The Role of Rogues?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

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

 

 

In 4th ed, everyone gets bonuses for flanking and not just the rogue. They get a +2 to hit.

 

I don't have a problem with the mechanics of the Rogue with Backstab / Sneak Attack. It works perfectly fine for me.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lady Evenstar]

I think it's fine to say that someone in light armor can sneak up to opponents and do an attack that does added damage because the opponent doesn't realize their presence. The enemy is unlikely to be unaware of a warrior clunking up to them in plate and has the opportunity to brace themselves in ways that reduce damage taken.

 

That said, I don't want to see a model where the only things clerics can do are buff and heal. Everyone needs skills that will allow them adequately to defend themselves and to administer post-combat first aid. Class balance that encourages returning to cleared dungeons with a rogue who then opens any chests fails. In any case, haven't they said that non-combat skills will be balanced separately?

Edited October 5, 2012 by Lady Evenstar

[Lysen]

I think rogues should be focused not on combat, but on their other abilities: pickpocketing, picking locks, finding traps and so on. Just like in Baldur's Gate and PST. In combat, rogues could backstab enemies or fire arrows from the distance rather than be on the front lines. It seems that the devs took the opposite route though, they want every class to be combat-effective. It makes sense in games like IWD where pure thief class was almost useless and you had either to dual-class or multi-class.

[Osvir]

I think rogues should be focused not on combat, but on their other abilities: pickpocketing, picking locks, finding traps and so on. Just like in Baldur's Gate and PST. In combat, rogues could backstab enemies or fire arrows from the distance rather than be on the front lines. It seems that the devs took the opposite route though, they want every class to be combat-effective. It makes sense in games like IWD where pure thief class was almost useless and you had either to dual-class or multi-class.

 

Not useless. This is preference.

 

That's what made IWD and all those games unique, that's why we disagree on many things here.

 

TrashMan liked to play his Thief as an utility character (I'm just guessing), scouting, finding traps, checking if there's enemies ahead and so on. Set up the tactical aspects. Access the situation, how many enemies are ahead? Traps? Can I position my characters in an ambush? Many times I used my Thief as bait to lure difficult enemies into a most welcoming critical hit from my Fighter.

 

So did I. I always scouted ahead, found enemies. Stragglers my Thief would backstab and take down on her own.

 

Others would give the Thief a more backstabbing and DPS role, or a long-range fighter. Some would dual-class.

 

To my understanding the Rogue will function in several different positions and roles. Just like I get the feeling the Fighter will too, and the Mage. So this is something that most likely will land in the "what do I prefer to play?" corner.

[Raithe]

I think folks are forgetting one of the primary reasons behind the backstab originally. The Rogue could only backstab when he was in stealth, and wasn't detected by the target. Which was also why the Fighter didn't get to do so. It wasn't about flanking someone, that's totally seperate and anyone can do so.

 

The reason for the backstab critical was that it was a> unexpected b> stealthy Rogue could take his time ensuring the perfect aim and strike for the attack.

 

A fighter's attack's are more for the frenetic, in the middle of combat blows. Not because he could disapear into shadows, sidle around and then strike without the target being aware of him..

Edited October 5, 2012 by Raithe

[TrashMan]

I think it's fine to say that someone in light armor can sneak up to opponents and do an attack that does added damage because the opponent doesn't realize their presence. The enemy is unlikely to be unaware of a warrior clunking up to them in plate and has the opportunity to brace themselves in ways that reduce damage taken.

 

That doesn't make much sense either.

 

For one, a battle is a very noisy enviroment.

 

And you cannot really brace yourself against an attack you don't know when is coming and from what angle.

 

For third - how do you know what kind of armor my warrior is wearing? There are no items restrictions, remember?

What if my mage attacks from behind? He has no armor..

 

 

See the problem with your reasoning?

[TrashMan]

I think folks are forgetting one of the primary reasons behind the backstab originally. The Rogue could only backstab when he was in stealth, and wasn't detected by the target. Which was also why the Fighter didn't get to do so. It wasn't about flanking someone, that's totally seperate and anyone can do so.

 

The reason for the backstab critical was that it was a> unexpected b> stealthy Rogue could take his time ensuring the perfect aim and strike for the attack.

 

A fighter's attack's are more for the frenetic, in the middle of combat blows. Not because he could disapear into shadows, sidle around and then strike without the target being aware of him..

 

 

Again with the flawed logic. If someone is behind your back in a battle then chances are you don't know he is there.

 

Or don't know who he is, because you can't see. Maybe it's your party memeber.

Also if you are pitched in battle - especially with multiple combatants - then you are on the move.

 

It is different if you sneak to some guard and stab him in the back while he's just standing there.

Edited October 5, 2012 by TrashMan

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Again with the flawed logic. If someone is behind your back in a battle then chances are you don't know he is there.

 

 

No, that's flawed logic and assumptions based on your own preconceptions.

[Amentep]

Sports *usually* don't involve people trying to kill you but sometimes you can *see the field* and get an idea of where people are (opponents and team mates) and react accordingly. And other times an opponent can seem to drop out of the sky on a parachute next to you, DA2 style, without you sensing them. Its also usually fairly chaotic during transitions.

 

But if someone is trying to stab you in the back and you can't turn around (because you're already fighting, because you don't sense them, because you slip on a banana peel, etc), whoever is trying to stab you in the back has an opportunity to strike in a way that isn't going to be defended like going in for a face-to-face duel.

 

A lot of the "kill quickly" scenarios given assassins or rogues or thieves apply to any mortal combat. All sides will want to end it quick and are going to look for the literal **** in the armor to slide their blade home. To that sense, perhaps assassins, rogues and thieves would be better suited to "quick strike and out" roles than a fighter, using mobility over strength. Unexpected blows or blows from behind should just be treated as situations where the opponent can't defend, regardless of who initiated it.

 

At least that's what I'm thinking.

[ogrezilla]

Sports *usually* don't involve people trying to kill you but sometimes you can *see the field* and get an idea of where people are (opponents and team mates) and react accordingly. And other times an opponent can seem to drop out of the sky on a parachute next to you, DA2 style, without you sensing them. Its also usually fairly chaotic during transitions.

 

But if someone is trying to stab you in the back and you can't turn around (because you're already fighting, because you don't sense them, because you slip on a banana peel, etc), whoever is trying to stab you in the back has an opportunity to strike in a way that isn't going to be defended like going in for a face-to-face duel.

 

A lot of the "kill quickly" scenarios given assassins or rogues or thieves apply to any mortal combat. All sides will want to end it quick and are going to look for the literal **** in the armor to slide their blade home. To that sense, perhaps assassins, rogues and thieves would be better suited to "quick strike and out" roles than a fighter, using mobility over strength. Unexpected blows or blows from behind should just be treated as situations where the opponent can't defend, regardless of who initiated it.

 

At least that's what I'm thinking.

I like the idea of rogues simply being better than other classes at being in position to take advantage of backstabs and flanks.

Edited October 5, 2012 by ogrezilla

[curryinahurry]

Sports *usually* don't involve people trying to kill you but sometimes you can *see the field* and get an idea of where people are (opponents and team mates) and react accordingly. And other times an opponent can seem to drop out of the sky on a parachute next to you, DA2 style, without you sensing them. Its also usually fairly chaotic during transitions.

 

But if someone is trying to stab you in the back and you can't turn around (because you're already fighting, because you don't sense them, because you slip on a banana peel, etc), whoever is trying to stab you in the back has an opportunity to strike in a way that isn't going to be defended like going in for a face-to-face duel.

 

A lot of the "kill quickly" scenarios given assassins or rogues or thieves apply to any mortal combat. All sides will want to end it quick and are going to look for the literal **** in the armor to slide their blade home. To that sense, perhaps assassins, rogues and thieves would be better suited to "quick strike and out" roles than a fighter, using mobility over strength. Unexpected blows or blows from behind should just be treated as situations where the opponent can't defend, regardless of who initiated it.

 

At least that's what I'm thinking.

 

Perfectly sensible, but Trashman's point has been why do rogues get the backstab bonus and not any other class (I think), particularly warriors who are trained to kill just as lethally. The stealth argument is fine but an attack from behind is an attack from behind.

 

@ Ogrezilla, that is well and good...I think that they should get bonuses in those situations for specialized attacks like hamstring, bleeding, etc. not the generic backstab.

Edited October 5, 2012 by curryinahurry

[Amentep]

Yeah, I actually agree with Trashman, an attack on the back is an attack on the back; a fighter is going to be trained to end the fight quickly just as a rogue is. Both are going to be looking at opportunities to do that.

[rjshae]

To me, during combat rogues are like spies, scouts, infiltrators, and fifth columnists in warfare. Their role is gather intel, disrupt the enemies logistics and lines of communication, and perform hit and run attacks.

 

If the designers come up with a wounds system, then backstab could be done away with and, instead, attackers can be given a significantly increased chance of inflicting a wound during a sneak or rear attack. (If they have multiple attacks then they can inflict multiple wounds.) Rogues in particular should be able to treat a flank attack as a rear attack when an enemy is being melee attacked from another side (as they are experts in exploiting distraction).

 

My $.02 worth.

Edited October 5, 2012 by rjshae

[FlintlockJazz]

Yep, with TrashMan as well here. The rogue dishing out more damage than a warrior doesn't make sense to me, plus I don't see why a warrior couldn't learn to be stealthy as well, just as you expect every character to be able to fight I don't see why we shouldn't expect certain other skills to be universally required too. Adventuring into an enemy's castle, planning ambushes, all should be doable by any class I think. I mean, if you think about it an adventuring band is pretty much a special ops squad: they are a small unit that infiltrates enemy strongholds (dungeons, ruins, etc), acquires the target (loot or main bad guy) and then bugs out. We all accept that everyone 'needs' to fight, yet we don't seem to think that other non-fighting skills are essential for all classes in an adventuring role. The only reason why the rogues have been the only ones to 'need' stealth in most games is because of the deliberate set up of your typical dungeon in which battles occur in 'rooms' where only the monsters in the current room respond to you while the monsters in next room just seem to ignore the massive fireball going off right next door (or seem to be unable to grasp the concept of opening doors). With stealth and other movement skills now apparently being classed as non-combat skills perhaps now we'll be able to have all classes be able to invest in it?

 

Personally, I think the Rogue's role in battle should be of one that is able to move about the battlefield more easily than others, not just by in-combat stealth (separate from normal stealth as stealth in normal DnD seems to be some sort of magical invisibility, which would actually work with PE's soul abilities) but by being able to slip through defenses and shield walls and the like in order to reach high priority targets. They'll be lightly armoured in order to achieve this, sacrificing defense in order to gain mobility. In short: proper skirmishers. Think of how the Witch Hunters class in Warhammer Age of Reckoning main goal in large skirmishes was to get to the back line and deal with the healers and other squishes (or was I the only one to play them like that?).

 

EDIT: Didn't see rjshae's post until after I posted mine but yeah, alot like what he says:

 

 

To me, during combat rogues are like spies, scouts, infiltrators, and fifth columnists in warfare. Their role is gather intel, disrupt the enemies logistics and lines of communication, and perform hit and run attacks.

 

If the designers come up with a wounds system, then backstab could be done away with and, instead, attackers can be given a significantly increased chance of inflicting a wound during a sneak or rear attack. (If they have multiple attacks then they can inflict multiple wounds.) Rogues in particular should be able to treat a flank attack as a rear attack when an enemy is being melee attacked from another side (as they are experts in exploiting distraction).

 

My $.02 worth.

Edited October 5, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[Elerond]

I think that there should be no backstabbing per se, but instead there should be attack in opportunity bonus, where character gets massive bonus to his or her critical hit change, if s/he can hit enemy when s/he is undetected or enemy is otherwise occupied to try block or dodge the hit. And critical hit should be combat finishers or at least weaken their target considerably.

 

Roques as mobile and sneaky type can usually take most use of this kind of sytem and that is their special bonus from it they don't need extra backstabbing bonus. And other classes have also ability to hit their weapon on enemy's back if s/he or it is clumsy and shows it to them. System don't destroy rogues role in combat, but rises tactical level of combat significantly as you can't let any one get on your back and you should also make you whole party look enemies backside not only your roque types.

[Dawn_]

The thing is you usually can't stealth during a fight..I would like to have a rogue being able to handicap its opponent.

 

Throwing a knife > can blind for a laps of time someone.

Can handicap broke arms/joints and dimunish the accuracy, be also able to reduce the speed of others. Being also able to pertubed/confused a caster during its spell.

 

I always saw the rogue as a tactical class..

Edited October 5, 2012 by Dawn_

[Osvir]

The thing is you usually can't stealth during a fight..I would like to have a rogue being able to handicap its opponent.

 

Well... if the Rogue would be Utility at it's best... a Smoke Bomb could easily fix that (Distract -> Hide).

Edited October 6, 2012 by Osvir

[TrashMan]

Again with the flawed logic. If someone is behind your back in a battle then chances are you don't know he is there.

 

 

No, that's flawed logic and assumptions based on your own preconceptions.

 

 

Not really.

The rouge is part of hte group.

Let's say you are fighting 5 guards...you think that the rouge will be able to move around without a single one noticing?

 

Also, sports are somewhat different than battle, since you don't die if you make a mistake in sports.

Also, while you can have a general idea where your party mates might be, that idea is hte product of a moment. You take a glance, see, turn back towards the enmy and fight. In 3 seconds they might be in completley different positions. Peopel move around.

And since there's your people and enemies behind you back, when oyu hear a noise (and you'll hear a lot of noise) there's no way for you to tell who that is no what was is he facing.

 

So the idea that a rogue can be magicly undetectable and perfectly place hits on a moving opponent, while a fighter can't, is utterly redicolous.

 

 

A rouges roles should be more bond-like. Or Sam Fisher-like.

Not to backstab in combat - but to sabotage the enemy before the combat starts.

 

Say you are clearinga bandit hideout and they have 2 guys patroling. And let's say the AI is decent enough that they know how to raise alarm.

 

The thief sneaks, waits for a good opportunity and quietly takes out one of the guards (backstab on out-of-comabt opponents unaware of your presence), hiding the body somewhere. He slips inside the fort, sabotages the alarm, sets a trap in front of the enemy sleeping rooms and goes back.

THEN your party moves in and wreaks havoc, the thief/rogue moving around wherever he's needed the most, flanking and being one big nusiance.

 

That's how a rogue should play.

[jivex5k]

I think it's more about encouraging a certain playstyle than how realistic it is.

Sure, anyone stabs you in the back it's gonna hurt.

But if anyone stabs you in the front and hits your heart, you should die immediately.

It makes a realistic game, but you die quite easily.

 

Giving rogues a bonus for backstabbing is a way to encourage that playstyle. It should be more about balancing abilities and making the classes unique before you start analyzing how realistic it all is.

[Amentep]

Why do you want to encourage a particular playstyle, though, for a rogue? The goal should be utility in the choice to play a rogue based on how you see them, not in being trapped to a singular concept (and really is a blacksmith-rogue, assassin-rogue, or bandit-rogue really the same)?

 

Part of the problem with rogues, IMO, is the things that really define them are things that generally don't play a role in combat; therefore many people go through mental backflips trying to create a justifiable combat role for the rogue that doesn't make them suckier fighters.

[Malkaven]

Have you ever played a rogue? There's a lot of skill getting to the opponents back and if you don't your pretty much dead. A rogue without backstab is pretty much useless. Sure he can find traps and unlock doors but so can mages.

[Amentep]

Have you ever played a rogue? There's a lot of skill getting to the opponents back and if you don't your pretty much dead. A rogue without backstab is pretty much useless. Sure he can find traps and unlock doors but so can mages.

 

Yes I have played a rogue.

 

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?". In reality an unprotected back is an unprotected back; someone with a clear strike to the back of an opponent is always going to have an advantage regardless of whether they're a rogue or not.

 

Why it happens in games is an attempt to give a combat role to a class that's primary features (lockpicking, trap disarmament, pick pocketing, guile and bluffing) aren't combat related. But in making the rogue's primary combat role that of being a backstabber, there is a certain degree of arbitrariness to the abilities introduced.

 

Arguably this could be a vote against a rogue class, or it could be a call to perhaps look at what the ultility of a rogue could be in combat based on the character skill rather than giving them the ability to do something that no other class can do with no logical reason for it.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Amentep

[Tamerlane]

In conclusion: ****, man, maybe a classless system would have had fewer god damn headaches.

 

But put me in the "rogue-specific backstabs are kind of silly".

[Jarmo]

Oh well. I'll have to adjust my position a bit.

I'm still of mind that rogues DPS role with unique backstab ability is wrong and everybody should get some bonuses when flanking.

 

But I'm ok with rogue getting bonuses to damage and hit, on the first strike when he's attacking undetected.

Don't mind everybody else getting the same bonuses though, only the others probably don't have a hide skill (but could have invisibility from some source instead).

 

Not any silly 6d6 bonus, but something. Maybe to the tune of +4 on both.

Just makes sense to me, if you manage to attack from behind, that's a bonus, if you attack an unaware opponent, that's a bigger bonus.

Also, if combat is ongoing and an opponent is not actively targeting the rogue, I'm fine if the (skilled) rogue can then slip out of sight and disappear.

[Alexjh]

I kind of think the issue here is "how do you make rogues relevant in combat but suitably different from fighters". Personally I don't mind the D&D system, but as some people don't seem to like it there are certainly alternatives.

 

I actually have no problem with the general concept of backstabbing, but it perhaps needs some caveats. Perhaps have backstabbing as a togglable mode rather than an automatic feature - when not toggled rogues will be doing normal damage per hit, but get a normal number of attacks per round, while if they have a backstab ability of similar they get far less but do backstab damage when they hit to account for taking the time to line up precise high-damage shots. There is of course the aspect of rogues about using things like poisons and caltrops and whatnot, but I don't feel those should really be exclusive to rogues (no reason anyone can't use them) but perhaps rogues would be able to take feats/get free feats to specialise in them to make them more integral to combat.

 

Another possibility is a weapon like a garotte that literally only works as a sneak attack weapon, which then justifies doing high damage, again, anyone can in theory use a garotte, but perhaps rogues get benefits in using it.

 

If you aren't going to have a backstabbing focus I think the key is probably giving them bonuses to speciality attacks which aren't in the normal repertoire of fighters - the focus of fighters is really about standing toe to toe and winning through proficiency with their own martial skill, whereas rogues are more an opportunistic opponent using a selection of tools to get the job done.