The Role of Rogues?

[Osvir]

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...

 

The sillyness you speak of about pickpocketing and quick-loading I'm sure something you chose to do yourself. But nonetheless I do agree with you that it is silly at the same time. How could it be done better? What could be done so that you do not quickload? I'm suggesting that something would happen if your pickpocketing fails, and if you load you'd miss story/banter (Talk yourself out of it)/another section of gameplay/areas (jail) and so on.

 

Should the game restrict us from abusing it or should we restrict ourselves from abusing it?

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61047-should-a-game-restrict-us-from-abusing-it-or-should-we-restrict-ourselves-from-abusing-it/

[Osvir]

I fancy idea of classes having certain unique hooks.

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

Clerics should be reserved to the heal and buff role.

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

 

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

</end of rant>

 

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.

 

Let's just make one Class and one Race that is everything in one go, right? Is that what you are suggesting?

 

The dashing Rogue is often and fondly known as the "clown" in many RPG's and stories generally, the one who taunts only to **** his pants running away from an angry mob of taunted Mummy's or whatnot.

[ravenshrike]

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...

 

The sillyness you speak of about pickpocketing and quick-loading I'm sure something you chose to do yourself. But nonetheless I do agree with you that it is silly at the same time. How could it be done better? What could be done so that you do not quickload? I'm suggesting that something would happen if your pickpocketing fails, and if you load you'd miss story/banter (Talk yourself out of it)/another section of gameplay/areas (jail) and so on.

 

Should the game restrict us from abusing it or should we restrict ourselves from abusing it?

http://forums.obsidi...rom-abusing-it/

I would much, much, much rather that Obsidian didn't try to protect people from their own stupidity.

[TrashMan]

I fancy idea of classes having certain unique hooks.

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

Clerics should be reserved to the heal and buff role.

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

 

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

</end of rant>

 

No.

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

 

Anyone can taunt.

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

 

Let's just make one Class and one Race that is everything in one go, right? Is that what you are suggesting?

 

The dashing Rogue is often and fondly known as the "clown" in many RPG's and stories generally, the one who taunts only to **** his pants running away from an angry mob of taunted Mummy's or whatnot.

 

What?

What are you babblling about?

 

How the hell did you get that idea? Did you even read what I wrote?

[Amentep]

I'm not really beholden to this, but...

 

If damage around the back is to be more damagey (or realistically, more likely to hit?), then anyone who is attacking the back should get that bonus. If rogues have mobility, then they're more likely to be able to exploit it, but its not an ingrained rogue ability and if the fighter gets behind an opponent they can get the bonus as well.

 

If a rogue is hiding in shadows (a mechanic I'm not 100% fond of), I could see the argument that their initial attack role coming out of shadows should treat the opponent as "flat footed" (ie chance to succeed is based only on armor and not ability to defend of the opponent). This would only be applicable to other classes if they can mimic the "hiding in shadows" (say invisibility spell cast on the fighter).

 

I'd make taunts available to all classes, but maybe rogues are just "better" at taunting so have a greater chance of succes than other classes?

[Tigranes]

Thread title fixed, the universe will live on another day.

[Osvir]

What?

What are you babblling about?

 

How the hell did you get that idea? Did you even read what I wrote?

 

Yes I read what you wrote, and I was being annoyed. The more I discuss with you the more you put everything into the "All can do it Category".

 

I don't mean to be rude, but what kind of role are you looking for in the Rogue?

 

I read your original post, several times, and I'm wondering if it is a pisstake on what Rogue's are today or an actual constructive idea in there somewhere (Tumbling/Evasion which sounds cool) that makes them special in any way in a combat situation/out of combat situation. How will this work with the Mage's ability to cast spells? How will this work with the Fighter's ability to tank?

 

What is the Rogue's Role in the Unity of the Party? Is he the Left Arm or the Right Arm? What is his disadvantage, as well as his advantage?

 

If he is mainly Utility and only used "Out Of Combat", can't he simply be an Item? Why do I need a full party slot for someone who can't do anything but "Search"/"Find Traps"/"Pickpocket"/"Bluff"/"Scout" and so on.

 

Heck, what different roles could a Rogue have? I can see several and I know as a fact that people play differently:

 

* Support/Utility Skill Tree

If you go this way you'll get your classical Rogue from the old IE games (I prefer this myself)

 

* Backstabbing DPS Skill Tree

A more modern take on the Rogue, and if you choose to level it this way you'll get the more combat oriented Class you are looking for

 

* Both~

Of course you can also mix and combine the two.

[metiman]

I hate the whole idea of taunts. What a silly game mechanic that is. As if all of your foes only do things for emotional reasons. Maybe they want to kill you for logical reasons. Or just because they are hungry. Maybe they could care less about your teasing (which a nonhuman isn't going to understand anyway) and are smart enough to go after whichever characters have the lowest hit points and highest armor class. That's the kind of game I want to play where at least most of the enemies are reasonably smart and can sense which characters are the most vulnerable and then go after them. The rest is just silliness. At the very least I'd restrict taunts from only working against other humans.

 

The idea behind a backstab, or think of it as a neckstab if you want, is that it's a surprise attack and the effectively invisible and silent thief has plenty of time to jam his dagger or short sword into wherever he likes. The victim isn't defending himself at all against the attack. That can make a big difference. Of course you might get into the silliness of the whole hiding in shadows and moving silently thing. Unless it's a very dark room with lots of background noise from like machines or something that isn't very realistic.

 

I think all of this implausible stuff was an attempt to make a class whose original function was mostly to disarm traps and maybe find secret doors into something other than dead weight the rest of the time. There were a lot of traps in early D&D. The Tomb of Horrors was everyone's darling back in the day. I still love those illustrations (would be nice to get that guy for PE), but it had a lot of deadly traps. So you pretty much had to drag along a thief who was otherwise not good for much. Except maybe backstabbing on rare occasion.

 

Aside from disarming traps I think the main role of the thief should be a covert assassin. Poisoned weapons and maybe a single very high damage attack every so often with whatever narrative justification.

[metiman]

The fighter-as-tank is another of my pet peeves. Are the enemies really that stupid? Why go after the most heavily armored character with the most hit points when standing right behind him are a whole bunch of weaker, lightly armored, easy to kill characters? Of course not all foes will be that intelligent and perceptive. Clearly an ochre jelly isn't going to have that kind of reasoning ability and would just use a nearest-first strategy. It doesn't even have eyes.

[Osvir]

Taunt Checks~ depending on creature, AI and other stuff, functioning in the same way as "lockpick" "Taunt Failed"/"Taunt Success".

 

An Ogre who is very sensitive to the little hair he has on his head might be awfully sad/angry and provoked by whoever taunts/provokes.

 

The Baron which you want to frame, by taunting him in court/in front of the guards, provoking him to attack you will strengthen the thought of the Baron being guilty (when in fact he is innocent). Forthwith and forwards, so on and so forth, etcetera etcetera. Taunt could be used in an endless, unlimited fashion.

 

EDIT:

The fighter-as-tank is another of my pet peeves. Are the enemies really that stupid? Why go after the most heavily armored character with the most hit points when standing right behind him are a whole bunch of weaker, lightly armored, easy to kill characters? Of course not all foes will be that intelligent and perceptive. Clearly an ochre jelly isn't going to have that kind of reasoning ability and would just use a nearest-first strategy. It doesn't even have eyes.

 

In Baldur's Gate (with mods... I've got like 20 GB~ worth or so) the AI will target your Thief the second he is anywhere close to the creature. It will turn around and change target as well as run after it a little bit. Archer's always target my Mage if he is too close to the battlefield (their sight/range). Thieves hide in shadows and backstab my Mage's first and so on and so forth.

 

I think this is part of the SCS-mod (Sword Coast Stratagems)

 

With a good AI, the Fighter will have to struggle to get the attention to be a tank. He needs to keep the enemies busy and intercept them from going after anything else. This necessarily does not mean that the enemies are stupid, they are just too busy to be able to go after what they want to attack intellectually and logically.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Osvir

[metiman]

"Taunt" is vague. What would you actually be doing to "annoy" the ogre. The whole idea is anthropocentric. Why assume ogres would even get annoyed?. You're projecting human emotions on an entirely different species. Will a python get angry if you laugh at it? What about a croc or squirrel or cat? It's just silly against nonhumans. In many cases either the foe is going to be intelligent enough to attack strategically regardless of trying to tease him while he is in a fight for his life with someone else (kind of silly thing to do anyway if you think about it) or so unintelligent that the "taunt" is just some meaningless action that the creature neither understands nor cares about. You can tease a caged dog by tempting it with a steak and then pulling it back when he goes for it, but that's not going to work to if he is chasing a rabbit or fighting another dog. And the taunt mechanic doesn't even have the equivalent of a steak. In fact it doesn't really have any narrative justification at all.

[Osvir]

metiman are you purposefully trying to be difficult? xD

 

So we already know that the technology to communicate with your mind, and bend the game does in fact not exist.

 

With this knowledge dropping down on top of us, maybe we can be a little bit more realistic and realize that "Taunt"/"Annoy"/"Provoke" would simply be a representation of an ability. A button, mechanically, that you have to press to use it because you can't speak out loud and tell the game what to do (yet).

 

EDIT: I am also not assuming that Ogres are going to be annoyed, I'm assuming that the single Ogre with pre-built in-game affection and insecurity about his small patch of hair on his head will in fact be annoyed.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Osvir

[DCParry]

Seriously people. Taunt was a word before MMO and aggro mechanics. I can go out and taunt the old lady at the flower stand if I want. It sounds like a great skill for distraction and control.

 

The literal mindedness of these boards is mind boggling.

[martix]

Oh, er...

Btw, I specifically avoided the word "Taunt" which seems equally silly to me as well.

There's probably a solution to that(there always is one), I just haven't thought of it yet.

[Amentep]

Maybe "taunt" is code for "throws small rocks at to annoy"?

[Osvir]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taunting

 

T = throw

A = an

U = underling

N = not

T = two

Edited October 4, 2012 by Osvir

[Valorian]

I'm just glad dual wielding has been confirmed..

 

"They'll be able to pack a pair of daggers..". Me happy.

 

Now, if they design sophisticated dual wielding mechanics and a well thought out advancement path, I'll be ever happier. D&D 3.5 did it right, even if it could have been improved upon. But it *did* matter what you had in your off-hand etc. I'd like a pair of daggers or short swords to be more effective for dual wielding than two different larger weapons, for instance.

 

I know this is not strictly connected to rogues, but dual-wielding is kind of their bread and butter.

[metiman]

Maybe "taunt" is code for "throws small rocks at to annoy"?

 

Which bounce off CrocodileMan's armor and he continues to ignore you while he beats down whoever he is beating down and allows you to be completely useless. What is taunting supposed to actually achieve anyway? Whatever it is it would probably be better to just do it automagically instead of using some nonsensical excuse that turns every monster into some immature human who loses all control of bodily functions due to some weird sort of code that we call "taunting". If there is a dumber mechanic in RPGs I don't know what it is. And I still don't see how it actually hurts the attacking monster. Oh, wait. He's supposed to then chase you around and completely ignore everyone else? Totally implausible.

[ogrezilla]

I like the basic idea that anyone will be more effective attacking from behind. Rogues should be better at getting behind enemies, but not stronger when they get there. I'd like mobility and utility to be their specialty in combat, not DPS. They should still do damage, but I don't want to see Fighters become pure tanks and Rogues become the DPS class ala most MMO's.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Osvir]

Maybe "taunt" is code for "throws small rocks at to annoy"?

 

Which bounce off CrocodileMan's armor and he continues to ignore you while he beats down whoever he is beating down and allows you to be completely useless. What is taunting supposed to actually achieve anyway? Whatever it is it would probably be better to just do it automagically instead of using some nonsensical excuse that turns every monster into some immature human who loses all control of bodily functions due to some weird sort of code that we call "taunting". If there is a dumber mechanic in RPGs I don't know what it is. And I still don't see how it actually hurts the attacking monster. Oh, wait. He's supposed to then chase you around and completely ignore everyone else? Totally implausible.

 

That is what I meant, why compare taunt with an instantly aggressive changing ability? Why expect Taunt to work like a "Now you will attack me wolf, because I said so".

 

Some/Many creatures could have "immunity" to Taunt, such as animals (unless you would in fact throw a rock at them).

 

If CrocodileMan is fighting someone else already (the Fighter) and someone tries to taunt him or throws a rock that just so happens to hit him in the head, he'll get "Distracted" (more on that at the end) and the Fighter gets a hit. Maybe CrocodileMan notices the Mage and manages to tackle the Fighter off and can now charge the Mage, but the Rogue manages to provoke CrocodileMan in his fit of rage (already being frustrated by the battle which goes on).

 

Now, instead of calling it "Taunt" how about "Distract"?

[Amentep]

I think distract sounds more utilitarian and can encompass a wider range of actions.

 

Also if Lizardmen were coldblooded (like lizards) I'd expect they'd be easily distracted by mages using cold spells (out of necessity) more than anything else since that would really screw around with them.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Amentep

[metiman]

Except what makes you think CrocodileMan even feels rage? And what makes you think that being attacked in a battle (a very surprising event indeed) is going to enrage it. The immunities to taunt are perhaps a start. I'd make pretty much every non-human creature in the game immune to it. And any human with an Intelligence above 12 as well. I guess the real target is human enemies with low intelligence. That at least starts to be plausible. I vaguely remember some spell that was supposed to represent having a girl laughing at you. I can't remember what the effect was supposed to be. You obviously wouldn't expect other species to understand the meaning of the convulsions we call laughter. Or at least I hope you wouldn't. The same with any sort of mechanism for attempting to mock other species. It just aint gonna work.

[ogrezilla]

I like the idea of taunt/distract being more of a pre-combat skill to allow the rest of your party to get the jump on someone. At least more than I like in-fight taunting.

[metiman]

As far as distracting an enemy, fine. Give some penalty to concentration. But that doesn't become the kind of "aggro" control that taunt is attempting to be. A distraction doesn't mean the monster is going to chase him all over the room while the rest of the party pelts him with arrows. If you want to get the monster to chase some character around the room who happens to be wearing boots of speed or some equivalent thief skill then just do it. Very bad AI will certainly help in that regard.

[ogrezilla]

I really really really hope aggro is not a thing in this game. A distract/taunt that maybe lowers their chance to avoid an attack for a second might make sense as long as it can be saved with intellect or concentration or something pretty easily.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla