dirty tricks. A rogue isn't in the thick of things as much and would generally try to avoid being the focus of attention, which allows them to focus more on their sneaky skills.

[BetrayTheWorld]

I feel that a Rogue's job should focus on being a "thief" not an "assassin".

 

The thing is, what "class" is an assassin then? Ultimately, this argument doesn't hold weight when compared to the rest of your post. If rogues have sneak attack, which you say they should, then along with their other skills, they are the class most ideally suited to be an assassin.

 

I'm not saying EVERY rogue needs to be built this way. Rather, I'm saying that giving people the choices on how they want to play/make their character should be a major priority. Let's take a look at what an assassin needs skill-wise, versus what a thief needs.

 

Assassin Required Skillset:

 

A method of attack that can dispatch an unsuspecting target quickly, so that they can escape.(ie, poisons and sneak attack)

Sneak/Hide so they can reach their target unaware.

Disarm Traps/Pick Locks, as above.

For the same reasons, the following skills, if they exist: search, disguise, spot, climbing, bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, etc.

To assist in getting away if things go poorly, tumble.

 

Typical rogue skillset:

 

Rather than rehash all of the above, which are ALL standard rogue skills in D&D, suffice to say that pretty much every rogue skill is either directly useful for an assassin, or supports the skills that are. (Such as search supporting the disable trap skill - Can't disable what you don't see.)

 

Again, this doesn't mean that every rogue would focus their efforts on being the best assassin they could be. My point is, it's a natural fit. So one rogue might focus less on the poisons/sneak attack aspects and more on the picking locks/slight of hand aspects. It's all in their objective. As an example, there is an assassin and a thief. One's target is the man sleeping in the bedroom, while the other's is the safe owned by the man sleeping in the bedroom. Both require the same skills to get to their target. It's not until they're already there, ready to do the deed that any differences become evident.

 

In story form, the above two individuals would look and sound nearly identical all the way up to the point of being inside the bedroom with the man and the safe.

 

I am the assassin, my objective is to get to a location undetected, and kill something.

I am the thief, my objective is to get to a location undetected, and steal something.

 

Note that only one word changes.

 

 

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that I've never argued for rogues to have the same base attack bonus as fighters, so I'm certainly not of the point of view that rogues should be "do-it-all ninjas" that turn into a fighter when they get caught. As it has always been in D&D, a career fighter should always be better in a straight up fight. The increased base attack bonus, along with fighter-specific damage and attack feats accomplishes this. It seems like people arguing in this thread are ignoring just how huge an advantage the BAB progression is that fighters get.

Edited November 19, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[J.E. Sawyer]

One of the issues with this thread is "Why does the rogue get a bonus to attacking from the back when a fighter doesn't?".

Why does an X gain an ability when a Y does not? We're using a class-based system in part because every IE game also used class-based systems. One of the things that class-based systems do to differentiate classes is give them exclusive capabilities. It just so happens that prior to 3E (including most 2nd Ed. thief kits), thieves were generally terrible in combat. Source: playing and DMing literally dozens of thieves in 1st and 2nd Ed. AD&D. The one thing in their favor once combat started (or before combat started) was backstab. It was unreliable, but it's been kept in one form or another over the years. It seems like an obvious thing for them to retain.

 

We're not going to make rogues pure utility characters and we've stated this from the start. For us, the question is not, "Should rogues be able to hold their own in combat?" For us, the question is, "What are the different ways in which rogues should be able to hold their own in combat?" There are many potential answers to that question, but if ideas get shot down because fighters have to consistently smash everyone else to pieces in melee without exception, it's going to be difficult to answer.