The Role of Rogues?

[Hertzila]

I'm with the "flanking and sneak attacks for everyone" group. However, since flanking requires you to get behind your target and sneak attacks need the target to be caught unaware, both of which a guy who can stay unseen through various methods (which incidentally is usually the rogue) can do far better than the frontal assault type guy, I don't think that making the bonus available to all is such a drawback to the slick rogue who can get that bonus nigh all the time. Considering the rogue soul abilities seem to head towards invisibility, distraction and illusion abilities/magic, he might actually be able to disappear at a moments notice just like that. You can't hit what you can't see, so...

 

Still, I'd prefer my rogue be more like Garrett from Thief or their tech-equivalent Sam Fisher from Splinter Cell. If you stretch the combat abilities, I guess I could see a Solid Snake type rogue too.

But the basic idea would be of the guy who's mobility is completely unsurpassed, who can at least seemingly appear right beside you and you wouldn't know a thing even when he pricks you with a poisoned needle, or a dagger. The type of guy who lays traps, scouts ahead and uses alchemy and (time/triggered/remore) bombs to cause havoc among the ignorant enemy. The guy who can get through (nearly) any kind of mechanical obstacle, be it a lock, trap, mine or a mechanical sentry. The guy who's most likely to have a very diverse set of skills that can get him through anything. In combat, he'd figuratively or literally just disappear, either never to appear again or to give you a quick noogie before sneak and flank attacking your sorry ass. With a wheellock.

 

Since Obsidian said that the class archetypes are expanded more than previously, I'd expect a somewhat versatility from everybody, so rogues having different "builds" to do different things wouldn't strike me as odd. Maybe you have the assassin rogue, while I've got a real thief. A third might have a mechanical wizard.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Hertzila

[jfood]

As far as 'realism' goes, some people 'really' like playing light-fighters that stab people in the back for bonus damage. They like the playstyle and it's just a damage bonus modifier to regular combat rolls, so it's not complex or time consuming to add. If the character system allows for that as well as standing off to the side with some acid bombs and bags of glue for the rogue archetype, then it's a good system and both deserve to be there. If it also allows for a sword and board type rogue who yells nasty words at people to manage soft agro game mechanics, which add another level of complexity and interactivity to fights, then it's a great system.

[PsychoBlonde]

I had some thoughts about this kind of thing last night, but I think it all depends too much on the methodology used for making the classes different.

 

I think, what I, personally, would really like to see is that Rogue is the "do anything" class. They are literally designed from the ground up to be able to make use of abilities that nominally belong to other classes. They can mimic caster spells through traps. They can choose specials that let them use abilities from the martially-oriented classes, so you can have a fighterish rogue, a monkish rogue, a rangerish rogue, a barbarianish rogue.

 

I think this could be a lot of fun--it'd give an option to play around with for people like me who want to make a character that does everything. They'd have a TON of build options, so it'd be very complex and extremely entertaining to play a rogue.

[Utukka]

1) I agree that anyone could backstab.

2) I think backstab perhaps is due for a name change, as someone suggested "stealth attack" or else, doesn't matter to me what it's called.

3) It's because of class distinction but not entirely just for the sake of making rogue more "different". I view the idea of a class as a "specialization" or career choice. This implies that they will be "better" at a particular aspect compared to someone else who may be able to do it. For example, there's a manual out there for just about anything, including as you pointed out, sword fighting/tricks to it. Chances are if you've been through highschool or college, you've taken a Chemistry course or history class along the way. Now you've completed the task, read the same stuff, and by all rights, you may just be as correct as me or the next guy, but odds are, the Chemistry major or History major is gonna know a thing or 2 that you may have missed or forgotten along with being able to solve the issues more efficiently with less errors. Who's taught what is all up to the game creator at any point.

4) Along the same line of thinking, why wouldn't a rogue potentially be as adept at weaponry as a fighter? I imagine if I was gonna be solo, sneaking behind enemy lines, I'd want to be extremely well trained with a weapon for when I inevitably do fail and have to fight my way out. A rogue in my mind could be potentially construed as special forces.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Utukka

[Sykid]

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.

 

Since when? I've been playing Rogue-ish type characters in PnP, video games, and MMOs for about 20 years now. The "back stab" or "sneak attack" or any other name for an underhanded, premeditated attack from stealth, has always been a constant hallmark of the archetype.

[Sykid]

I think, what I, personally, would really like to see is that Rogue is the "do anything" class. They are literally designed from the ground up to be able to make use of abilities that nominally belong to other classes.

 

You have perfectly described the Bard class.

[Sykid]

4) Along the same line of thinking, why wouldn't a rogue potentially be as adept at weaponry as a fighter? I imagine if I was gonna be solo, sneaking behind enemy lines, I'd want to be extremely well trained with a weapon for when I inevitably do fail and have to fight my way out. A rogue in my mind could be potentially construed as special forces.

 

Because then he'd be a Fighter.

 

Really, any heroic class could be considered special forces. They are all specialists who are called upon do go beyond what common soldiers would need to do.

[Sykid]

Why should rogues be DPS?

 

This is an Infinity Engine style single player party RPG, not an MMO. There is no such thing as a "DPS" class.

[Utukka]

4) Along the same line of thinking, why wouldn't a rogue potentially be as adept at weaponry as a fighter? I imagine if I was gonna be solo, sneaking behind enemy lines, I'd want to be extremely well trained with a weapon for when I inevitably do fail and have to fight my way out. A rogue in my mind could be potentially construed as special forces.

 

Because then he'd be a Fighter.

 

Really, any heroic class could be considered special forces. They are all specialists who are called upon do go beyond what common soldiers would need to do.

 

I know, it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

My point was to give him an example of the same logic being applied elsewhere.

[Sykid]

4) Along the same line of thinking, why wouldn't a rogue potentially be as adept at weaponry as a fighter? I imagine if I was gonna be solo, sneaking behind enemy lines, I'd want to be extremely well trained with a weapon for when I inevitably do fail and have to fight my way out. A rogue in my mind could be potentially construed as special forces.

 

Because then he'd be a Fighter.

 

Really, any heroic class could be considered special forces. They are all specialists who are called upon do go beyond what common soldiers would need to do.

 

I know, it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

My point was to give him an example of the same logic being applied elsewhere.

 

Ah, understood.

[PsychoBlonde]

I think, what I, personally, would really like to see is that Rogue is the "do anything" class. They are literally designed from the ground up to be able to make use of abilities that nominally belong to other classes.

 

You have perfectly described the Bard class.

 

No, I have not. Bards can't do traps (no trapfinding and those skills aren't class skills). They stopped being a "do everything" class some time ago. Nor are there "bards" in Eternity--only Chanters, and who knows how they work at this stage.

 

The way I'd do (er, making some assumptions about how the game will work, anyway) it is that rogues get ONE ability tree from each class, only with the abilities renamed and a couple of the top abilities removed. From Monk, for instance, they get the Unarmed tree, only it's called Pugilist. From Wizard they get the tree that throws stationary triggered effects on the ground, but they're called Traps for the rogue. From Ranger, they get the Stealth tree. From Fighter, they get, oh, the dual-wielding tree, renamed Fencing. From Priest, they get the tree where you can make potions. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Edited November 7, 2012 by PsychoBlonde

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

The way I'd do (er, making some assumptions about how the game will work, anyway) it is that rogues get ONE ability tree from each class, only with the abilities renamed and a couple of the top abilities removed. From Monk, for instance, they get the Unarmed tree, only it's called Pugilist. From Wizard they get the tree that throws stationary triggered effects on the ground, but they're called Traps for the rogue. From Ranger, they get the Stealth tree. From Fighter, they get, oh, the dual-wielding tree, renamed Fencing. From Priest, they get the tree where you can make potions. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

Honestly, I don't think I like this idea very much.

 

I would prefer Rogues progress somewhat like they did in 3.5E and Pathfinder. They get more skill points for level than any other class, have access to a wide variety of skills, get a backstab ability that progress as they do, have some evasion abilities, and get a choice of several different unique abilities(some boost skill use, others dodging, others backstab, etc.) after a certain level. I don't know exactly how the soul powers will benefit Rogues(or any other class for that matter) but I suspect that it will contribute significantly to the Rogue's progression design.

[Ralewyn]

I prefer to solve my problems without fighting, so this is a little biased, but...

 

I've never kept a rogue or rogue-similar class in my party in any western RPG because I wanted sustained DPS, and I only ever played a rogue to be a super cool ninja when I was a pre-teen. Rogues-as-DPS has just never seemed very mechanically engaging to me for two reasons. One: DPS rogues are supposed to fill out the role of being flip-out-and-kill-people ninjas without actually having any of the style or flavor of flip-out-and-kill-people-ninjas. Two: I've never found stealth mechanics in pure western RPGs very engaging at all, because sending one guy in to skulk around out of the whole party always struck me as boring and extremely time-consuming, a lot of the time taking as long as the encounter would take to resolve to properly position the rogue.

 

No, instead, I never leave without a rogue in tow in any game I play. Because I know there will always be traps that need disarming, locks that need picking, and problems that will require a more subtle approach. When I use a rogue, I use a rogue for their utility in traversal and problem-solving. I use them as the party's multi-tool, and it's always satisfying to have the character who's got this under control around.

 

So in this sense, I've only ever perceived rogues as interesting when they're skillmonkeys, problem-solvers, and survivalists. Some stuff for helping them stay up in a fight is fine, but I've never been interested in rogues where the primary purpose is to flank and stab dudes. Modern western RPGs have been trying desperately to make the rogue's core combat dynamic of flanking to catch enemies off-guard engaging for years now through whatever convoluted means necessary--blinking mechanics, being able to just up and vanish in the middle of a fight, whatever. These RPGs have never stopped to consider that perhaps backstabbing wasn't ever really engaging at its core to begin with, and that instead it's maybe an artifact from a time when designers just simply didn't know any better.

 

The fact is the rogue's always been a catch-all term for several very different pictures of several very different characters, and while I believe the proper rogue is at its core versatile first and foremost, all we've ever really seen rogues do is stuff that keeps them out of a fight or stuff that rigs a fight in their favor. This means that most rogues we've seen are designed around not wanting to participate in a proper fight because fair and proper fights are for suckers. Does it make sense, then, to focus the rogue on fighting fights that they don't want to be in?

 

I'd contend that it doesn't make sense. I'd contend instead that the core purpose of the rogue is to large and varied box of tools to solve scrupulous and unscrupulous problems alike for the sake of their continued survival with--whether that toolbox was built on courtly intrigue or scraping and surviving as an urchin. That while this toolbox has tools to deal with combat, they're focused on making sure it's quick and safe or avoided altogether.

 

"Because people get killed in combat," says the rogue. "Namely myself. And that simply won't do. I have famous paintings to fence, nobles to woo, tales to weave and tombs to plunder. I simply haven't the time for every daft orc that wants some silly new trophy. I've been alive in this business for a long, long time, and I plan on doing whatever it takes to keep it that way."

[BetrayTheWorld]

The way I'd do (er, making some assumptions about how the game will work, anyway) it is that rogues get ONE ability tree from each class, only with the abilities renamed and a couple of the top abilities removed. From Monk, for instance, they get the Unarmed tree, only it's called Pugilist. From Wizard they get the tree that throws stationary triggered effects on the ground, but they're called Traps for the rogue. From Ranger, they get the Stealth tree. From Fighter, they get, oh, the dual-wielding tree, renamed Fencing. From Priest, they get the tree where you can make potions. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

Honestly, I don't think I like this idea very much.

 

I would prefer Rogues progress somewhat like they did in 3.5E and Pathfinder. They get more skill points for level than any other class, have access to a wide variety of skills, get a backstab ability that progress as they do, have some evasion abilities, and get a choice of several different unique abilities(some boost skill use, others dodging, others backstab, etc.) after a certain level. I don't know exactly how the soul powers will benefit Rogues(or any other class for that matter) but I suspect that it will contribute significantly to the Rogue's progression design.

 

I'm with you on this. I don't like the aforementioned idea simply because I feel that it limits choice too much. I don't want to be pigeonholed into playing a specific way. I'd like to have a vast array of options as far as skills, feats, and fighting styles go. Whatever idea gives me the most options to customize my character and how I play them is the idea I vote for.

 

 

I'd contend that it doesn't make sense. I'd contend instead that the core purpose of the rogue is to large and varied box of tools to solve scrupulous and unscrupulous problems alike for the sake of their continued survival with--whether that toolbox was built on courtly intrigue or scraping and surviving as an urchin. That while this toolbox has tools to deal with combat, they're focused on making sure it's quick and safe or avoided altogether.

 

Ok, so I read your entire post, and I still have no idea which side of the fence you're on. You used some contradictory logic in different places. You say you don't think combat abilities are important to your rogues, yet you mention their specialized skillset for survival and that "they're focused on making sure it's quick and safe"...isn't that what backstab/sneak attack is all about? It's to represent a specialized ability designed to end a threat quickly while keeping the risk to oneself minimized.

 

Second, I recognize that the primary people who care about a rogue's backstab/sneak attack are going to be people who play those characters. Other people, who tend to play other classes as their primary characters, likely won't feel too strongly about it simply because they normally don't benefit a whole lot from the sneak attack ability anyhow. They probably mostly control their own character and casters in combat, and find it tedious to position a rogue to maximize their damage output. That's fine.**

 

I think you should be able to make your rogue the way you think he/she ought to be. I am all for being able to CHOOSE for your rogue not to have backstab/sneak attack. Perhaps make all the "rogue-like" skills be selected as feats first before they can be advanced. Create a formula to determine how many starting feats a character gets, and let them completely customize their rogue experience. In this case, everyone wins. With a finite number of feats, you could make tradeoffs to make your rogue less rogue-esque, and select non-rogue specific feats that draw you closer to another class. Not interested in the stealth/sneaking/sneak attack? Great, don't select those feats, and you can instead select martial weapons and medium armor. Now you have a second-class fighter who can pick locks and disable traps. I'm alright with this sort of system. I'm NOT ok with a system in which I get pigeonholed into someone else's idea of what a rogue should be.

 

Give me Options or give me death.

 

 

**Although this does make me question why they even bother posting in a thread about rogues if they don't personally choose to play them as their main character. I can virtually guarantee that if rogues lose the backstab/sneak attack, the people who are arguing for this to happen won't decide "Oh, wow, now I'm going to play a rogue. They're so much better!" The resulting conclusion is that they don't play them now, won't play them in the future, and must have lots of time on their hands to argue points in threads based on classes that have very little impact on their style of play.

Edited November 7, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[Conphantus]

I love playing sneaky characters, but I find the generic rogue class a bit boring and uncreative. I´d rather the devs removed the class, redistributed some of its classical skills (lockpicking, trap disarming, backstabbing, stealth) among the other classes (or just have any character being able to choose the skills), then add one or two classes with more specific roles, like assassin, bounty hunter, scout, et c. The devs have already made their choice however, so I´m just keeping my fingers crossed that they do something original with the PE rogue class.

[TrashMan]

 

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.

 

Clear? Nothing is clear or obvious.

Keep your fantasies to youself.

 

 

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.

 

Even if your first assumption (that I never play rouge) was true (which is not), IE games are party-based so you DO end up controling a ruge anyway.

And in games like ID and ToEE all characters are yours.

 

I'm not trying to take anything "away" from a rogue.

Quite the opposite. I'm trying to give a rogue more depth.

 

 

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.

 

Of course I disagree with you. You already labeled me as someone who shouldn't be listed to based on nothing but your own fears and insecurities.

[TrashMan]

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.

 

No, I don't want to eliminate the skill because I want a fighter to do more damage. I want to re-do the class so it makes more sense and gets more character and depth.

 

By your own admission in a perfect game a rogue would play differenlty. So why not try and make hte rogue play better? It's not impossible. The D&D system isn't perfect and beyond improvements. Clearly some progress can be made.

 

Again - it all boils down to game/encounter/level design. You CAN make it balanced for a rogue.

 

 

Also, a lot of people - you included - seem to have a very narrow definition of what makes a class usefull.

You're thinking strictly in the lines of battlefield lethality (DPS) and complety ignore battlefield utility.

 

 

 

What a rouge should be able to do outside of battle:

- scout areas

- set traps

- use varioues devices, pick locks, etc...

- sneak (but not in broad daylight. Sneaking is often done rather poorly. I'm all for having to keep to darker corners and taking the longer way around. Also possibly dousing out light sources. Visibility AND sound matter.)

- get around various ostables (climb walls, jump over chasms, walk on ledges, etc..)

- sneak up on a unsuspecting guard and preform a insta-kill (knife to the back of the skull)

 

 

Inside of battle:

- move around fast, flank and confuse opponents.

they should NOT become magicly invisible and do sneak attacks then. Only normal flanking.

 

Their speed and sliperyness is a great asset on a truly tactical battlefield in itself.

Of course, such a system is not easy to pull off

Edited November 7, 2012 by TrashMan

[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.

 

Since when? I've been playing Rogue-ish type characters in PnP, video games, and MMOs for about 20 years now. The "back stab" or "sneak attack" or any other name for an underhanded, premeditated attack from stealth, has always been a constant hallmark of the archetype.

 

Since forever.

 

Since it's earliest days, when D&D was still young it needed simple ruels. And since it was extreemly combat-oriented, rouges needed something. So they game them backstab.

 

With more advanced mechanic that allow far more variation and complexity, and with more non-combat content, this is no longer necessary.

Actually I can argue that it never really was necessary in the first place, it was just easy to implement.

 

 

This is an Infinity Engine style single player party RPG, not an MMO. There is no such thing as a "DPS" class.

 

Think again.

Edited November 7, 2012 by TrashMan

[Juneau]

I think everyone will have different opinions on what a Rogue should do based upon what games they have played. Because one thing's for certain they all use them differently.

 

Some games don't even see them as a stealthy lock picking type - They use the literal term for them as scoundrels rascals - scruffy dirty brawlers (FIGHTERS)

 

Personally I like to think of them as a vary "varied" class with support and dmg roles - even ranged : http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62067-pistols-pirates-multiple-black-powder-pistol-build/

[hairyscotsman2]

With enough well thought build types, there should be a build available to suit everyone.

Dual wielding DPS

Sneak attack Wounding (or DPS)

Skill focused/support

Ranged

Combination of types

[Ralewyn]

I'd contend that it doesn't make sense. I'd contend instead that the core purpose of the rogue is to large and varied box of tools to solve scrupulous and unscrupulous problems alike for the sake of their continued survival with--whether that toolbox was built on courtly intrigue or scraping and surviving as an urchin. That while this toolbox has tools to deal with combat, they're focused on making sure it's quick and safe or avoided altogether.

 

Second, I recognize that the primary people who care about a rogue's backstab/sneak attack are going to be people who play those characters. Other people, who tend to play other classes as their primary characters, likely won't feel too strongly about it simply because they normally don't benefit a whole lot from the sneak attack ability anyhow. They probably mostly control their own character and casters in combat, and find it tedious to position a rogue to maximize their damage output. That's fine.**

 

I think you should be able to make your rogue the way you think he/she ought to be. I am all for being able to CHOOSE for your rogue not to have backstab/sneak attack. Perhaps make all the "rogue-like" skills be selected as feats first before they can be advanced. Create a formula to determine how many starting feats a character gets, and let them completely customize their rogue experience. In this case, everyone wins. With a finite number of feats, you could make tradeoffs to make your rogue less rogue-esque, and select non-rogue specific feats that draw you closer to another class. Not interested in the stealth/sneaking/sneak attack? Great, don't select those feats, and you can instead select martial weapons and medium armor. Now you have a second-class fighter who can pick locks and disable traps. I'm alright with this sort of system. I'm NOT ok with a system in which I get pigeonholed into someone else's idea of what a rogue should be.

 

Give me Options or give me death.

 

While options are good, unless we're going to make rogues a straight jack-of-all trades class they need to have a core mechanical focus, otherwise things start getting wobbly really quickly. I'd argue that this is part of the problem, as the original D&D rogue can apply to so many different roles and so many different characters because of its vague definitions and lack of focus in the design. I'm in favor of the rogue having a foundational mechanical focus and I'm in favor of that focus explicitly not being combat, but instead being utility. That being said, it's not viable to just make a class that's no good in a fight, so of course rogues have to maintain some level of combat ability, but it seems in most cRPGs this is the rogue's mechanical focus.

 

This is problematic because this usually becomes expressed as one of two archetypal rogues: The flip-out-and-kill-people ninja with crazy powers that let them teleport and vanish in the middle of a fight and all kinds of other shenanigans, and the plotty-planny-knifey rogue that while more believable I have never seen a genuinely immediately engaging and intuitive implementation for.

 

Though you do have a point about who's going to play it. I'm playing whoever will make the most optimal diplomat, and that likely won't be the rogue. So I'm not going to sit here and argue about something I'm not gonna' use if other people who will use it very adamantly want it one way. I mostly just wanted to bring up the thought that perhaps the combat role of the rogue needs to be re-examined.

[BetrayTheWorld]

and the plotty-planny-knifey rogue that while more believable I have never seen a genuinely immediately engaging and intuitive implementation for.

 

I think skyrim did a decent job, though you could end up with a rogue that could one-shot everything in the game near the end if you built that way. I actually don't mind the way nwn2 did sneaking/sneak attack. Sure, you have to suspend disbelief at the creeping around semi-invisible bit, but I'm ok with that. Without making it an extremely high-budget game, or focusing the game on sneaking mechanics, you're not going to end up with the highest polish on sneaking skills. So you have to make them functional before you worry about how good it looks.

 

The inherent issue in party-based games is that the system you're talking about doesn't work when you have a party full of non-sneaky characters around your rogue.

 

Oh, and to address the rest of what you were saying, I think rogues are typically already geared towards being the survivalist utility experts you're suggesting. They just get sneak attack as their primary combat ability in most games like this. We're not discussing how rogues are in MMO's and games like dragon age. We're basing our core idea of what a rogue is on what has been portrayed in "spiritual ancestors" of PE(BG, nwn, ID, PS:T, etc).

 

P.S. If it's anything like nwn2's skill system, rogues actually DO make the best diplomats because they have all of the speech skills "in class", and get more skill points than any other class. So you could basically make your diplomat, be decent in a fight, and still be able to pick locks and handle most thief things only by sacrificing a couple skills like pickpocket.

Edited November 7, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[JFSOCC]

I very much would like my rogue class to be familiar to me: sneaking and stealth, many skills, and sneak attacks.

[TrashMan]

The inherent issue in party-based games is that the system you're talking about doesn't work when you have a party full of non-sneaky characters around your rogue.

 

What? Yes it does.

 

The rest of your party waits a bit as the rogue does his thing.

 

"But that is boooring" you might say? Your face is boring.

[anubite]

I think it's a misconception to assign a role to a rogue. A rogue should be capable of many potential roles and excel at any of them very well, but only when they're specialized. I think the key to making good classes is to allow a breadth of specialization available to them.

 

Potential roles (but not all encompassing, a combination of 1-3 of these roles should be the maximum possible roles a single rogue-player can encompass):

DPS - Rogues should be good at high burst damage or high consistent damage. Usually in the forms of backstabbing or dual-wielding weapons.

Distraction - Rogues should be potentially good at melee combat. Parries, blocks, dodges. They should be able to fill the role of an off-tank or someone who can fight toe-to-toe with warriors and melee fighters by avoiding or indirectly mitigating damage (armor should not be a significant factor for a rogue, beyond its weight and flexibility).

Utility - Rogues should be able to unlock or disarm or untrap things or opponents. They should be able to detect the presence of nearby enemies or dangers.

Stealth - Rogues should be able to move silently and avoid danger by not provoking it.

Crime - Rogues should be able to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, and/or charm NPCs.

Illusive - Rogues should be good at maintaining or detecting illusions.

Shadow - Rogues should excel at blending in or utilizing shadows.

Agile - Rogues should have low reaction times and be quick on their feet.

'Average' - Rogues should not stand out from the crowd.

'Cutthroat' - Rogues should be physical. They may have scars, tattoos, piercings, unusual religious beliefs (or lack thereof), or have a 'loose' personality.

Chemist - Rogues should be capable of understanding or using poisons, toxins, venoms.

Dead Eye - Rogues should be good with a bow, but not like a hunter. I guess the difference would be rogues are good with short ranged weapons like short bows, crossbows, or flintlocks. They may be skilled hunters, but are less likely to be as skilled as a "Ranger" archetype.

Shields - Rogues should be adept at light, small shields/bucklers and using them not only for blocking, but also deflecting blows. Also good at shield bashing.

Illicit - Uses 'unconventional' magicks. Likely less skilled at magic than your standard "mage" but still capable of utiliizing a unique array of spells from supportive to offensive. Illusion-based, weapon-based, or projectile-based magic makes the most sense (rogues would probably not what to use magic that is loud and flashy).

 

And I'm sure there are many more qualities a single given rogue could encompass. But the thing I hope Obsidian does - is it gives us a wide array of passive and active skills to choose from, such that we can develop rogues in a multitude of ways. The role they play in and out of combat should be integral for most groups, and should be able to fulfill the role of "glass cannon weapon melee damage" character or "sturdy, tanky evasion/block-based chaaracter" or "supportive, medium/short ranged attacker with utility".

 

The worst thing they could do is narrowly define the rogue as an invisible, frail backstabbin' scumbag, like many WOW-inspired RPGs of late tend to do.

 

I mean, there are a wide number of rogue-characters one could consider. There's the "typical" rogue, who wears green/brown, carries a dagger and backstabs people - but then there's the suave nobleman who duels with a flintlock pistol, who couldn't swing a dagger for anything - and then there's the ex-student, who was going to be a royal advisor or accountant or something, who knows a bit of magic, and uses it to blend into the shadows at night, distract guards, and unlock doors to break into peoples' homes and rob them.

Edited November 7, 2012 by anubite