The Role of Rogues?

[Osvir]

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).

 

You're welcome.

[BetrayTheWorld]

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.

 

You remember that post where I said I would no longer bother debating the issues with you, and neglected to mention why? This is why.

[BetrayTheWorld]

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):

Stuff

things

more stuff

 

While I'm right there with you in regard to allowing rogues to be built multiple ways, I think the highlighted part would need lots of work. If you read through your list of possible roles, they're far too narrow to limit to that number. If you did so, using your system, you wouldn't even be able to make a standard 3.5 DnD rogue who didn't have sneak attack. Only using the options you listed, if you limited to 1, it would be the crappiest crpg character ever, and at 3 it would likely be underpowered compared to the other classes available.

 

Again, I like where your head is at customization-wise, but the specific numbers you mentioned are way off the mark, in my opinion.

[Alexjh]

Lets just have a quick summary at this point to work foward on:

 

People do want:

- A rogue class that feels distinct from fighters in combat

- A rogue class which outside of combat is highly versatile and has the option of iconic skills including lockpick, pickpocket and disable traps.

- A rogue class which has stealth options.

- A rogue class which has some sort of one off combat bonuses when performing a surprise attacks relative to other classes.

 

People don't want:

- Rogues as a source of continuous high damage

- Rogues with some sort of seemingly magical invisibility.

 

Is that all fair? Anything to add?

[Hertzila]

- Rogues with some sort of seemingly magical invisibility.

 

Is that all fair? Anything to add?

 

I'd like to point out that that has already been confirmed as being included in the game.

 

If their natural tendencies weren't dangerous enough, their affinity for skullduggery allows some talented rogues to tap into their souls to perform amazing stunts: fading from view in plain sight, briefly cloaking their allies in a veil of shadow, imbuing their weapons with a soul-eating venom, or even becoming so insubstantial that blades barely hurt them.

 

Other that that, I'd like to add trapping, alchemy of some kind (focused on poisons?) and mechanical tinkering versatility. Not necessarily in a same rogue but as possibilities. Maybe even as combinations: poisoned traps, mechanical lockpicks that make it faster, that sort of thing.

[Alexjh]

- Rogues with some sort of seemingly magical invisibility.

 

Is that all fair? Anything to add?

 

I'd like to point out that that has already been confirmed as being included in the game.

 

If their natural tendencies weren't dangerous enough, their affinity for skullduggery allows some talented rogues to tap into their souls to perform amazing stunts: fading from view in plain sight, briefly cloaking their allies in a veil of shadow, imbuing their weapons with a soul-eating venom, or even becoming so insubstantial that blades barely hurt them.

 

Other that that, I'd like to add trapping, alchemy of some kind (focused on poisons?) and mechanical tinkering versatility. Not necessarily in a same rogue but as possibilities. Maybe even as combinations: poisoned traps, mechanical lockpicks that make it faster, that sort of thing.

 

Well I don't personally mind that as it's an abstraction anyway - but I think perhaps the difference is something like if using such a magical cloak was a specific ability that could be used, say, once a day, people wouldn't necessarily mind. I think the issue people had was more that a standard hide was literally having people be invisible in the middle of the open as a normal function of hide.

 

As for those, I meant to imply them with the second point but I was trying to be fairly concise.

 

I'd like to extrapolate on poisons a bit - I like the idea of them ingame BUT preferably under two conditions - firstly that they have to be made or bought (ie. no automatic poison abilities on level up, these things take effort if you want them) and secondly that there are different kinds, not just "poison". Different antidotes would also be preferable too, but possibly not worth including mechanics wise. But I'd far rather have a selection of various poisons to choose from along the lines of having various effects from stamina damage, ability point damage, status effects like blindness or paralysis, chance of spellcasting failure etc. The effects could be more severe depending on how skilled you were at making them.

[jfood]

I think they intend to go with more open-ended skill development, so mages and warriors and druids, oh my, will be able to lockpick and sneak around with the best of them. We don't really know much about feat, talent or perk development yet, or even what they'll be called, but the idea of being able to sub other classes development paths is interesting. I think it's safe to say we all consider the rogue something of a swiss army knife type class, a bit more liberal in development options and character concepts than most classes. Brawlers and thugs in heavy armor, sneakthieves with stealth and twin daggers, back-alley chemists or a charismatic street rat who's figured out how to use wands, read scrolls and is deadly with a crossbow. All are going to fit someone's definition of 'rogue'.

 

People have brought up talked about other systems, pnp and crpgs, and it all leads back to rogues being a chef's special kind of class. They scout and lay traps like a ranger, get all up in people's **** like a fighter or don't and just stab folks in the kidneys, are handy at range with both weapon and spell or spell-like effect through item useage. As skills are going to be somewhat discreet from feats/perks et al. being able to minor in another classes feat progression and ability development is a neat way to make up for a traditional rogue role while still keeping that 'come as you are' approach to class development. I really have no idea how ability and perk progression is going to look but in broader terms I'd imagine that there would be the ability to develop your rogues combat style in a more brawler type fashion, ranged, advantage/flanking/stealth based or any combination of the three. To give them a bit of flair in other systems, like Pathfinder (3.5 too more or less) as someone mentioned, they get access to 'special skills' are certain level milestones. Most clerics call them domains and get a better choice at level one, but wutevs, how special they are isn't important, it's the idea behind it. I think expanding on that notion is a great idea, though it's contingent on whether or not there's multi or dual classing options, but being able to sub in a class development path from another archetype really opens up character options.

 

The concepts and ideas do of course bleed over into other, more core classes. How do you make a rogue who minors in magic different from a mage with access to stealth, lockpicking etc? How do you make that a discreet and unique character path if there is the option to multi-class? Obviously you make one more cunnin' than fighty and the other more fighty than cunnin' but the exact math on that is hazy at best. A sneakthief with her lynx animal companion, the street hustler who can actually read your thoughts or that bar-room brawler who's truly mastered the drunken fist... I really like the idea of being to roll with the concept right from level one and making it a core class feature. I think for all the debate back and forth there's one thing we can all really agree on, the one thing rogues do well is steal.

[TrashMan]

- Rogues with some sort of seemingly magical invisibility.

 

Is that all fair? Anything to add?

 

I'd like to point out that that has already been confirmed as being included in the game.

 

If their natural tendencies weren't dangerous enough, their affinity for skullduggery allows some talented rogues to tap into their souls to perform amazing stunts: fading from view in plain sight, briefly cloaking their allies in a veil of shadow, imbuing their weapons with a soul-eating venom, or even becoming so insubstantial that blades barely hurt them.

 

Other that that, I'd like to add trapping, alchemy of some kind (focused on poisons?) and mechanical tinkering versatility. Not necessarily in a same rogue but as possibilities. Maybe even as combinations: poisoned traps, mechanical lockpicks that make it faster, that sort of thing.

 

The irony is that I'm begining to regret pledging more.

 

I have a feeling that the world and the underlying mechanics of the game are moving ever more away from what I like.

Such silly mechanics as rouges dissapearing in plain sight really get to me. And worlds which push philosophy/sprituality/afterlife musing so heavily (PST, MoTB and now this) never did resonate well with me.

[Hertzila]

- Rogues with some sort of seemingly magical invisibility.

 

Is that all fair? Anything to add?

 

I'd like to point out that that has already been confirmed as being included in the game.

 

If their natural tendencies weren't dangerous enough, their affinity for skullduggery allows some talented rogues to tap into their souls to perform amazing stunts: fading from view in plain sight, briefly cloaking their allies in a veil of shadow, imbuing their weapons with a soul-eating venom, or even becoming so insubstantial that blades barely hurt them.

 

Other that that, I'd like to add trapping, alchemy of some kind (focused on poisons?) and mechanical tinkering versatility. Not necessarily in a same rogue but as possibilities. Maybe even as combinations: poisoned traps, mechanical lockpicks that make it faster, that sort of thing.

 

Well I don't personally mind that as it's an abstraction anyway - but I think perhaps the difference is something like if using such a magical cloak was a specific ability that could be used, say, once a day, people wouldn't necessarily mind. I think the issue people had was more that a standard hide was literally having people be invisible in the middle of the open as a normal function of hide.

 

As for those, I meant to imply them with the second point but I was trying to be fairly concise.

 

I'd like to extrapolate on poisons a bit - I like the idea of them ingame BUT preferably under two conditions - firstly that they have to be made or bought (ie. no automatic poison abilities on level up, these things take effort if you want them) and secondly that there are different kinds, not just "poison". Different antidotes would also be preferable too, but possibly not worth including mechanics wise. But I'd far rather have a selection of various poisons to choose from along the lines of having various effects from stamina damage, ability point damage, status effects like blindness or paralysis, chance of spellcasting failure etc. The effects could be more severe depending on how skilled you were at making them.

 

The soul ability thing will most likely be based on either stamina or some soul power meter (mana), so I doubt it's a strict once a day kind of thing. Since every class is going to have soul abilities anyway, which will include "magic" on previously non-magical archetypes, it makes most sense to give rogues ones that allow invisibility, inaudibility, intangibility and such sneaking kind stuff. Of course it's not necessary to use them when playing but it does open up a lot of possibilities.

I hope sneaking will be affected by other things than just skill. Lighting conditions, mist, armor, boots, background events, among others.

 

A variety of poisons would be very nice, if not necessary. Having only one kind of poison would just be unimaginative. Give me a variety of effects for them. Have some induce hallucinations so they can't fight back at all, induce sleep so they'll just snore while the party runs by, drain their stamina and/or health slowly but surely, force magical effects on them or just inject deadly neurotoxin into their bloodstream, all good fun.

Having only one antidote would be simple but kinda boring, while having an antidote for everything would be impractical. So why not have levels for the antidotes? The higher the level the more potent toxins it can remove, either by lowering the effects or only removing the ailments that are equal or lower to the antidote's levels (say, neurotoxins would be level 5 poison, so antidote must be at least equal to work; drain stamina might be a lvl 2, in which case anything equal or above 2 would suffice).

[FlintlockJazz]

*Suddenly stormtroopers burst in, subduing everyone in the room and handing out random beatings. Then they stand to attention as the White Rabbit enters the room, paws clasped behind his back as he inspects each poster's thoughts on the situation of rogues, weighing up their worth*

 

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

 

I like this one. It lines up with my own thoughts on the matter. Rogues should not be DPSers or magic stalkers, but with the supposed importance of formations they should have the ability of battlefield mobility: able to get past enemies on the battlefield in order to take out key targets, such as being able to acrobatically evade a shield wall of fighters to get at the delicious mages and healers behind. They should be able to lock down the key targets as well, blinding them or tripping them up. I actually think the Witch Hunters in WAR actually worked well as the general theme for a rogue: evasion of enemy front lines to take out the back lines. Invisibility or 'stealth' as some call it isn't actually necessary for this, just the ability to evade and high mobility.

 

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'm not sure you intended it to be taken this way, but I quite like the idea of the whole party being considered as a special forces squad. There was a discussion on the GURPS forums as to what basic skills should every adventurer have, and it was pointed out that your typically adventuring party would realistically be built like a spec ops team and should all share skills like stealth as they invade the enemies' strongholds, but that your typical DnD style system undermines it: everyone accepts that every class should have a combat skill yet other skills such as stealth and climbing are not considered as essential skills when they should, instead considered niche skills for specific roles. Think of the original Conan the Barbarian film: all three characters (Conan, Conan's shag piece and archer guy with moustache) use stealth throughout most of the film. They stealthily enter the bad guy's tower, they stealthily enter his main temple (repeatedly), and yet they also fight like brutal warriors. I'd love to do a game like that, one where you actually felt like you were raiding the bad guys homes like a crack team of specialists and not just walking in with no concept for stealth like you do in most games. But I've digressed.

 

*Suddenly a stormtrooper runs up to the White Rabbit*

Stormtrooper: Sir, we have reports that people are claiming false things about plate armour again!

Me: Do they never learn? Well, I think we were done here anyway. Everyone, remember to vote White Rabbit for a human-free tomorrow. Come Minions.

*White Rabbit and Minions stride out*

[JFSOCC]

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.

If you want to go from point a to point b without any enemies knowing, you can only take your stealthy characters. So basically you'd be forced to fight every encounter you want to avoid, unless all your characters have high stealth.

[Amentep]

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.

If you want to go from point a to point b without any enemies knowing, you can only take your stealthy characters. So basically you'd be forced to fight every encounter you want to avoid, unless all your characters have high stealth.

 

Unless rogue exploration can identify a path that the others can take that wouldn't alert the guard, or the path of least resistance, or even secret paths.

[TrashMan]

You remember that post where I said I would no longer bother debating the issues with you, and neglected to mention why? This is why.

 

 

I weep because of the horrendoues loss. Truly.

 

Mind you, that was ment sarcasticly. I mean the previous thing. This also.

 

If your only reason for dissing the rouge idea is that you think party splitting isn't an option - ever, even for a minute - then we truly have nothing to discuss.

[Hertzila]

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.

If you want to go from point a to point b without any enemies knowing, you can only take your stealthy characters. So basically you'd be forced to fight every encounter you want to avoid, unless all your characters have high stealth.

 

Unless rogue exploration can identify a path that the others can take that wouldn't alert the guard, or the path of least resistance, or even secret paths.

 

Or provide the team with a diversion to get the enemies attention away from the main team, the rogue can probably lose the fools chasing him. Or mask the team's presence with things like smoke bombs or noise mufflers.

 

Or a brief but effective "hide in the shadows" ability for everybody. Though admittedly that'd be kind of a letdown unless it's a high cost and high level thing.

[jfood]

As we're talking about rogues being able to open up alternative narrative paths and quest solutions through skill use, there is something else to consider. Rogues, or sub-types, often become to the go to class for access to those quest branches and skill checks, while other classes get left behind to a great extent.

 

I think this is going to be solved by pairing the party system with more open-ended skill development to a great deal but it's an issue in crpgs, to access game content or to have options while accessing said content, play a rogue or rogue sub-type. Want to get the most out of Fallout's narrative, chatty, intelligent sniper. Small guns, arrows, to plasma and lasers, minor spell like effects, toss in some lockpick and stealth if you want. Mask of the Betrayer, you need access to bluff, intimidate and diplomacy to have options available to you, so it means rogue, bard, mebbe a swashbuckler. You can have a path for character and npc interaction, facepunch, smoothtalk or lie with other classes but you do require a splash into a rogue archetype to make a go of it with dialogue. Kotor2 had the dual-pistol jedi cat. Nwn2 is pretty much the same, though I think there's some room to manouver with Warlock(?) and Kaedrin's prc pack offers the Hexblade. To reference the trial in Nwn2, as a paladin you could resolve it with diplomacy, a fighter through intimidation but to thrown it down many-handed Mike Thorton style, which is 'best style' and I'll brook no dissent on that, it's back to the source, rogues.

 

If it's meant to be a 'class feature', it kinda blows to play other classes comparitively. I guess Torment bucks the trend by making you play a wizard but it's the same effective dead end. Rogues just have this tendency to become to the ideal base to lay down social skills on, either through high intelligence and lesser reliance on physical combat stats or more points to make up for lack of bab progression and spells. I can see how the Special system or 3.5 effectively paints people into the corner due to structure, I'm just not a huge fan of that pathing and don't want to see it repeated in another Obsidian et al. game. Then again, Mike Thorton (or Thornton if you're in the Darcy camp) was probably a rogue if anything... so mebbe I don't have a point at all. Haha, jokes on you for reading this far.

[BetrayTheWorld]

I weep because of the horrendoues loss. Truly.

 

Mind you, that was ment sarcasticly. I mean the previous thing. This also.

 

"To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable." -Barry Goldwater

[Utukka]

*Suddenly stormtroopers burst in, subduing everyone in the room and handing out random beatings. Then they stand to attention as the White Rabbit enters the room, paws clasped behind his back as he inspects each poster's thoughts on the situation of rogues, weighing up their worth*

 

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

 

I like this one. It lines up with my own thoughts on the matter. Rogues should not be DPSers or magic stalkers, but with the supposed importance of formations they should have the ability of battlefield mobility: able to get past enemies on the battlefield in order to take out key targets, such as being able to acrobatically evade a shield wall of fighters to get at the delicious mages and healers behind. They should be able to lock down the key targets as well, blinding them or tripping them up. I actually think the Witch Hunters in WAR actually worked well as the general theme for a rogue: evasion of enemy front lines to take out the back lines. Invisibility or 'stealth' as some call it isn't actually necessary for this, just the ability to evade and high mobility.

 

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'm not sure you intended it to be taken this way, but I quite like the idea of the whole party being considered as a special forces squad. There was a discussion on the GURPS forums as to what basic skills should every adventurer have, and it was pointed out that your typically adventuring party would realistically be built like a spec ops team and should all share skills like stealth as they invade the enemies' strongholds, but that your typical DnD style system undermines it: everyone accepts that every class should have a combat skill yet other skills such as stealth and climbing are not considered as essential skills when they should, instead considered niche skills for specific roles. Think of the original Conan the Barbarian film: all three characters (Conan, Conan's shag piece and archer guy with moustache) use stealth throughout most of the film. They stealthily enter the bad guy's tower, they stealthily enter his main temple (repeatedly), and yet they also fight like brutal warriors. I'd love to do a game like that, one where you actually felt like you were raiding the bad guys homes like a crack team of specialists and not just walking in with no concept for stealth like you do in most games. But I've digressed.

 

*Suddenly a stormtrooper runs up to the White Rabbit*

Stormtrooper: Sir, we have reports that people are claiming false things about plate armour again!

Me: Do they never learn? Well, I think we were done here anyway. Everyone, remember to vote White Rabbit for a human-free tomorrow. Come Minions.

*White Rabbit and Minions stride out*

 

You're right, I didn't intend it to be taken in that manner, HOWEVER, I actually do agree that in a realistic point of view, that the entire party would be more like special forces. As you said, it would make sense for any adventurer to be able to fight hand to hand, use stealth etc. A class in a system such as this would be more of a "specialization". In other words, everyone might be able to use stealth, fight hand to hand, pick locks, cook, w/e....but your class would open up a *few* unique abilities and/or higher levels of PROFICIENCY in certain areas. For example, a rogue would be better at opening locks, a fighter would be better at parry/blocking, a mage would have access to higher level spells. Would be interesting to see a system like this put into place. You would need to prepare for the massive amount of complaints of classes being too similar however.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Utukka

[gglorious]

Well, the problem with assigning rogues non-combat duty is that from my understanding, the goal is to have non-combat roles open for any class, so that way if you want to be charming and open locks or other content, you don't have to have a member of a particular class whether you like it or not. So, this would require a significant rethinking of traditional roles.

 

Secondly, because rogues suck in combat, and are being stripped of a lot of their non-combat powers, reinventing the rogue in combat is going to be important. Trying to say that rogues are slippery is probably not sufficient, as a lot would have to be changed about combat to allow this. Not only that, but rogues really have little more justification than monks to have this strength. Here's what I see as possible developments:

a) Rogues as assassins. The rogue class build tends to have weak HP, but high damage or lingering damage if used properly in combat, probably poisons or sneak-attacks. This is very common and probably pretty easy to implement in allowing the rogue to be a useful class. They're simply specialists in killing people quickly, just not in managing a battlefield or being attacked.

b) Rogues as users of tactics and technology. The rogue sets traps, uses smoke bombs, uses drugs/poisons, possibly taunts(either to damage morale or distract upon success against a will save of some sort), etc. The big problem is in designing this so that it doesn't become too contextual. Not every fight will allow preparation, and many boss fights are less likely to, so if a rogue can't set traps, then the rogue has already diminished a load in usefulness at a critical moment. It is still workable though.

c) Rogues as a branching class. So, instead of forcing the rogue class into a particular framework, we just allow players to pick and choose from the ideas they like more. So, the rogue class will center around high-dexterity, tactical, low endurance, and crude/dishonorable fighting builds(with possible builds neglecting one or more sides of that) and players can specially build their rogue. Some good ideas may be allowing for players to synthesize the rogue and magical abilities to have an illusionist/mind-control class, the rogue to be synthesized with the monk to become a ninja kind of class, or even the rogue to be built more like a traditional fighter to have more of a thug class or even a duelist class. This is probably more in line with the ideal, but the problem is always implementation, as rogue-illusionists, rogue-ninjas, and rogue-thugs are probably too periphery to the class to allow it to stand independently.

 

The simple issue is that the rogue will be a class that people will be able to do without, and we really WANT people to be able to build a party without a rogue. The question is how can we make the rogue a desirable member of the party just the same.

 

EDIT: Also, if possible, a branching idea or a sub-class idea would be good for a lot of other classes as well. So, some players may want a traditional barbarian, others may want some form of soul-barbarian who uses soul magic powers, and a third set may want a freak barbarian that modifies his body as he levels up becoming monstrously strong. Some people may want a traditional wizard, others may want more of a battle-mage with spell-talents highly suitable for the front-lines. Some people may want a traditional bard with a focus on buffing, others may want a "master of fear" who specializes in intimidating foes, a third set may want a battle-bard perhaps even like BG2's blade class.

Edited November 8, 2012 by gglorious

[TrashMan]

There is no real reason why rouges should have low HP.

 

Actually, there is no reason for any HP difference between classes at all. It's all a relic of older days.

[Jarmo]

I wouldn't mind at all everybody being able to hide and sneak. (Everybody can hide and sneak after all, just not as well as someone else).

Guess even a fighter in plate could stay quiet behind a bush, though not sneak past a guard undetected.

 

Wouldn't mind if rogues hiding (and other) skills were near magic/actually magical at higher levels. Run on water, climb smooth walls, vanish in a puff of smoke.

In the same way, I wouldn't mind rogues dodging out of sight when not in actual combat, sneaking behind an opponent and sneak attacking. (that'd take a couple of rounds)

Or using a flashbang smoke bomb to help disappear when in actual combat (maybe more reliably at higher levels).

 

BTW, the definite Rogue/Thief D&D mostly picks from is The Gray Mouser from Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser by Fritz Leiber.

The smaller one in the picture:

 

Picture from http://www.stormbringer.net/tmouser.html

[Alexjh]

There is no real reason why rouges should have low HP.

 

Actually, there is no reason for any HP difference between classes at all. It's all a relic of older days.

 

Well ease of balance/class differentiation would be one obvious good reason, and kind of makes sense more so with a "stamina" system than with a direct HP system. If you assume that the difference between one levels worth of experience for a mage (which is intellectual, learning things and generally not that physical) and a barbarian (involving lots of hitting things and and being hit) the latter is going to be fundementally better at taking blows and carrying on due to practice. Yes there will be tough wizards who can take blows, but they are the exception rather than the rule and that's what a high constitution score and feats like toughness are there to provide the possibility of.

 

It seems like you really do want to stripmine the classes for differentiating features....

[Sykid]

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.

 

This is an abysmal idea. To do such a thing would make the Rogue class a meaningless hodge podge of other classes. It would remove any identity or playstyle that would be unique to the Rogue, and replace it with limited versions of other classes. "Rogue" would simply mean "FigterMonkRangerWizardPaladinPriestChanterCipher"." If class advancement was so generic that specializations could simply be renamed and passed off as other classes, then there is no point in having different classes at all. It would be better to go with a classless system.

[Sykid]

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.

 

Don't presume to know what I think makes a class useful. I know all about Rogue DPS vs Utility debates. I've raged at the heart of them for years. The reality is there is no such thing as "utility" vs "damage" because Rogues should be able to do both, as all classes should. There is no MMO style trinity system in single player isometric RPGs, so this isn't a problem.

[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.

 

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.

 

Your narrative for the evolution of rogues in RPG games makes no sense. Combat mechanics did not limit non-combat content in tabletop RPGs... Outside of combat was where the roleplaying took place, which is what defined the genre. The game could be as combat or non-combat oriented as the DM wanted it to be. Complexity had nothing to do with it.

 

Winning combat by inflicting damage on an opponent isn't a class ability, it isa task; a task that different classes achieve through different ways. That has always been the case in non-MMO RPGs. How rogues inflicted damage was through using the skills that were unique to the rogue: sneaking and dirty fighting. This was done not because designers wanted something "easy" but because it achieved the desired concept of a class who could overcome physically superior opponents with cunning. The rules of the game may have become more sophisticated, but the core concept is still there. This is why "back stab" or "sneak attack" isn't going anywhere.

 

And no, in the BG series there was no "DPS" class. All classes could lay down the hurt with the right use of their class abilities. The term "DPS" - as in, Damage Per Second - is from MMOs and doesn't even make sense when talking about a game that has a pause function and whose tempo is measured in iterating combat rounds.

[Sykid]

 

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

 

See, this is what I don't get. You don't think Rogues should be defined by an ability like Back Stab that gives extra damage, because stabbing someone in the back should do extra damage no matter what your class is. But you think Rogues should be unique for being able to climb up walls? Like Rangers or Druids or Monk or Wizards can't climb or move around fast?

Edited November 9, 2012 by Sykid