The Role of Rogues?

[Sykid]

Perfect answer, thank you Mr. Sawyer.

[BetrayTheWorld]

Now would be a perfect time to lock this thread.

[FlintlockJazz]

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.

 

I don't suppose you'll be able to answer this question yet but is there plans to allow builds that won't bother with the backstab or will all rogues require the use of backstab to get the most out of them?

[Osvir]

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.

 

This right here makes me wonder if the Fighter could be weaker... if the Role of the Fighter is to not be a meat grinder perhaps the Role of the Rogue becomes more interesting? Still, I don't see why everyone should not have backstab (why should it be excluded?). Likewise I don't see the reason to not include a Sneak Attack ability for the Rogue.

 

If everyone has backstab in your party, then everyone you are facing should have it as well (in my opinion this is interesting, and fights will be a lot of positioning, could spawn some weird AI though = Enemies that position themselves behind you and dies when they would've dealt more damage head on).

 

Sneak Attack, however, could work in 360 angles (at the cost of Stamina) for the Rogue. It would be more likely to miss if used head on face-to-face, but you could still do it. It could be seen as the Rogue slipping his dagger between the arms of the enemy and adeptly strike the abdomen or a weak spot. Armpit? etc. etc. Now I don't suggest you should wrestle with a sword in hand but for example's sake, Sword against Dagger, the Sword will be a clumsy weapon and clumsy to use, it'd be better to just drop it and fight unarmed, but a dagger up close and personal (close enough for a wrestle) you can still use flexibly without any restriction.

 

If you are in a fist-fight (real life), quickly move as close as possible (in a hugging position, you want body to touch body almost) because this makes your opponent loose range. It's hard to hit someone who is hugging you for several reasons, but if the intent is to do damage you suddenly don't have the same range to use your sword, or your fist. Imagine someone right now, up close and personal with their face right next to yours in front of you, or go stand in front of a wall. How hard can you hit the wall if you stand right in front of it, comparing to taking 1 step back away from it?

 

Sneak Hug. There we go. The Role of the Rogue.

[BetrayTheWorld]

Sneak Hug. There we go. The Role of the Rogue.

 

Sneak Hug

[TMTVL]

I like to play a rogue as a... Skirmisher? Being better with missile weapons then fighters and being quite a bit more sturdy then wizzies, I pepper the hostiles with arrows and throwing daggers from the shadows. When shadows are in short supply, they pull wizzie guard duty, switching to dagger/sword/what have you if anyone comes too close.

[forgottenlor]

This is a very interesting thread, and I actually made it through ALL 13 pages. I am very different from the OP. I used Rogues in games like MIGHT & MAGIC because it was annoying to have my low hit point characters all die when I opened a chest. In games like Balder's gate, I always used a dual or multiclassed thief, because I didn't want to be disadvantaged in combat, but needed to be able to disarm traps. In modern RPGS (Dragon age, and Neverwinter Nights 2) I didn't bother to use a rogue at all, and just was satisified with taking the minor disadvantage of not opening all chests, but being better in combat.

Unlike the original poster who obviously values realism, I enjoyed computer RPGS, especially the old ones, because different classes had different abilities. Rogues should be able to do something different. Give them critical hits, poison, backstabs, better archery, taunts, or mobility(like the 4th edition D&D Monk or Ranger) or make them so useful out of combat, so that you must have one.

Unfortunately the latter (which the original poster prefers) will probably lead everyone to have one and only one rogue in their group. Give them something they can do in combat, and it might justify the use of mulitple rogues.

[FlintlockJazz]

A bit of a thread necro I know but I been thinking (gasp the horror!) and I reckons I got what it is that's been a bugging me about these here rogues and the issues I been having with them.

 

First off, the sneak attack thing: if the only thing you can bring to combat is a sneak attack then that's not good enough. If you're only playing one character or if everyone can sneak attack then it's fine, since you can focus completely on it if it's your only character or take advantage of it with whatever character happens to get into the right position, but when it's specific to one character and you're controlling a whole party I have to say I question whether it's worth the effort half the time: it doesn't provide a tactical advantage to the whole team, it's only a bonus to the rogue, and it takes a lot of planning just for that one guy, whose taking up a space that could have been used for another frontline fighter or spellcaster. For me, sneak attack is often just not worth the bother and the rogue being required to have it means that for the sake of balance between the classes he probably doesn't get to have some other ability that I would appreciate more. Plus, sneak attack being a required part of the class in most systems means you are often not able to play them as pirates or Errol Flynn type swashbuckler without essentially ignoring a part of the class' features and gimping yourself (because they just can't compete then with a fighter in a straight up fight).

 

Now you are probably saying that that sounds like more of a dex-based fighter anyway and should play it like that anyway, and you'd be right, but then we come to the second problem: the rogues usually have exclusive domain over lockpicking and trapfinding, if you want to use either of those skills you are forced to bring one of them along. I realised this when trying to create a Storm of Zehir party, if I wanted a trapfinder I needed to take a rogue. Now, that might sound like normal niche protection, but that's not the case: if you don't want a fighter to fulfill the martial side of things you can always resort to a monk or paladin or ranger instead, sure they have different styles of fighting but that's the point you have a bit of variety, while if you want a spellcaster you can always go with the standard mage but you could also go with sorcerer or bard instead. Finding traps? Nope, the rogue is sat on it picking his snotty nose, despite the fact that other classes such as the ranger would have perfectly valid reasons for needing trapfinding skills as guerilla warriors. This usually ends up with either rogues not being taken because the game doesn't want to force you to take a rogue or them being essential and so you are forced to take a rogue whether you like it or not. Why can't a fighter built like a pirate have open locks and trapfinding? You may say that you can, just play a fighter with a level of rogue, but then that involves multiclassing, which can be pain if you're not playing human in D&D (and multiclassing is not confirmed for PE) and still involves, guess who, the rogue!

 

Now this might sound like a rant against rogues, but it's not. The point that I am trying to make is that as it stands the rogue doesn't bring anything to the table for me that helps the party in combat, he's a weak fighter at best, while only allowing the rogue to take trapfinding and open locks only makes me need to take a rogue not want to take a rogue (assuming the game even makes valid use of them). I want to want to take a rogue the same way I might want to take a paladin or cipher, not for the privilege of opening a few chests or so that my party doesn't walk into every trap on the way.

[Somna]

[...] Plus, sneak attack being a required part of the class in most systems means you are often not able to play them as pirates or Errol Flynn type swashbuckler without essentially ignoring a part of the class' features and gimping yourself (because they just can't compete then with a fighter in a straight up fight).

[...]

 

FYI, they added a mechanic called "Skirmish" later on that you'd probably use for a Swashbuckler or pirate instead. First time I saw it was with the Scout class, but I don't see why it couldn't be borrowed and thrown in as a Sneak Attack substitute for Rogues..

[JFSOCC]

A bit of a thread necro I know but I been thinking (gasp the horror!) and I reckons I got what it is that's been a bugging me about these here rogues and the issues I been having with them.

 

First off, the sneak attack thing: if the only thing you can bring to combat is a sneak attack then that's not good enough. If you're only playing one character or if everyone can sneak attack then it's fine, since you can focus completely on it if it's your only character or take advantage of it with whatever character happens to get into the right position, but when it's specific to one character and you're controlling a whole party I have to say I question whether it's worth the effort half the time: it doesn't provide a tactical advantage to the whole team, it's only a bonus to the rogue, and it takes a lot of planning just for that one guy, whose taking up a space that could have been used for another frontline fighter or spellcaster. For me, sneak attack is often just not worth the bother and the rogue being required to have it means that for the sake of balance between the classes he probably doesn't get to have some other ability that I would appreciate more. Plus, sneak attack being a required part of the class in most systems means you are often not able to play them as pirates or Errol Flynn type swashbuckler without essentially ignoring a part of the class' features and gimping yourself (because they just can't compete then with a fighter in a straight up fight).

 

Now you are probably saying that that sounds like more of a dex-based fighter anyway and should play it like that anyway, and you'd be right, but then we come to the second problem: the rogues usually have exclusive domain over lockpicking and trapfinding, if you want to use either of those skills you are forced to bring one of them along. I realised this when trying to create a Storm of Zehir party, if I wanted a trapfinder I needed to take a rogue. Now, that might sound like normal niche protection, but that's not the case: if you don't want a fighter to fulfill the martial side of things you can always resort to a monk or paladin or ranger instead, sure they have different styles of fighting but that's the point you have a bit of variety, while if you want a spellcaster you can always go with the standard mage but you could also go with sorcerer or bard instead. Finding traps? Nope, the rogue is sat on it picking his snotty nose, despite the fact that other classes such as the ranger would have perfectly valid reasons for needing trapfinding skills as guerilla warriors. This usually ends up with either rogues not being taken because the game doesn't want to force you to take a rogue or them being essential and so you are forced to take a rogue whether you like it or not. Why can't a fighter built like a pirate have open locks and trapfinding? You may say that you can, just play a fighter with a level of rogue, but then that involves multiclassing, which can be pain if you're not playing human in D&D (and multiclassing is not confirmed for PE) and still involves, guess who, the rogue!

 

Now this might sound like a rant against rogues, but it's not. The point that I am trying to make is that as it stands the rogue doesn't bring anything to the table for me that helps the party in combat, he's a weak fighter at best, while only allowing the rogue to take trapfinding and open locks only makes me need to take a rogue not want to take a rogue (assuming the game even makes valid use of them). I want to want to take a rogue the same way I might want to take a paladin or cipher, not for the privilege of opening a few chests or so that my party doesn't walk into every trap on the way.

this and only this is why I think the rogue should be a debuffer. not because I'm a particular fan of playing my rogue that way, but because if you want all classes to be viable in combat (as I believe I read somewhere the intent is) you best have something fun and tactical for the rogue to do.Once the rogue has a role in combat other than just the backstab/sneak attack, you can re-imagine the class and it's purpose.

[Dragoonlordz]

I think rogues should be as good as fighters. Now the amount of damage done would be related to stats obviously given game is based on stats and skills but I see no major reason to nerf the combat ability of a rogue vs warrior if both had same stats and same weapon. They do however need their own 'hooks' as others put it. Healer only one with healing spells, a necromancer would be only one whho could control the undead, a rogue only one who knows how to pickpocket, traps and stealth etc. Forcing the classes into (only) one role like healer only heal, rogue only traps and pickpocket but bad at everything else etc seems bad to me. I don't think it is a good thing to have entire party wiped out just because warrior dies and you have made every other class suck at direct fighting.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Dragoonlordz

[FlintlockJazz]

FYI, they added a mechanic called "Skirmish" later on that you'd probably use for a Swashbuckler or pirate instead. First time I saw it was with the Scout class, but I don't see why it couldn't be borrowed and thrown in as a Sneak Attack substitute for Rogues..

 

See, that choice is kinda what I'm arguing for. While I don't know how effective that skirmish option was, if they made sneak attack an option rather than there by default it would make for more possible rogues that could fit different playstyles. Want to be the backstabbing assassin? Then you can take the Assassin branch and develop things like sneak attack, but if you want to be a pirate instead you could take the 'YARR' branch instead that gives you other skills like dirty fighting techniques!

 

this and only this is why I think the rogue should be a debuffer. not because I'm a particular fan of playing my rogue that way, but because if you want all classes to be viable in combat (as I believe I read somewhere the intent is) you best have something fun and tactical for the rogue to do.Once the rogue has a role in combat other than just the backstab/sneak attack, you can re-imagine the class and it's purpose.

 

Yeah, I agree totally, I think the rogue does need some serious reworking because as it stands, for a 'core' class it's rather limited and situational at the moment compared to the other core classes (Fighter, Priest and Mage).

[Osvir]

FYI, they added a mechanic called "Skirmish" later on that you'd probably use for a Swashbuckler or pirate instead. First time I saw it was with the Scout class, but I don't see why it couldn't be borrowed and thrown in as a Sneak Attack substitute for Rogues..

 

See, that choice is kinda what I'm arguing for. While I don't know how effective that skirmish option was, if they made sneak attack an option rather than there by default it would make for more possible rogues that could fit different playstyles. Want to be the backstabbing assassin? Then you can take the Assassin branch and develop things like sneak attack, but if you want to be a pirate instead you could take the 'YARR' branch instead that gives you other skills like dirty fighting techniques!

 

This thought popped up a week or so ago when discussing Ciphers. Are Rogues the only class applicable to being an Assassin? I'd like to argue against that.

 

Rogues are more applicable to being thieves. A James Bond character, agile, unpredictable and very intelligent. Street smart. Scum of the Slum. The Rogue doesn't feel like he was trained to do damage, or trained to sneak into buildings (infiltrating) and take someones life, sure, probably take some gold or valuables for his own journeys and adventures, but taking a life? No, I can't see it. Not by profession, way of life. A Rogue with a nasty personality? Sure, but not the everyday hitchhiker~traveler. No.

 

Thief is not "Assassin", that's my conclusion. Let's take a look at what Ciphers are and see if they fit the Assassin role... yes, most definitely. Soul manipulating, soul eating S.O.B's with psionic abilities? Mind reading, keeps to themselves, possibly what people would call "Gifted" or be afraid of (Spec Ops), heck maybe not even knowing about them. Mind Control? Mind Erasing? What can the Cipher do? I think about "Ghost" (StarCraft) when I look at Ciphers. An applicable Assassin? Yes.

 

I linked here from there but doing the vice-versa here. Torches!

I would say keep them where you can see if you want them to be effective, so if they leave the 'light pool' their critical miss chance and other stats change, so that they are more likely to be hit, hurt themselves or friendlies, etc.

 

This should be difficulty based. I don't want my party to miss too much or be all critically dangerous to themselves on Easy up to Normal, whilst on Hard and Expert it should be noticeably different.

 

Could the Rogue+Cipher have the ability to critical hit in "darkness"/shadows, whilst the rest of the classes can only deal normal damage in "darkness"/shadows? The Rogue should be accustomed to darkness, regardless if having a nightvision thing~ or not. So if darkness is going to be penalizing somehow, I would like to see the Rogue (and other shadow curious classes, e.g., Cipher) not get as much penalties.

 

I am including the Cipher in the sentence because I see it possibly having an Assassin Kit more so than the Rogue having it (I see the Rogue having a Thief Kit).

[ogrezilla]

Sure, a Thief isn't an Assassin. And a Rogue isn't a Thief. A Rogue is an unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal. A wandering beggar; a vagrant. Or someone operating outside normal or desirable controls. That might lead them to steal things. Or it might lead them to assassinate people. The main thing to expect from a Rogue is for them to have little respect for honor, the law and a fair challenge. They will do what they can to tilt the odds in their favor. Dirty tricks should be expected. But whether they are using these tricks to steal or fight or murder is completely left out of the definition of Rogue.

Edited December 13, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Osvir]

True. But an "Assassin" implies that the person has been trained, by profession, to be a killer. "Hitman" springs to mind. Something I feel that the Rogue falls short on. To me, the very essence of the Rogue lies in wandering, drifting, adventuring. A skilled Rogue, who is possibly a bad person too, is skilled enough to be able to kill people. Does the act of killing/murdering imply that the person is an assassin? Yes and no. If hired as a mercenary, which I can see the Rogue being, yes, a Rogue being a Contractor for shoddy and dirty tricks, the act of killing as well. But that's that, a Contractor, not an Assassin.

 

Really though, I'm just arguing against a straw man (I think? I don't really grasp the concept of what "straw man" is yet).

 

If the Cipher could focus on the "Assassin" part (being DPS, the thing many seems to not want from the Rogue come 3rd Edition, what with the backstabbing and all), the Rogue could focus on the "Thief" part.

 

Instead of putting both of them on the Rogue. What started in this thread, how I see it, people want something like this:

 

Rogue (Support in itself?):

- Possibility to go Assassin Kit

- Possibility to go Thief Kit

 

Balancing a class with these two taken into consideration seems like a bit much, this is how I thought:

 

Rogue

- Thief Kit

 

Cipher

- Assassin Kit

 

I didn't do well in school but one thing I remember is my teachers, and in the homework, always telling me "Motivate", "Why", "How" and so on. Specially in mathematics, you can easily solve 1+1 but we had to tell how we were thinking as well.

 

If the Rogue focuses on a Support role, not with the intention to being good in combat but out of combat, we could get a True Support character in P:E. Someone who just won't be good in combat and has to dodge, evade and sneak his way through some encounters.

 

League of Legends reference: I only play Support. A Support role can't do anything by him/herself, hardly really. Pretty much everyone can take down the support, even the sort of Support I play can be taken down by the enemy team Support. It isn't about dishing out a ton of damage, it is about protecting the team, whilst distracting the enemy. The Support is mostly the weakest, squishy and goes down in a couple of hits, but with the abilities the Support has (I almost wrote Rogue) he/she can get away from difficult encounters.

 

As Janna I can get away 1v5, I can't deal any damage (a tiny amount), what matters is that I can survive. The Survivability of a Support is amazing, if all skills are utilized properly in the right way. That's how I see the Rogue, and I do hope that it could fulfill that role.

 

The Rogue could have nets, grappling hooks, on-the-fly-Traps, acid potions that they throw, smoke bombs. Batman utility in a sense.

 

If the Rogue is focused on being a Support, and doesn't need to think about being part of the "Assassin Kit" (that modern games make it into) it could be focused much deeper. Hence why I think the Cipher would be better with the Assassin Kit. The time it takes to implement "Assassin" into Rogue is instead used and implemented into the Cipher.

 

Example:

Rogue with a Thief role and an "Assassin" role is 100% workload apart from finding the Rogue's place in the world. Instead, giving the Assassin to Cipher you'll look at 50% workload to the Cipher and 50% to the Rogue. Still the same amount of workload but you just managed to cover 2 Classes, instead of addressing just 1. Though, is it an effective method?

 

I like the idea Obsidian seems to go about with the "Anyone can wield anything, they just won't be as good as those specialized or trained for it from start". Naturally that would mean that the Rogue could go the Assassin route based on what kind of equipment they wear and how they act in battle. That would ease a lot of headaches for developers and players alike, I think.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Osvir

[Somna]

FYI, they added a mechanic called "Skirmish" later on that you'd probably use for a Swashbuckler or pirate instead. First time I saw it was with the Scout class, but I don't see why it couldn't be borrowed and thrown in as a Sneak Attack substitute for Rogues..

 

See, that choice is kinda what I'm arguing for. While I don't know how effective that skirmish option was, if they made sneak attack an option rather than there by default it would make for more possible rogues that could fit different playstyles. Want to be the backstabbing assassin? Then you can take the Assassin branch and develop things like sneak attack, but if you want to be a pirate instead you could take the 'YARR' branch instead that gives you other skills like dirty fighting techniques!

 

[...]

 

I don't know if I will break any rules with a direct copy/paste, so I'll just summarize.

 

Skirmish gives you bonus damage and bonus AC in any round where you move at least 10 feet. The bonus damage follows the Sneak Attack rules in terms of immunities (i.e. can't be crit immune) and who it can affect except that the flat-footed restriction is replaced by the previously mentioned movement restriction. Damage only goes up every 4 levels instead of 2 and only applies on damage on the user's turn. The bonus AC takes effect as soon as the 10 feet is moved and lasts until you start your turn again. There's also a light armor only restriction.

 

It's a lot easier to get Skirmish off but you do more damage with Sneak Attack.

[Dream]

I always saw rogues as melee glass cannons that relied on dodge and evasive abilities to avoid damage (as opposed to fighters who just took it on the chin).

Edited December 13, 2012 by Dream

[xSigma]

I don't know...cipher assassin?

EDIT: Now that I think about it...that would be pretty darn cool. Think of Serenity , the movie.

I usually play an assassin or thief. Mage being my second option, i'd like them different from my other initial characters.

 

I agree completely with Ogrezilla

Sure, a Thief isn't an Assassin. And a Rogue isn't a Thief. A Rogue is an unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal. A wandering beggar; a vagrant. Or someone operating outside normal or desirable controls. That might lead them to steal things. Or it might lead them to assassinate people. The main thing to expect from a Rogue is for them to have little respect for honor, the law and a fair challenge. They will do what they can to tilt the odds in their favor. Dirty tricks should be expected. But whether they are using these tricks to steal or fight or murder is completely left out of the definition of Rogue.

This is what I want in my rogue,...this and cloth physics on hooded cloaks...and daggers

Edited December 14, 2012 by xSigma

[ogrezilla]

True. But an "Assassin" implies that the person has been trained, by profession, to be a killer. "Hitman" springs to mind. Something I feel that the Rogue falls short on. To me, the very essence of the Rogue lies in wandering, drifting, adventuring. A skilled Rogue, who is possibly a bad person too, is skilled enough to be able to kill people. Does the act of killing/murdering imply that the person is an assassin? Yes and no. If hired as a mercenary, which I can see the Rogue being, yes, a Rogue being a Contractor for shoddy and dirty tricks, the act of killing as well. But that's that, a Contractor, not an Assassin.

 

Really though, I'm just arguing against a straw man (I think? I don't really grasp the concept of what "straw man" is yet).

 

If the Cipher could focus on the "Assassin" part (being DPS, the thing many seems to not want from the Rogue come 3rd Edition, what with the backstabbing and all), the Rogue could focus on the "Thief" part.

 

Instead of putting both of them on the Rogue. What started in this thread, how I see it, people want something like this:

 

Rogue (Support in itself?):

- Possibility to go Assassin Kit

- Possibility to go Thief Kit

 

Balancing a class with these two taken into consideration seems like a bit much, this is how I thought:

 

Rogue

- Thief Kit

 

Cipher

- Assassin Kit

 

I didn't do well in school but one thing I remember is my teachers, and in the homework, always telling me "Motivate", "Why", "How" and so on. Specially in mathematics, you can easily solve 1+1 but we had to tell how we were thinking as well.

 

If the Rogue focuses on a Support role, not with the intention to being good in combat but out of combat, we could get a True Support character in P:E. Someone who just won't be good in combat and has to dodge, evade and sneak his way through some encounters.

 

League of Legends reference: I only play Support. A Support role can't do anything by him/herself, hardly really. Pretty much everyone can take down the support, even the sort of Support I play can be taken down by the enemy team Support. It isn't about dishing out a ton of damage, it is about protecting the team, whilst distracting the enemy. The Support is mostly the weakest, squishy and goes down in a couple of hits, but with the abilities the Support has (I almost wrote Rogue) he/she can get away from difficult encounters.

 

As Janna I can get away 1v5, I can't deal any damage (a tiny amount), what matters is that I can survive. The Survivability of a Support is amazing, if all skills are utilized properly in the right way. That's how I see the Rogue, and I do hope that it could fulfill that role.

 

The Rogue could have nets, grappling hooks, on-the-fly-Traps, acid potions that they throw, smoke bombs. Batman utility in a sense.

 

If the Rogue is focused on being a Support, and doesn't need to think about being part of the "Assassin Kit" (that modern games make it into) it could be focused much deeper. Hence why I think the Cipher would be better with the Assassin Kit. The time it takes to implement "Assassin" into Rogue is instead used and implemented into the Cipher.

 

Example:

Rogue with a Thief role and an "Assassin" role is 100% workload apart from finding the Rogue's place in the world. Instead, giving the Assassin to Cipher you'll look at 50% workload to the Cipher and 50% to the Rogue. Still the same amount of workload but you just managed to cover 2 Classes, instead of addressing just 1. Though, is it an effective method?

 

I like the idea Obsidian seems to go about with the "Anyone can wield anything, they just won't be as good as those specialized or trained for it from start". Naturally that would mean that the Rogue could go the Assassin route based on what kind of equipment they wear and how they act in battle. That would ease a lot of headaches for developers and players alike, I think.

 

I fully support the type of rogue and cypher you are describing. But I also think rogues should be able to be built to be really good at stabbing people in the back. Even if it just means they are better at getting to the back than other classes; no special damage boost required. I like options within each class.

Edited December 14, 2012 by ogrezilla

[AlKim]

FYI, they added a mechanic called "Skirmish" later on that you'd probably use for a Swashbuckler or pirate instead. First time I saw it was with the Scout class, but I don't see why it couldn't be borrowed and thrown in as a Sneak Attack substitute for Rogues..

See, that choice is kinda what I'm arguing for. While I don't know how effective that skirmish option was, if they made sneak attack an option rather than there by default it would make for more possible rogues that could fit different playstyles. Want to be the backstabbing assassin? Then you can take the Assassin branch and develop things like sneak attack, but if you want to be a pirate instead you could take the 'YARR' branch instead that gives you other skills like dirty fighting techniques!

 

[...]

I don't know if I will break any rules with a direct copy/paste, so I'll just summarize.

 

Skirmish gives you bonus damage and bonus AC in any round where you move at least 10 feet. The bonus damage follows the Sneak Attack rules in terms of immunities (i.e. can't be crit immune) and who it can affect except that the flat-footed restriction is replaced by the previously mentioned movement restriction. Damage only goes up every 4 levels instead of 2 and only applies on damage on the user's turn. The bonus AC takes effect as soon as the 10 feet is moved and lasts until you start your turn again. There's also a light armor only restriction.

 

It's a lot easier to get Skirmish off but you do more damage with Sneak Attack.

Yeah, Skirmish is ridiculously easy to use (especially with a bow), but the low damage bonus often made me wonder if it's actually worth it because moving more than five feet makes you lose Full Attack. With a decent weapon and maybe a feat or two (I'm looking at you, Rapid Shot), you would actually benefit more from standing still, unless you had to relocate to fire around a corner or something.

[Somna]

FYI, they added a mechanic called "Skirmish" later on that you'd probably use for a Swashbuckler or pirate instead. First time I saw it was with the Scout class, but I don't see why it couldn't be borrowed and thrown in as a Sneak Attack substitute for Rogues..

See, that choice is kinda what I'm arguing for. While I don't know how effective that skirmish option was, if they made sneak attack an option rather than there by default it would make for more possible rogues that could fit different playstyles. Want to be the backstabbing assassin? Then you can take the Assassin branch and develop things like sneak attack, but if you want to be a pirate instead you could take the 'YARR' branch instead that gives you other skills like dirty fighting techniques!

 

[...]

I don't know if I will break any rules with a direct copy/paste, so I'll just summarize.

 

Skirmish gives you bonus damage and bonus AC in any round where you move at least 10 feet. The bonus damage follows the Sneak Attack rules in terms of immunities (i.e. can't be crit immune) and who it can affect except that the flat-footed restriction is replaced by the previously mentioned movement restriction. Damage only goes up every 4 levels instead of 2 and only applies on damage on the user's turn. The bonus AC takes effect as soon as the 10 feet is moved and lasts until you start your turn again. There's also a light armor only restriction.

 

It's a lot easier to get Skirmish off but you do more damage with Sneak Attack.

Yeah, Skirmish is ridiculously easy to use (especially with a bow), but the low damage bonus often made me wonder if it's actually worth it because moving more than five feet makes you lose Full Attack. With a decent weapon and maybe a feat or two (I'm looking at you, Rapid Shot), you would actually benefit more from standing still, unless you had to relocate to fire around a corner or something.

 

Depending on how much splat you incorporated, there are ways to move 10 feet or use your swift action for a move action (and thus trigger Skirmish) and still be able to get a full attack off.

[FlintlockJazz]

This thought popped up a week or so ago when discussing Ciphers. Are Rogues the only class applicable to being an Assassin? I'd like to argue against that.

 

Rogues are more applicable to being thieves. A James Bond character, agile, unpredictable and very intelligent. Street smart. Scum of the Slum. The Rogue doesn't feel like he was trained to do damage, or trained to sneak into buildings (infiltrating) and take someones life, sure, probably take some gold or valuables for his own journeys and adventures, but taking a life? No, I can't see it. Not by profession, way of life. A Rogue with a nasty personality? Sure, but not the everyday hitchhiker~traveler. No.

 

Thief is not "Assassin", that's my conclusion. Let's take a look at what Ciphers are and see if they fit the Assassin role... yes, most definitely. Soul manipulating, soul eating S.O.B's with psionic abilities? Mind reading, keeps to themselves, possibly what people would call "Gifted" or be afraid of (Spec Ops), heck maybe not even knowing about them. Mind Control? Mind Erasing? What can the Cipher do? I think about "Ghost" (StarCraft) when I look at Ciphers. An applicable Assassin? Yes.

 

I linked here from there but doing the vice-versa here. Torches!

I would say keep them where you can see if you want them to be effective, so if they leave the 'light pool' their critical miss chance and other stats change, so that they are more likely to be hit, hurt themselves or friendlies, etc.

 

This should be difficulty based. I don't want my party to miss too much or be all critically dangerous to themselves on Easy up to Normal, whilst on Hard and Expert it should be noticeably different.

 

Could the Rogue+Cipher have the ability to critical hit in "darkness"/shadows, whilst the rest of the classes can only deal normal damage in "darkness"/shadows? The Rogue should be accustomed to darkness, regardless if having a nightvision thing~ or not. So if darkness is going to be penalizing somehow, I would like to see the Rogue (and other shadow curious classes, e.g., Cipher) not get as much penalties.

 

I am including the Cipher in the sentence because I see it possibly having an Assassin Kit more so than the Rogue having it (I see the Rogue having a Thief Kit).

 

Put it that way a cipher assassin would indeed be rather awesome. I still think the 'traditional' assassin using daggers and such could work better as a rogue, but I also think a ranger or even a fighter skilled in stealth would work just as well if not better as an assassin too. I could easily see sneak attack being a part of the ranger's favored enemy benefits as well.

[Nixl]

I admit, I always thought of Rogues in the sense Morrowind made them; medium combat with some non-weapons/armor perks. Although in Morrowind, class does not matter all that much, since everything is open to you. Additionally, Obsidian appears keen to keep combat perks/skills separate from non-combat skills. Thus, the Morrowind concept probably would not fit as well.

 

I agree that the role of damage dealer is not as appealing. On the otherhand, I would much prefer a support or defense oriented design for rogues rather than a thief or steal class.

 

This is possibly unrelated, but I love the Cipher concept in the post quoted below. The Cipher as an assassin in the sense of a Ghost from Starcraft or the character from Psi Ops seems thrilling. That would bring a unique element to the class in my opinion.

True. But an "Assassin" implies that the person has been trained, by profession, to be a killer. "Hitman" springs to mind. Something I feel that the Rogue falls short on. To me, the very essence of the Rogue lies in wandering, drifting, adventuring. A skilled Rogue, who is possibly a bad person too, is skilled enough to be able to kill people. Does the act of killing/murdering imply that the person is an assassin? Yes and no. If hired as a mercenary, which I can see the Rogue being, yes, a Rogue being a Contractor for shoddy and dirty tricks, the act of killing as well. But that's that, a Contractor, not an Assassin.

 

Really though, I'm just arguing against a straw man (I think? I don't really grasp the concept of what "straw man" is yet).

 

If the Cipher could focus on the "Assassin" part (being DPS, the thing many seems to not want from the Rogue come 3rd Edition, what with the backstabbing and all), the Rogue could focus on the "Thief" part.

 

Instead of putting both of them on the Rogue. What started in this thread, how I see it, people want something like this:

 

Rogue (Support in itself?):

- Possibility to go Assassin Kit

- Possibility to go Thief Kit

 

Balancing a class with these two taken into consideration seems like a bit much, this is how I thought:

 

Rogue

- Thief Kit

 

Cipher

- Assassin Kit

 

 

Edited December 14, 2012 by Nixl

[JFSOCC]

Sure, a Thief isn't an Assassin. And a Rogue isn't a Thief. A Rogue is an unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal. A wandering beggar; a vagrant. Or someone operating outside normal or desirable controls. That might lead them to steal things. Or it might lead them to assassinate people. The main thing to expect from a Rogue is for them to have little respect for honor, the law and a fair challenge. They will do what they can to tilt the odds in their favor. Dirty tricks should be expected. But whether they are using these tricks to steal or fight or murder is completely left out of the definition of Rogue.

True. But an "Assassin" implies that the person has been trained, by profession, to be a killer. "Hitman" springs to mind. Something I feel that the Rogue falls short on. To me, the very essence of the Rogue lies in wandering, drifting, adventuring. A skilled Rogue, who is possibly a bad person too, is skilled enough to be able to kill people. Does the act of killing/murdering imply that the person is an assassin? Yes and no. If hired as a mercenary, which I can see the Rogue being, yes, a Rogue being a Contractor for shoddy and dirty tricks, the act of killing as well. But that's that, a Contractor, not an Assassin.

 

Really though, I'm just arguing against a straw man (I think? I don't really grasp the concept of what "straw man" is yet).

 

If the Cipher could focus on the "Assassin" part (being DPS, the thing many seems to not want from the Rogue come 3rd Edition, what with the backstabbing and all), the Rogue could focus on the "Thief" part.

 

Instead of putting both of them on the Rogue. What started in this thread, how I see it, people want something like this:

 

Rogue (Support in itself?):

- Possibility to go Assassin Kit

- Possibility to go Thief Kit

 

Balancing a class with these two taken into consideration seems like a bit much, this is how I thought:

 

Rogue

- Thief Kit

 

Cipher

- Assassin Kit

 

I didn't do well in school but one thing I remember is my teachers, and in the homework, always telling me "Motivate", "Why", "How" and so on. Specially in mathematics, you can easily solve 1+1 but we had to tell how we were thinking as well.

 

If the Rogue focuses on a Support role, not with the intention to being good in combat but out of combat, we could get a True Support character in P:E. Someone who just won't be good in combat and has to dodge, evade and sneak his way through some encounters.

 

League of Legends reference: I only play Support. A Support role can't do anything by him/herself, hardly really. Pretty much everyone can take down the support, even the sort of Support I play can be taken down by the enemy team Support. It isn't about dishing out a ton of damage, it is about protecting the team, whilst distracting the enemy. The Support is mostly the weakest, squishy and goes down in a couple of hits, but with the abilities the Support has (I almost wrote Rogue) he/she can get away from difficult encounters.

 

As Janna I can get away 1v5, I can't deal any damage (a tiny amount), what matters is that I can survive. The Survivability of a Support is amazing, if all skills are utilized properly in the right way. That's how I see the Rogue, and I do hope that it could fulfill that role.

 

The Rogue could have nets, grappling hooks, on-the-fly-Traps, acid potions that they throw, smoke bombs. Batman utility in a sense.

 

If the Rogue is focused on being a Support, and doesn't need to think about being part of the "Assassin Kit" (that modern games make it into) it could be focused much deeper. Hence why I think the Cipher would be better with the Assassin Kit. The time it takes to implement "Assassin" into Rogue is instead used and implemented into the Cipher.

 

Example:

Rogue with a Thief role and an "Assassin" role is 100% workload apart from finding the Rogue's place in the world. Instead, giving the Assassin to Cipher you'll look at 50% workload to the Cipher and 50% to the Rogue. Still the same amount of workload but you just managed to cover 2 Classes, instead of addressing just 1. Though, is it an effective method?

 

I like the idea Obsidian seems to go about with the "Anyone can wield anything, they just won't be as good as those specialized or trained for it from start". Naturally that would mean that the Rogue could go the Assassin route based on what kind of equipment they wear and how they act in battle. That would ease a lot of headaches for developers and players alike, I think.

I play my rogue characters as an "Agent" IE a professional spy/saboteur.

[Osvir]

As this is the "Role of the Rogue" thread, how will "Stealth" work? (in essence: Hide in Shadows)

 

With a game with souls and I recall some discussion (and Obs statements) on "Hide in Shadows" would be some sort of "magical veil"... could the Rogue be able to draw on the soul of a shadow and be able to move from one shadow to another in darkness? (duration-based, so you have to move to the other shadow or else you're going to go "visible").