The Role of Rogues?

[Osvir]

I was sure I posted in this thread...

 

Could you give Rogues some sort of support role a la:

 

Fighter can toss the Rogue (e.g., give him a quick burst dash movement speed, as if being pushed forward) onto the enemy which gives "extra perks" in damage. Could the Rogue, with herbalism focus, be best at using "re-invigorate" regardless to heal "knocked out" party members and "Heal" their Stamina by acting as some steroid buffer (if effect potions have a short timespan).

[rjshae]

Would love to see more attention paid to the rogue's scouting ability, including the ability to climb. At a minimum they could have climbable structures that allow a rogue to perform an area recon. A plus would be to ascend buildings to come in through the attic or travel across roof tops. Another fun ability would be infiltrating an enemy camp in preparation for the main assault ,and maybe committing some sabotage.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Every one in melee combat(not sure about ranged) should get bonuses from flanking an opponent.

 

I suppose Rogues could have some sort of ability to hit harder when attacking foes who are in a vulnerable position(flanked, flat-footed, stunned, etc.), like they do in 3/3.5/Pathfinder, but I don't exactly see why that has to be Rogue exclusive(other classes can take some sort of feat perhaps?). However, we still don't know how the Rogue's soul based abilities will factor in to this. From the description of them, it does sound like it will favor stealth and surprise attacks, so I suspect that Rogues will play similar to how they do in 3/3.5/Pathfinder.

 

I believe that the biggest role of the Rogue is utilizing various skills to overcome obstacles. It could be my preference for playing 3.5E and Pathfinder, but I find that Rogues are the most viable when there are plenty of skills for them to utilize in the game, otherwise they just come off as weaker warriors who can usually dodge attacks easier. With PE, I'm quite sure that there will be quite a few situations where having a Rogue who is able to use their kills in a myriad of ways will be quite helpful.

 

I suppose I could go into a great bit of detail on how I believe that the base progression of rogues(skill points, feats, and abilities) should be handled but I would prefer to discuss that in a thread about all classes. And my post is already quite long to boot.

Edited November 6, 2012 by KaineParker

[BetrayTheWorld]

Still don't make no sense. Do assasing magicly get extra damage?

Wht is it that an assasin has to justifies it? Again, anatomy knowledge isn't special.

 

Backstabing is going to be deadly no matter who does it..becasue you know..it's unexpected...from the back. Where your lungs and spine are.

 

Look at it this way: Fighters focus on ALL of the elements of combat. The learn proper techniques for parrying, using various types of armor and combat styles, using various shields and weapons, how to penetrate weak points in armor, anatomy of their enemies, etc.

 

Assassin/Rogue on the other hand focuses their combat training entirely on AVOIDING said combat by making a singular devastating sneak attack, hoping to end it quickly without ensuing combat. It's all about the element of surprise. If you catch the enemy offguard, and unable to properly defend that weak point in their armor, or vital area, massive damage is and should be the result.

 

And the difference is, while the fighter certainly may train for surprise attacks, that isn't their entire combat focus, as it is for the assassin. Also, the term "backstab" as referred to in most RPGs doesn't only count as an attack from behind. It's a surprise attack on a vulnerable location. That could be stabbing them in the face, so long as the attack comes as a surprise. Maybe they should simply change the name of the skill to "ambush" to eliminate the confusion that so often comes up from people who aren't inclined to play rogues.

 

My first playthrough of any new RPG is always as a rogue.

 

I'm not opposed to giving other classes the ability to learn and develop their backstab skill, but I don't think it should be taken away from rogues. I think the best way to handle it is to make a robust feat/perk system in which players can highly customize each class through the feats/perks that they choose. This way, a "dirty fighting" style fighter could be made, as well as the "death before dishonor" style fighter who refuses to use such methods. Let players PICK how they want to play their character through highly developed customization and all will be happy. But don't take away rogue's backstab. That would be tragic.

Edited November 6, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[Sykid]

There already exists a skills/utility/support archetype in fantasy RPGs: it's called the Bard. It's for people who like being average at a bunch of things and supporting specialized classes, while being not really great at one thing.

 

The niche of the Rogue is stealth, cunning, and underhandedness. This is where the idea of "backstab" or "sneak attack" comes from. Take that away and there's not much left of the Rogue archetype.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

There already exists a skills/utility/support archetype in fantasy RPGs: it's called the Bard. It's for people who like being average at a bunch of things and supporting specialized classes, while being not really great at one thing.

 

The niche of the Rogue is stealth, cunning, and underhandedness. This is where the idea of "backstab" or "sneak attack" comes from. Take that away and there's not much left of the Rogue archetype.

 

I disagree. The Rogue always had more skills than the bard. Bards simply do not have as many skill points or skills available to match the Rogue.

 

I will agree that without a "sneak attack", the Rogues effectiveness at combat is significantly downgraded though.

[Sykid]

I disagree. The Rogue always had more skills than the bard. Bards simply do not have as many skill points or skills available to match the Rogue.

 

If we're going by D&D standards there's a lot of variance between editions. In 2nd Ed the Thief had more skills, but without the Stealth oriented ones (for Backstabbing) the only difference in skills is Open Lock and Find Traps. However, Bard had the widest access to Proficiencies, which would constitute what we consider "skills" in later editions. In 3rd Ed Bard had access to more skills, and in 4th Ed had access to more skills and had a bonus to untrained skills.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I agree that Rogues are very much a skill based class. However, the skills aren't an end unto themselves; Rogues are specialists in stealth and subterfuge, which is why they have Backstab. Their skills play into this.

 

I will agree that without a "sneak attack", the Rogues effectiveness at combat is significantly downgraded though.

 

And this is why I'm totally puzzled about the way Armor is going to work in P:E. Apparently Rogues will be able to wear heavy armor just like anybody else, but what is the trade off and what kind of playstyle is achieved? A Rogue without stealth and sneak attacks doesn't seem like much of a Rogue at all.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Sykid

[Sykid]

The difference between a Fighter and a Rogue is that a Rogue is someone who specializes in attacking an unaware and unsuspecting opponent. A Rogue makes up for lack of magic or combat prowess not just by using deceit and underhanded tactics, but by excelling at them.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If we're going by D&D standards there's a lot of variance between editions. In 2nd Ed the Thief had more skills, but without the Stealth oriented ones (for Backstabbing) the only difference in skills is Open Lock and Find Traps. However, Bard had the widest access to Proficiencies, which would constitute what we consider "skills" in later editions. In 3rd Ed Bard had access to more skills, and in 4th Ed had access to more skills and had a bonus to untrained skills.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I agree that Rogues are very much a skill based class. However, the skills aren't an end unto themselves; Rogues are specialists in stealth and subterfuge, which is why they have Backstab. Their skills play into this.

 

I think that the skills are the Rogues primary ability though. Sneak attack is quite a nice boost to damage, but Rogues can really shine helping the party get past dangerous traps and other obstacles using their skills, which not many other classes can do. Bards, while relying on their skills quite a bit as well, seemed to favor performance, conversation, and knowledge skills, and their general role in the group was as a back-up for pretty much any other role.

 

And this is why I'm totally puzzled about the way Armor is going to work in P:E. Apparently Rogues will be able to wear heavy armor just like anybody else, but what is the trade off and what kind of playstyle is achieved? A Rogue without stealth and sneak attacks doesn't seem like much of a Rogue at all.

 

To be fair, in 3E, you could get a sneak attack by using the feint feat or flanking the opponent, so move silently and hide were not actually required, even if they were extremely optimal. I think that the biggest trade-off should be an armor penalty, so that while Rogues are capable of wearing heavy armor, wearing light armor is more attractive to Rogues who specialize more in athletic skills, rather than flank attack/feint combat.

 

The difference between a Fighter and a Rogue is that a Rogue is someone who specializes in attacking an unaware and unsuspecting opponent. A Rogue makes up for lack of magic or combat prowess not just by using deceit and underhanded tactics, but by excelling at them.

 

In terms of general training, I agree.

Edited November 6, 2012 by KaineParker

[Sykid]

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.

 

Unfortunately, if you go about deconstructing fantasy RPG classes you will always find arbitrary distinctions in their design. A Ranger is a Fighter who likes bows and being outside. A Monk is a Fighter who punches things. A Barbarian is a Fighter who yells a lot. A Druid is a Wizard who really likes trees and nature stuff.

 

The reason for this is that class mechanics are as much a description of a character's personality as they are a combat style.

[Jarmo]

Every one in melee combat(not sure about ranged) should get bonuses from flanking an opponent.

 

 

Ranged, well at least the shield bonuses shouldn't apply if you shoot from behind, dodging is also harder if you can't see or know the missile is coming.

[GhostofAnakin]

I don't want my rogue to be able to do as much damage as a fighter in combat. There should be a discernible difference between the effectiveness of the two classes when it comes to how they perform in battle, not just the fighter having more HP than the rogue. Otherwise, it makes using a fighter useless since I can just use a rogue who can match his combat prowess, but adds much more non-combat ability to my party.

[TrashMan]

Look at it this way: Fighters focus on ALL of the elements of combat. The learn proper techniques for parrying, using various types of armor and combat styles, using various shields and weapons, how to penetrate weak points in armor, anatomy of their enemies, etc.

 

Assassin/Rogue on the other hand focuses their combat training entirely on AVOIDING said combat by making a singular devastating sneak attack, hoping to end it quickly without ensuing combat. It's all about the element of surprise. If you catch the enemy offguard, and unable to properly defend that weak point in their armor, or vital area, massive damage is and should be the result.

 

And the difference is, while the fighter certainly may train for surprise attacks, that isn't their entire combat focus, as it is for the assassin. Also, the term "backstab" as referred to in most RPGs doesn't only count as an attack from behind. It's a surprise attack on a vulnerable location. That could be stabbing them in the face, so long as the attack comes as a surprise. Maybe they should simply change the name of the skill to "ambush" to eliminate the confusion that so often comes up from people who aren't inclined to play rogues.

 

Doesn't matter.

The idea that "trained all my life in X makes me super-duper extra beyond all reason and that there is is no point of diminishing returns", belongs into bad shonen anime with infinite PWR lvlz.

 

Being stabbed in the fact - regardlessby a trianed assasin or a trained soldier - you're dead either way.

There is NO logical reason a rogue should get extra damage. None other than "we need to give this class some combat features"

 

The art of assasination lies in planing, patience and sneaking....and poisons. Not knifing.

 

I hate what D&D did with rogues. They basicly became a fighter sub-class. They are used as a fighter all the time. Take a look at any MMO with rogues. Get into melee, DPS, backstab.

 

 

 

But don't take away rogue's backstab. That would be tragic.

 

No, that would be great.

 

Rogues should get back to what they should be doing.

Scouting, planing, mobility, skills.

High dodge and tumble alone make rogues a important contributor in a fight.

[TrashMan]

And this is why I'm totally puzzled about the way Armor is going to work in P:E. Apparently Rogues will be able to wear heavy armor just like anybody else, but what is the trade off and what kind of playstyle is achieved? A Rogue without stealth and sneak attacks doesn't seem like much of a Rogue at all.

 

That's because bad systems have perverted/distorted your idea of what a rouge is or should be like.

 

The association between rouge and backstab has become great beacause that's one thing that was made most prominent. As well as becoming magicly invisible and crap like that.

[Alexjh]

I think we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves suggesting that there is any set definition of "what a rogue is or should be like", this is afterall a FANTASY class. Yes there are people in the world who would be rogues if fantasy classes were real, but realistically as armour/magic/taking more than one attack that hits of any sort isn't standard in, say, mugging someone in a back alley, we can generally work on the principle that how actual rogues work is not = to a fantasy rogue archetype designed to present different combat options. Neither can I suspect most real life "rogues" detect traps, disarm traps, create traps or use poisons, or many cases, do more than running up behind someone and grabbing their bag and running off.

 

So assuming you want the out of combat proficiencies of pickpocketing, detecting setting and disabling traps and so on, perhaps a sneak attack would be more for causing specific effects - sneak attacks having chances to cause specific bleeding damage, cripple an opponent in the legs so they move more slowly, hit them in the arms causing them to fail spells or drop what they are holding, or, indeed, in the head for an automatic critical, and while others would in theory be able to do that, as rogue's are training in that specifically they would have a greater chance of doing so.

[steelshark]

Hi,

please forgive me skipping over the last 2 pages, but are "Classes", as a feature, fixed yet?

 

Because I really liked the way Arcanum (or GURPS for Tabletop) handles the Attributes and Skills portion of gaming.

IMHO there shouldn't be Classes, just Skills you learn and develop, along with Attributes everyone has, and perhaps Advantages and Disadvantages.

For example:

Don't make a "Rogue", or "Thief" Class, but the following:

Attributes:

Dexterity (hope no explaination is needed )

Intelligence

Strength

 

Skills:

Pickpocket

Stealth

Anatomy (for backstabbing and healing maybe?)

Open Locks

Daggers

Swords

Shields

Fire Magic

etc.

 

^^

All those Skills can be learned, and increased by everyone, and every skill depends on (at least) one attribute.

 

That way I can make "Classes" that are impossible to do in a conventional Class System.

A Thief that uses small firelances, or flaming fists to back"stab" ? no problem.

 

It also does away with the typical "mages are frail"-thing. Mages are just like other Characters, except that classical Mages will invest more in Intelligence, Magic Skills etc.

 

br,

Steel

(p.s.: sorry if the Post is a little off topic / and I'm also a non-native english speaker )

[Alexjh]

The classes are locked in already - they are Fighter, Priest, Wizard, Rogue, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Barbarian, Chanter and Cipher. While I do quite like the Elder Scrolls model of leveling (which is similar to what you are suggesting) for the sake of Project Eternity, as a game which is recreating the gameplay of the Infinity Engine games I'd prefer to stick with D&Desque classes, just because that was part of the experience before and to do otherwise would be moving away from that. It can also be tricky if you do that to have characters have distinct feels as you just end up with characters being good at everything instead of specialising into something more unique.

 

What I would suggest though is that if multiclassing is included, perhaps Obsidian might consider including ways for the skills to blend a bit between those classes so that you can do the combined things you have mentioned.

[Osvir]

The classes are locked in already - they are Fighter, Priest, Wizard, Rogue, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Barbarian, Chanter and Cipher.

 

Thank you just what I needed, coincidences <3 :D

 

To look at the role of Rogues we need to look at all the other roles and how they contemplate each other. In a game like World of Warcraft this matters little (Except during Raids). For you who have played World of Warcraft, what roles are important during raids (when it really matters what class you are) and during PvP or whatnot? I also wish to take a look at other popular titles such as League of Legends, what are the roles for the 5v5 battle? Support, DPS, Magician, Tank and a Jungler (DPS/Tank/Magician/Engage~) and how do they contemplate and help each other?

 

Obsidian has also stated that you will be able to "Solo" the game, as well, without any companions (Most likely for the lower tier difficulties of the game as the harder it gets the more tactical diversity you'll need). How will the Rogue fit into this "Solo" gameplay in a best way if he is only a Support scouting role? You won't be able to Pacify ALL of P:E from what I've read and learned. Backstab is undoubtly something that spring to my mind, which is why I suggest that make "Backstab" or better a "Critical Hit Chance" Ability/Skill (Your character is better at spotting weak spots and can use that to his advantage) that every Class has.

 

We talk about "Backstab" being something of a skill, and not just some random dice roll effect but something some your character actually aims for and is trained for. Critical Hit/Backstab should definitely be an ability in this sense and IMO it should be available to everyone.

 

There's also the question of Wizards in Heavy Armor being a specific type of Wizard, what about Rogues in Heavy Armor?

 

This thread is wrongly titled "The ROLE of Rogues" when it should've been "The ROLES of Rogues". Why should the Rogue have -one- specific role when the Wizard is going be able to prance around in Heavy Armor?

Edited November 6, 2012 by Osvir

[AGX-17]

Without being given a high damage focus it's hard to justify rogue-style clases without rethinking the concept entirely. The only thing that comes to mind for me at the moment is as some sort of skirmisher, in terms of combat, but that doesn't quite fit in a CRPG so much as a strategy/tactics game. Rogues are most commonly associated with non-combat skills once you take away high critical chances, damage and backstab-type techniques. I guess the concept in general is "smooth-talking, dirty fighting," but unless it's a one-on-one fight that loses a lot of value. Besides that, any kind of sneak-thief or assassin is probably not going to be hanging out with a bunch of flashy wizards and shiny knights in plate if they want to be stealthy in any way.

 

But I doubt PE is setting out to redefine the rogue any more than one would try to reinvent the wheel.

 

I don't think rogues should be damage dealers in the MMO sense. That is, they shoudn't be particularly good at dealing continuous damage so that the only difference between rogues and fighters is their armor and maybe hit points. I do think rogues should have something like the 2nd edition backstab though. A single attack that they can make only once in a while when they have succesfully hidden that is devastating. Otherwise who is going to want to bring a thief along? I haven't had a thief in my party since 2nd edition games stopped being made. Before that I used to like them. I sure hope Obsidian isn't trying to balance the characters in terms of DPS like MMOs like to do. That would be awful.

 

It's not safe to assume Obsidian intends to follow MMO design as a guide for designing PE. There is simply no evidence whatsoever for that. An interesting if questionable idea would be to, say, have a rogue infiltrate an enemy faction, gang, etc. and then sabotage it from the inside and betray them once the fighting starts, if at all.

Edited November 6, 2012 by AGX-17

[JFSOCC]

I agree I want my rogue to be more than DPS, but I do like the backstab bonus.

[Churchwarden]

I think the distinction between backstab and sneak attack is important to this discussion. Sneak attack implies that the stealthiness the rogue has practiced gives her the element of surprise, and so she is able to make an attack on an unaware opponent, whereas backstab is simply an attack from behind. Anyone should be able to attack from behind, but it should be easier for a rogue to catch someone from behind unawares because of her skill at sneaking. I think "flank-style backstab" should always confer a melee damage bonus, but fighters shouldn't necessarily be able to get behind someone that easily. To come closer to "real life" (the doom of all mechanics discussions), two fighters pitted against one enemy should not have an easy time getting outright flank. The flanked enemy, if she has any skill in combat maneuvering, would immediately try to get out of the flanked position. It does make sense for rogues to have sneak attack and thus be more able to maneuver behind someone without being seen. The difference lies in the sneaking, which is a rogue's skill.

[BetrayTheWorld]

But don't take away rogue's backstab. That would be tragic.

 

No, that would be great.

Rogues should get back to what they should be doing.

 

First off, what rogues "should be doing" is subjective and entirely opinion-based. Second, it's obvious to anyone who bothered to read your posts in this thread that you are not someone who sets out to play a rogue class as your character. That being said, it is my opinion that people who don't want to play a class not be the ones who are consulted when determining how said class functions. It's obvious you want fighters to be able to backstab. Start a thread and argue the merits of that, rather than arguing to have something taken away from a class you're not interested in playing to be given to the one that you are. The first part of your idea has far more merit than taking backstab away from those who already have it.

 

I could easily see fighters gaining the ability to backstab through the selection of feats/perks. I fully support a robust feats/perks system that allows such things to happen.

 

That being said, if you disagree with me completely, then I am not going to argue with you further based on your other posts and responses. If you'd like to continue to take the hard line on this and not consider other people's play preferences, then by all means do so. But at that point we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Edited November 6, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[Malkaven]

And this is why I'm totally puzzled about the way Armor is going to work in P:E. Apparently Rogues will be able to wear heavy armor just like anybody else, but what is the trade off and what kind of playstyle is achieved? A Rogue without stealth and sneak attacks doesn't seem like much of a Rogue at all.

 

That's because bad systems have perverted/distorted your idea of what a rouge is or should be like.

 

The association between rouge and backstab has become great beacause that's one thing that was made most prominent. As well as becoming magicly invisible and crap like that.

 

"backstab" has been changed, to sneak attack, in the DnD world a long time ago. Sneak attack is an important part of being a rogue and a lot of their skills are geared around it. Eliminating this skill just because you want to see a fighter do higher damage in a fight all the time would be silly. This game and past crpg's are based around combat which really restricts a LOT of skills a rogue and the player can effectively use. Thus making combat skills a higher priority for a rogue to have to ensure that they server a purpose in a party. In a perfect world/game a rogue could scale the walls and throw his voice to confuse his enemies so that he could sneak by. Always avoiding combat unless he has the clear advantage on his target.

 

Sorry but a rogue in full plate trying to sneak around, detect traps, set/disarm traps wouldn't make sense. They rely on dexterity which plate severely limits.

 

I agree that an enemies back is a great advantage for a fighter and a rogue. This is where coup de grace and attacks of opportunities are factored in for the fighter(in the DnD world of course). A rogue is going for the kill shot like it or not. A "typical" rogue does not have the weapon arsenal a fighter has so utilizing a few select weapons allows the rogue to focus on combat skills to win the fight. I really don't see how it would be sensible for a fighter in plate with a longsword could sneak up to the back of an opponent and accurately go for a kill shot other than the head. Likewise, I'm all for fighters being able to sneak attack assuming they ditch the plate and go padded/leather and a smaller accurate weapon for accuracy.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Malkaven

[Osvir]

Rogues in cities, Druids in forests?

 

Osvir, a trigger might be ok, but it might also create weird meta-gamey moment where we wonder about sudden NPC initiative. Now, there could be something halfway along the lines of what you describe...possible quest specific issues are such that the npc goes off on their own, while general tasks like shopping, training, etc. could be player run.

 

It might be weird but hardly in a negative way. If my companion starts to act in a way authentic to who the companion is I will applause because he is supposed to be driven by his own purposes and goals, if I suddenly lose control of a companion because he wants to do what he wants to do, I'll gladly sit back and enjoy the show. It gives a sense of feeling that they are alive. Playing Baldur's Gate in Multiplayer with friends, your friends characters are "companions" and they all serve their own purpose and you have little control except advice and suggestions through "Skype" or other "Voice-Talk"-Communication Third-Party Programs.

 

In Planescape: Torment, Morte was suddenly taken away from me, why? I started to wonder, as you say in your post, and I got confused. But it also intrigued me beyond words in a "got to stroke my beard muttering 'hmm'.."-kind of way.

 

Loosing control of Non-Player Character? *thumbs up*

Loosing control of Main Character? *thumbs down*

 

I'm with you.

 

I would love if the thief of my party just disappears without much explanation, just before entering a huge city. Then searching for some job with the local guard, you discover that he is wanted for some crimes.

 

I love party-related quests, giving them life, as you said.

 

Not just cities, the party could ran into unknown woods and the druid says he must do something during the night, leaving the party to solve problems of his clan, or ambush the main character the next day (as following a master plan)...

 

In fact, i would like some skills that forced me to lose party members:

 

1. Ranger uses "Hunting", disappears from party for 5 hours, returns with food and animal skin.

2. Bard uses "Gather Information" in a city, disappears from party and returns 2 hours later, with new infos (or nothing at all).

3. Wizard finds (with party) huge hieroglyphs in ancient sealed tomb and stays there deciphering it, while the party goes killing the undead around.

 

Something like that...

[jezz555]

Honestly rogues typically end up underpowered in these games, so I don't think taking away one of their key abilities is the way to go necessarily and if I could make a case for backstabs being rogue specific, the way I always understood it is that a rogue/assassin has a better understanding of anatomy than your average joe-longsword and can thusly pinpoint the exact location were he could land a lethal blow. The fact that your hitting someone in the back, as opposed to the front doesn't really make a difference, unless your practiced eye knows exactly where to hit, or is using a garrote that requires that the enemy be unaware to be effective.