The Role of Rogues?

[curryinahurry]

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.

 

 

As do I.

 

As far as backstab goes, it could be replaced by a mechanic where the rogue can select an attack form, like hamstring that impedes movement or precise strike that induces bleeding damage, or blinding that, well you know.

 

The rogue's greates trait has always been flexibility and it sounds like PE will keep that tradition alive, so what I would like to have is the ability to create a character that can deliver damage in a multitude of manners while also filling a supportin role in crowd control, and all of the non-combat utility functions we have come to expect. The whole dex based fighter by another name has never appealed to me

[Amentep]

Distract lowers some combat skill, I like that. Maybe only pulls characters who'd it'd make sense a distraction would pull its total attention (Mothman says: "Must...resist...Rogue...striking...match... (fails and flitters forward).

 

Maybe add in the idea that really BIG distracts could actually penalize your own party too? ("If you set off fireworks in the middle of the fight again, I'm gonna...!!!")

Edited October 4, 2012 by Amentep

[metiman]

How would a thief help with crowd control? When I think of crowd control I think of spells like hold person or AoE spells like Slow or Web. I suppose a poisoned weapon could do something like that, but I'm not sure what else a poor thief is supposed to do against a crowd.

Edited October 4, 2012 by metiman

[Ninjamestari]

A good role playing game offers a lot of versatile content; if the thief who sucks at combat feels like a dead weight to your party then the content simply isn't designed properly. The reason games like Dragon Age and MMOs have molded rogues into a damage dealing combat role is the fact that there isn't any content besides combat in those games. Exploration, Sneaking type quests, secret areas, tricky locks that lead to greater treasure, situations where you need that silver tongued rogue should be plentiful.

 

The only way to make rogues interesting is to design enough content for them, no amount of dual wielding combat badassery is going to do that. I say that if you want to be a dual wielding finesse fighter, roll a fighter, not a thief.

 

It's easy to make rogues more useful by adding secret passages and ambush points. You might start an encounter by charging in with your fighters while your thieves flank the enemy. You might encounter an enemy camp full of sleeping bandits, and now it's time for that thief of yours to slit some throats, lay some traps and maybe misplace a few of the bandits' armaments. Maybe cause a distraction by setting the enemy horses loose and scaring them away, start a fire so that your party can attack a confused enemy.

 

EDIT: ok, maybe it's not easy to script but it's the only real way that works.

 

Just think outside the box and forget direct combat and you'll find lots of ways to make rogues both interesting and valuable party members.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Ninjamestari

[curryinahurry]

How would a thief help with crowd control? When I think of crowd control I think of spells like hold person or AoE spells like Slow or Web. I suppose a poisoned weapon could do something like that, but I'm not sure what else a poor thief is supposed to do against a crowd.

 

Think of alchemy or crafting of various contraptions/ tech if they're in the game...flash bombs that blind or stun, flasks that can create tar pools that slow, etc. I was never a fan of trap spamming, but that is possible as well, I guess. There is no reason why a non-spell caster shouldn't be able to know arcane science either, which might lead to certain crafting options.

[ogrezilla]

How would a thief help with crowd control? When I think of crowd control I think of spells like hold person or AoE spells like Slow or Web. I suppose a poisoned weapon could do something like that, but I'm not sure what else a poor thief is supposed to do against a crowd.

Traps, stab a guy in the leg to slow him down. Maybe trips even. Not so much hard CC like a mage will have. But things to slow them down.

[Osvir]

How would a thief help with crowd control? When I think of crowd control I think of spells like hold person or AoE spells like Slow or Web. I suppose a poisoned weapon could do something like that, but I'm not sure what else a poor thief is supposed to do against a crowd.

 

Before combat, preparation. You encounter 4 Orcs, maybe he manages to hide in shadows, throw a rock/make a sound, lure one of them away from the area. Maybe even lure two of them leaving only two left that the rest of your team can take down. Laying traps, alchemy (I always had the throwing potions on my Thief in Icewind Dale because it felt most fitting), maybe even be able to shoot "Effect" Flasks/Potions with a sling?

 

EDIT: Maybe give him a "takedown" ability where he can sneak up behind an enemy and "instakill" if all the dice rolls, checks and random effects pass. This way he could be really strong against individual, scattered foes, or even initiate a fight by surprise by taking down 1 guy, the 3 other Orc's are caught by surprise and attack him. At the same time, the rest of the party ambushes the distracted Orc's. More of a risky tactic of course, but I can think of several uses of the rogue.

 

I envision the Thief more being like Solid Snake from Metal Gear Solid (PSOne). A James Bond figure that uses the environment and items to his advantage. A Tinkerer~

Edited October 4, 2012 by Osvir

[aVENGER]

I envision the Thief more being like Solid Snake from Metal Gear Solid (PSOne). A James Bond figure that uses the environment and items to his advantage. A Tinkerer~

 

I was getting that vibe from the description as well. It could be interesting.

[Rhulad]

I agree that Rogues shouldn't get more of an advantage than other classes when attacking from behind. During combat their role should be more along the lines of using their mobility to try and disorient or hinder the movement of their enemies using flashbangs or caltraps and other such devices. Maybe a hamstring here and there if they get an opportunity.

 

They are a utility class that should be used for setting up the battlefield (if they know about it in advance) to put their party at an advantage.

[TrashMan]

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 only put things into "all can do" category that everyone LOGICLY should be able to do.

 

You keep inventing artificial reasons why rogues should be the only ones to backstab or taunt, wiotu having any rational explanation or sutification other than "it would make rogues unique".

 

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

 

You claim to read what I write and then ask me that?.... seriously?

 

 

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.

 

....

are you sure you're not just a troll?

...

 

First of all, what makes you think that all the MASSIVE benefits a rogue gives ot the party out-ofcomabt are not worthy of a slot - especially since a rogue is FAR from worthless in combat.

But you obviously are not reading and untill you do I see no reason to continue talking to you.

[ReyVagabond]

Yeah Rogues or Assassins, dont need a Backstab, any atack done from the sides or back of any class should do more damage.

 

Rogues and assassins should have other things like Dirty fighting poisons, traps, other kind of ways to deal damage, scape damage, but clearly should not be a miracle damage sourse that other skilled fighters dont have.

[Osvir]

Yeah Rogues or Assassins, dont need a Backstab, any atack done from the sides or back of any class should do more damage.

 

Rogues and assassins should have other things like Dirty fighting poisons, traps, other kind of ways to deal damage, scape damage, but clearly should not be a miracle damage sourse that other skilled fighters dont have.

 

This is what a rogue is per definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_(vagrant)

 

Is it possible to change the class title entirely to Vagrant instead?

[Valorian]

I see nothing wrong with the rogue being the only class that has access to sneak attacks. Warriors have other advantages that rogues don't, even if it could be argued that it would be realistic that rogues have those warrior features as well. But, if we want go down that path.. then there's no point in doing classes, because distinction is precisely what makes classes interesting, from my point of view.

Mind you, sneak attacks don't have to be as devastating as in D&D.

[TrashMan]

There's a difference between logical distinction and aritfical distinction who purpose is just to make sure things are different.

 

 

For example:

Only rouges can dual-wield. You can put that restriction in. It would make rouges unique, wouldn't it? But we all know it's just stupid.

Edited October 4, 2012 by TrashMan

[Valorian]

There's a difference between logical distinction and aritfical distinction who purpose is just to make sure things are different.

 

 

For example:

Only rouges can dual-wield. You can put that restriction in. It would make rouges unique, wouldn't it? But we all know it's just stupid.

 

Yes, but that is a horrible Biowarian way of making distincion by saying: No, your class cannot wield two weapons at once, or wield this type of weapon at all. That's idiotic.

On the other hand I don't find idiotic to imagine that rogues are more trained to be sneaky and strike at vital points on the body than warriors are, therefore receiving a bigger bonus for it. Just a fantasy trope.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

_{Sneak Attack represents a clever and underhanded method of taking advantage of a distracted or debillitated opponent. It is a situtational and unconventional method. Fighters do not recieve Sneak Attacks for the same reasons Fighters do no recieve Barbarian Rage and Damage Reduction.}

_{It's a difference in style and method. Fighters are the primary melee combatant, using the most conventional methods because they are the most proven methods. The Rogue class often defies convention; hence, so to does their combat abilities.}

[Osvir]

There's a difference between logical distinction and aritfical distinction who purpose is just to make sure things are different.

 

 

For example:

Only rouges can dual-wield. You can put that restriction in. It would make rouges unique, wouldn't it? But we all know it's just stupid.

 

Agreed.

 

Which of these two are most appealing? DPS or Utility?

 

1, From a role-playing perspective, wouldn't Rogue's be adept at survivalist skills such as herbalism, cooking, sneaking, alchemy, guile, lots of stuff that were in the Witcher I think. If anyone reads manga, the Wind Sword dude from Berserk comes to mind. An acrobat, flexible and quicker. The Rogue would be the Utility.

 

2, The Lore and Class of Asssassin depends on your character being trained to be an Assassin. The role of the Assassin would also be different from that of the Rogue's in my opinion. And an Assassin could possibly be deadlier than a Fighter, this is it's discussion in itself. Unlike the rogue the Assassin is trained to kill, in combat practices. A DPS Rogue for those that want it basically.

 

-end

 

Thinking about it more, when did Rogue's and Thief's become associated with being Assassin's? That's 3 different classes/definitions by the way.

 

The role of the fighter is more bearing, sturdy and enduring in any occasion (historically). For it's era (that's been confirmed) soldier's would be raised harshly, as infantry men. Few there would be, vagabonds, who practiced the "Way of the Sword" outside of War. In almost any case I can think of (historically as well as in fictive lore) the warrior/soldier/infantry is almost always quick, adept and strong, but the Rogue is always dodgy, gets in dangerous situations but escapes with dumb luck. Enlistment would be mandatory and forced upon you.

 

Thinking about it more, not having backstab as a hardcoded in-game mechanic doesn't sound like a bad idea.

 

edit-

spelling, wording, additional

Edited October 4, 2012 by Osvir

[Wintersong]

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

The problem in this kind of games (PnP or not) is that combat has a huge role in them. So they must force some combat stuff in them so players actually use them. I think that it was Avellone who mentioned earlyin the project that classes must be useful in combat so... yeah, whatever.

 

I do remember that d20 book from Alderac about The Legend of the Five Rings when we got a Courtier class (yeah, 20 levels of non combat goodness!!). But in that setting (d20 or their own ruleset), combat is just one of the many things that their bushi/shugenja/ninja/courtier/isezumi/whatever can do (and combat is deadly as hell in the non d20 system, especially if 10s are rolled).

 

I'd have in my party a character that has no combat skills per se but has a great utility factor outside of combat. But that utility must really compensate for having to hide him under a wagon (or behind the armored wizard!) each time a combat starts. I know that most people wouldn't like that but I would. It would be better if the character (class) could actually have/develop some basic skills in combat but at the same time not being forced into the Trinity system.

 

imho

[Caerdon]

For example:

Only rouges can dual-wield. You can put that restriction in. It would make rouges unique, wouldn't it? But we all know it's just stupid.

 

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Osvir]

Loving this:

http://eternitywiki.com/Rogue

[Bloody Hypocrite]

I'd like to see a bonus to any attack from behind or from a character that hasn't been detected, regardless of class. The Rogue's mobility and sneakiness should allow them to execute more of those kind of attacks. I also would like to see a bonus when attacking a target already engaged in combat. I don't really have any problem with taunting, as long as there are immunities/resistances based on the target.

[TrashMan]

There's a difference between logical distinction and aritfical distinction who purpose is just to make sure things are different.

 

 

For example:

Only rouges can dual-wield. You can put that restriction in. It would make rouges unique, wouldn't it? But we all know it's just stupid.

 

Yes, but that is a horrible Biowarian way of making distincion by saying: No, your class cannot wield two weapons at once, or wield this type of weapon at all. That's idiotic.

On the other hand I don't find idiotic to imagine that rogues are more trained to be sneaky and strike at vital points on the body than warriors are, therefore receiving a bigger bonus for it. Just a fantasy trope.

 

You don't find it idiotic? Well, I do. Because it is.

 

Who trained that rouge? Why wouldn't a fighter know that?

You have some strange notion of fighters fighting like it's some "honorable" duel. That trope needs to die in a fire.

read below

 

_{Sneak Attack represents a clever and underhanded method of taking advantage of a distracted or debillitated opponent. It is a situtational and unconventional method. Fighters do not recieve Sneak Attacks for the same reasons Fighters do no recieve Barbarian Rage and Damage Reduction.}

_{It's a difference in style and method. Fighters are the primary melee combatant, using the most conventional methods because they are the most proven methods. The Rogue class often defies convention; hence, so to does their combat abilities.}

 

 

Here's a thing - striking where it hurts the most IS conventional.

If you ever read a fencing/swordfighting manual it's full of dirty tricks. Striking at vital points is in every manual out there.

You think people WANT to be skewerd by the enemy? You think they want to die?

When you job is clsoe combat, you won't stay alive for long if you don't use every advantage you can possibly get.

 

There is nothing "unconventional" about backstabbing.

[Jarmo]

Like someone already said, I'd like everybody to get bonuses on hitting when flanking.

 

And I have a hard time accepting that a guy who only manages to actually hit on one out of three attempts,

can somehow hit the sweet spot when the strikes do connect.

 

Which brings up a completely different dynamic. I'd like to see something to the tune of:

If you need to roll 12 to hit and you roll 16, you get a +4 damage bonus (maybe only up to the max normal damage).

Thus, being more accurate would also mean doing more damage with each hit. Less scrapes and more direct hits.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Jarmo

[ravenshrike]

There is nothing "unconventional" about backstabbing.

Stabbing someone in the armpit is not something a regular fighter is likely to do. This is because it takes entirely too much attention even with bonuses from flanking and is very likely to fail. A rogue on the other hand, will almost exclusively go for strikes like that. It does much more damage but is harder to do on a regular basis unless said person is distracted.

[TrashMan]

There is nothing "unconventional" about backstabbing.

Stabbing someone in the armpit is not something a regular fighter is likely to do. This is because it takes entirely too much attention even with bonuses from flanking and is very likely to fail. A rogue on the other hand, will almost exclusively go for strikes like that. It does much more damage but is harder to do on a regular basis unless said person is distracted.

 

Actually it is. If a opportunity presents itself, they would do it.

There are even combat manuals that showcase this in various occasions.

From brining a man to the ground and then sliding in the tip of the blade under the helmet or armpit, to breaking thumbs with the sword crossguard, kicking in the nads and so forth.

 

Suppose we twist the roles around and the rouge is in pitched comabt and the fighter comes from behind. You think a fighter shouldn't be able to hit a vital?