The Role of Rogues?

[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.

 

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....

 

 

Problem is that "class differentiation" can be an excuse for everytihng. Like restricting weapons.

 

Mages can't use swords. Why? Class differentiation.

Clerics can only use maces. Why? Class differentiations.

Only rouges can dual-wirld. Why? Class differentiation.

 

This is one of the reasons I started liking class-based systems less and less.

They are a set of unrealistic restrictions for the sake of fake diversity. I say fake diversity because such insular and restrictive classes are made for the sake of "diversity and yet they end up hurintg diversity and character creation freedom just as much.

 

 

Yes, I really would like to see HP divorced from class. Tied to ONLY constitution. NO HP gain per level.

They only difference beterrn a mage and barbarian in HP is in the attribute point allocation. Mages would still be generally weaker as they wouldn't put so much points into CON or STR. But nothing is stopping you from making a Arnorld-like of mage.

[TrashMan]

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.

 

There is such a thing.

Because concepts such as "Tank" , "DPS" and so forth don't cease to exist outside of MMO's. Battlefield roles don't case to exist.

 

So there is such a thing as a roll of a class within a specific context (or for a clasless system, role of a character).

 

And I never said rouges shouldn't be able to do any damage. Of course they should. Tehy have weapons and know how to use them. But average damage is more than enough for them. They don't need high burst damage.

They don't need high DPS to be usefull.

[TrashMan]

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.

 

You obviosuly misunderstand what I was saying.

 

Of course the complexity of the rules affects everything. Basing a system on d8 and simple calculation and basing it on complex calculations done by a computer - they won't be the same. Intrinsicly.

 

And no, I didn't claim that combat mechanic limit non-combat content. Non-combat had mechanics of it's own. But balancing between them did.

 

 

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 the way the task is achieved sucks, has sucked and will suck.

Stabbing a guy isn't really "cunning".

Your definition of a good rogue is the one that deals damage DIRECTLY. The idea of indirect damage didn't even occur to you apprently.

A rogue should be a support class. It by itself doens't do high damage - but it makes it easier for others to do so.

Since he manouvers around and set traps, he can change the tactical aspect of the battlefield. Just by getting behind an opponent he gives the fighter an advantage, because the enemy now has to contend with 2 opponents on opposite side. The fighter basicly gets a bonus too.

 

The "sneak attack" the rouge has is silly and pointless a it is.

 

 

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.

 

1 round = 6 seconds.

Therefore DPS.

Or if you want to get pedantic, Damage Per Round. Doesn't matter really how you call it - it is damage done in a specific time interval and it exsts in ALL games that deal with damage.

[TrashMan]

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?

 

Where did I say "unique"?

 

If a ranger or druid has the required agiltiy, skills and equipment (grapling hooks and such) I don't see what would stop them from climbing walls. They probably wouldn't be as fast or as silent as a rogue, but I don't see what's stopping them from trying.

 

Neither should there really be anything to stop them from trying to sneak up upon a unsuspecting guard and silently kill him. They are not as likely as suceed tough.

[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....

 

 

Problem is that "class differentiation" can be an excuse for everytihng. Like restricting weapons.

 

Mages can't use swords. Why? Class differentiation.

Clerics can only use maces. Why? Class differentiations.

Only rouges can dual-wirld. Why? Class differentiation.

 

This is one of the reasons I started liking class-based systems less and less.

They are a set of unrealistic restrictions for the sake of fake diversity. I say fake diversity because such insular and restrictive classes are made for the sake of "diversity and yet they end up hurintg diversity and character creation freedom just as much.

 

 

Yes, I really would like to see HP divorced from class. Tied to ONLY constitution. NO HP gain per level.

They only difference beterrn a mage and barbarian in HP is in the attribute point allocation. Mages would still be generally weaker as they wouldn't put so much points into CON or STR. But nothing is stopping you from making a Arnorld-like of mage.

 

I don't believe in restricting weapon types to specific classes (though specific magical weapons are slightly different) BUT this is where abilities, skills and feats come in.

 

Image a simplified rudimentary system where there are five levels and at every level the player gets a point to spend in skills, a point to spend in attributes and a point to spend in feats and, where applicable, a spell. Levelling up in a class gives you predefined bonuses, so in the case of a mage that would be the ability to cast more/greater variety of spells, and perhaps some lore bonuses. The standard training for a level of mage doesn't include any weapon training. HOWEVER you can make your mage wear plate and a broadsword, but there will be penalties for doing so as he isn't trained in doing so. This is where those spells, feats etc come in.

 

Now, you can then level up your mage according to the build you want.

 

If you want a classic Wizard build, your 5 attributes go to intelligence, your five skills go in concentration, spellcraft and/or lore and your five feats go in something like "fire magic mastery", "combat casting", "greater concentration" and so on. You pick say, magic missile, fireball, mage armour, chain lightning and cloudkill. You have built a fairly standard mage who does traditional magey things.

 

If however you want your "Arnold Conan mage" you go with 5 points in strength, mix points between concentration and some warriory skill, and take feats like "armour proficiency: loincloth", "weapon proficiency: greatsword", "improved imbue weapon" "armoured arcana" and "toughness". You then pick spells that compliment your build like "imbue weapon: ice" "enhance strength" "haste" "regeneration" etc. You are not as intelligent as traditional mage and thus your spells aren't as potent, BUT you are able to smash things up on the front line.

 

The basic idea that a level taken in a class is the CORE training that anyone taking a level in that class recieves, but you use the feats, skills, attributes and spells to customise your class in the direction you want, but, if you can't have it both ways, if you do want to make Conan-mage, an Alchemy Master-barbarian or a monk that is a master of the banjo then you are going to have to not spend your points in a way that means you are spending them on fullfilling this character concept rather than the stuff that a traditional member of that class would. Which isn't to say you'll be a bad character, but you won't be as good at your core discipline as someone who has focused solely on developing that.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Alexjh

[ogrezilla]

And the way the task is achieved sucks, has sucked and will suck.

Stabbing a guy isn't really "cunning".

Your definition of a good rogue is the one that deals damage DIRECTLY. The idea of indirect damage didn't even occur to you apprently.

A rogue should be a support class. It by itself doens't do high damage - but it makes it easier for others to do so.

Since he manouvers around and set traps, he can change the tactical aspect of the battlefield. Just by getting behind an opponent he gives the fighter an advantage, because the enemy now has to contend with 2 opponents on opposite side. The fighter basicly gets a bonus too.

 

The "sneak attack" the rouge has is silly and pointless a it is.

in your opinion. I love this design for rogues. Having a different opinion than you doesn't make mine wrong.

Edited November 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[TrashMan]

in your opinion. I love this design for rogues. Having a different opinion than you doesn't make mine wrong.

 

It doesn't make it right either.

 

I'll just say that my proposal mantains the effectivenes of rouges and their "feel", while bing more credible. Compared to the standard.

[TrashMan]

I don't believe in restricting weapon types to specific classes (though specific magical weapons are slightly different) BUT this is where abilities, skills and feats come in.

 

Image a simplified rudimentary system where there are five levels and at every level the player gets a point to spend in skills, a point to spend in attributes and a point to spend in feats and, where applicable, a spell. Levelling up in a class gives you predefined bonuses, so in the case of a mage that would be the ability to cast more/greater variety of spells, and perhaps some lore bonuses. The standard training for a level of mage doesn't include any weapon training. HOWEVER you can make your mage wear plate and a broadsword, but there will be penalties for doing so as he isn't trained in doing so. This is where those spells, feats etc come in.

 

Now, you can then level up your mage according to the build you want.

 

If you want a classic Wizard build, your 5 attributes go to intelligence, your five skills go in concentration, spellcraft and/or lore and your five feats go in something like "fire magic mastery", "combat casting", "greater concentration" and so on. You pick say, magic missile, fireball, mage armour, chain lightning and cloudkill. You have built a fairly standard mage who does traditional magey things.

 

If however you want your "Arnold Conan mage" you go with 5 points in strength, mix points between concentration and some warriory skill, and take feats like "armour proficiency: loincloth", "weapon proficiency: greatsword", "improved imbue weapon" "armoured arcana" and "toughness". You then pick spells that compliment your build like "imbue weapon: ice" "enhance strength" "haste" "regeneration" etc. You are not as intelligent as traditional mage and thus your spells aren't as potent, BUT you are able to smash things up on the front line.

 

The basic idea that a level taken in a class is the CORE training that anyone taking a level in that class recieves, but you use the feats, skills, attributes and spells to customise your class in the direction you want, but, if you can't have it both ways, if you do want to make Conan-mage, an Alchemy Master-barbarian or a monk that is a master of the banjo then you are going to have to not spend your points in a way that means you are spending them on fullfilling this character concept rather than the stuff that a traditional member of that class would. Which isn't to say you'll be a bad character, but you won't be as good at your core discipline as someone who has focused solely on developing that.

 

I know. A bit more freedom in class creation is why I like Pathfinder.

 

However, I still fail to see why HP increase would depend on class.

That's pure Constituation there.

[BetrayTheWorld]

The basic idea that a level taken in a class is the CORE training that anyone taking a level in that class recieves, but you use the feats, skills, attributes and spells to customise your class in the direction you want, but, if you can't have it both ways, if you do want to make Conan-mage, an Alchemy Master-barbarian or a monk that is a master of the banjo then you are going to have to not spend your points in a way that means you are spending them on fullfilling this character concept rather than the stuff that a traditional member of that class would. Which isn't to say you'll be a bad character, but you won't be as good at your core discipline as someone who has focused solely on developing that.

 

Well said.

 

in your opinion. I love this design for rogues. Having a different opinion than you doesn't make mine wrong.

 

It doesn't make it right either.

 

I'll just say that my proposal mantains the effectivenes of rouges and their "feel", while bing more credible. Compared to the standard.

 

cred·i·bil·i·ty/ˌkredəˈbilitē/

Noun:

• The quality of being trusted: "the government's loss of credibility".
   
  
• The quality of being convincing or believable: "the book's anecdotes have scant regard for credibility".
  

Credibility is subjective. If your audience doesn't feel your opinion is the most trusted, convincing, and believable opinion, then your statement is erroneous. Helpful definitions below.

 

sub·jec·tive/səbˈjektiv/

Adjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Noun: The subjective case.

 

er·ro·ne·ous/iˈrōnēəs/

Adjective: Wrong; incorrect. Synonyms:

wrong - mistaken - incorrect - false - faulty - improper

Edited November 9, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[JOG]

Rouges role is to change the color of skin tone on the cheeks. In the Victorian Era it was most associated with prostitutes.

 

Actually that's the rogue's role too. Be it the blushing ladies or their seething husbands.

 

"Rogues have little in common with each other." So starts the character description, but at the end of the day they all end up as dual wielding tactical fighters.

 

The original concept of backstab was dirty fighting techniques, I agree that this should be available to all classes that don't follow some code of honor, but then what's left for the rogue in combat? Computer-RPGs usually lack the spotlight periods when your character can showcase his skills, social interaction is even less flexible without a human DM directly controlling the NPCs, so the rogue was made a special kind of fighter that can also unlock doors and disarm traps.

Edited November 9, 2012 by JOG

[BetrayTheWorld]

This is one of the reasons I started liking class-based systems less and less.

They are a set of unrealistic restrictions for the sake of fake diversity. I say fake diversity because such insular and restrictive classes are made for the sake of "diversity and yet they end up hurintg diversity and character creation freedom just as much.

 

Out of everything I've seen you post, I believe this argument has the most merit. I vastly prefer classless, skill/feat/perk systems like fallout had to class-based systems.

 

However, since we're talking about a system that has been pre-established as a class-based system, our opinions about class-based vs skill-based is irrelevant in this thread and any thread pertaining to PE. Any constructive opinions or thoughts we give must be based in our current reality to hold any weight whatsoever, and that reality is that PE is going to be a class-based game.

 

 

 

EDIT: On a sidenote, ethical dillemma: If you see someone with misspellings in their signature, do you tell them, or don't you?

Edited November 9, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[ncguthwulf]

/Rant

 

I have been a bouncer for 7 years. I have been in over 50 fights. I am a rogue in those fights. If I get behind someone I can choke them out in under 6 seconds. From the front I am not as good. My best friend, who is 300 lbs, is a tank. He taunts people, makes funny faces, spits at people and basically gets them to fight him so I can get behind them. We both play MMOs and laugh hysterically when people fall for tricks we use in video games in real life.

 

I really hate it when people try to say that game mechanics are nothing like real life when they can be. But mostly I hate it because mechanics are there to divide up the multitude of tactical decisions that make up a fight into a system that requires strategy and thought and risk and is therefore fun.

 

/End Rant

 

As far as rogues are concerned, I think the game designers should divide them up into their combat roles and their role playing roles. I think it is a system design flaw to say that a fighter is 100% awesome in a fight and a rogue is 80% awesome but the other 20% is made up for by their ability to bluff the barkeep into giving up information that leads to a treasure.

 

Make sure that your rogue is 100% awesome in fights, in their own way, and 100% awesome in RP in their own way.

 

Examples:

 

Rogue can sneak and deliver a knock out or stun attack, think sap, making them awesome in certain kinds of fights.

They are also really good at bluffing and cheating, so in certain social settings, they excel.

 

A Paladin can debuff evil enemies and deliver magical damage to undead and are pretty good fighters in plate mail.

A Paladin can also inspire people to cooperate with them out of a sense of moral or religious righteousness, making them awesome in certain social settings.

 

When designing the classes, make the sapping and sneak attacking as good as the magical undead smiting and plate mail wearing. And when designing the story, make it so that both the lying and cheating social aspect is as fun and leads to as much story as the righteous inspiration.

[anubite]

You can choke people out as a bouncer? Man, I'd love to live where you do I'm surprised nobody has tried to sue you for 'almost killing them' or something.

 

I think that... people like the tropes rogues have been associated with in the past, but I don't think they like being FORCED into those trope-y roles. I think an ideal system - which is probably what we won't get with PE - would allow rogue-classes a lot of flexibility. Some rogues are just like the rogues you can play as in WOW, they go invisible in the middle of nowhere and stab people from behind for massive damage.

 

There are other kinds of rogues than that though, and you could build a character such that they hide in plain sight, are very suave, use potions/toxins, or use deadly stealth-magic or just magic in general. A rogue could be a rogue mage, someone who is very skilled in magic, but perhaps identifies more with sneaking than with throwing fireballs around.

 

A system which allows for high flexibility is very ideal, because I think it's unfair to think that all rogues should sneak, or all rogues should pick pockets and break into houses, and that all rogues should wear leather or be suave. They might have one or two of these qualities, but not all of them.

 

A class-based, skill-based system should offer a finite, but diverse, arrangement of passive/active skills one can specialize in, to create a rogue that is unique. One can assure not perfect uniqueness, but near uniqueness, by offering at least 20-40 active skills (where a player can choose at least 5-10 of them from the lot) and at least 30-60 passive skills/feats (that are generalized enough that you're not shoehorned into only taking specific ones). 30! + 29! + 28! + etc + 45! + 44! + 43! etc. is a pretty big number and I think allows for sufficient complexity to player class development, when you balance the game right.

 

Granted, there will be some overlap, it is a bit much to ask for 20-40 active skills from the team, for as many classes that are intended, but if classes can have some overlap, then some active skills should be shared between classes. But what I am imagining is:

 

Let's say this sytem allows for a given class to take 5 active skills at level 1 and 5 more over the next 10-20 levels of advancement (and let's say the terminal level is 20~).

 

I could make a mage rogue with

 

Greater Invisibility (spell)

Backstab (attack)

Fireball (spell)

Pickpocket (skill)

Smokebomb (utility skill)

 

And let's say you can take 7 passive skills at level 1 and take another 7 over the next 10-20 levels.

 

Detect invisible

Detect Traps

Persuasive

Lady Killer

Dual Wielding

Parry

Toughness

 

I'd say this accurately describes a basic rogue character type. They are trained and spells and if the player puts more points into intelligence, not only can they advance the strength of their existing spells, they can pick more powerful active spells as they level their character. They can also take more spell-based passives. They may not want some ridiculous spell though, and might stop developing those skills at level 10, when they focus on improving their damage dual-wield damage.

 

So the system I'm envisioning is probably not too far and away from how D&D works, just that it's more flexible than D&D. A rogue class has a restricted pool of active and passive skills, but this pool is very broad. A rogue probably won't have access to the variety and depth of magic as a mage-class, but perhaps a Rogue might have special access to wand or staff specialization, becoming a hybrid attacker-spell caster, with active and passive skills that emphasize dual-wielding wands, instead of daggers. Or something.

Edited November 9, 2012 by anubite

[Alexjh]

On the subject of HP/stamina difference the real reason is a gameplay reason but can be justified by reality. The main reason would be that if consitution were the sole difference between a wizard and a barbarian hitpoint wise, one of two things happens: 1) offensive spellcasters (wizards and possibly druids) become overpowered - as they are dealing out large quantities of damage to large numbers of targets, say a powerful fireball that they throw at an enemy party. In D&D it's balanced so that while the fireball may well take out the "softer" targets (wizard, sorceror, bard, rogue) the tougher classes (fighter, barbarian, paladin, ranger) can potentially get through this attack to be able to counter them. Without the tougher classes become vulnerable to these high intensity attacks without the possibility of surviving them that high HP affords. The second scenario is that you see this and then go "well, perhaps if we make a point of constitution give 3HP level rather than 1HP" What happens then is constitution becomes overpowered as a stat and it debalances the game.

 

The one alternative would be to have base HP gained a level remain constant, but have the constitution bonus vary per class. At the most basic 1 point of constitution for a wizard gets you 1 extra HP/constituon/level, 1 points of constitution for a cleric or rogue gets 2 extra HP/constitution/level and for a fighter it's 3HP/constitution/level etc. But this would potentially end up even more unbalanced.

 

As for the real world precedent: take a pair of identical twins, make one of them do nothing but science all day every day and make one of them do nothing but boxing training all day every day, both for a year. At the end of this year, you've produced a hypothetical level 5 scientist and a level 5 boxer. Take a third guy and scientifically record the number of (equal) punches it takes to knock each of the twins out, and realistically, boxer twin should be surviving a lot longer than scientist twin. Now admittedly, being punched isn't equivical to being stabbed, burnt or electrocuted or axed, but there again if we did it realistically in that way the whole point of constitution, stamina etc wouldn't make any sense and the whole thing would be a lot more frustrating.

[ncguthwulf]

You can choke people out as a bouncer? Man, I'd love to live where you do I'm surprised nobody has tried to sue you for 'almost killing them' or something.

------

So the system I'm envisioning is probably not too far and away from how D&D works, just that it's more flexible than D&D. A rogue class has a restricted pool of active and passive skills, but this pool is very broad. A rogue probably won't have access to the variety and depth of magic as a mage-class, but perhaps a Rogue might have special access to wand or staff specialization, becoming a hybrid attacker-spell caster, with active and passive skills that emphasize dual-wielding wands, instead of daggers. Or something.

 

One attempted suing. But it went nowhere because I didn't leave a mark and the police refused to arrest me. In fact the guy got charged because he punched a girl in the face (she went to the hospital) which started the whole thing. But I digress.

 

I like your idea of flexibility except that I want this to be a party based game despite only having the ability to create 1 character. Basically I want the restrictions of certain classes, the lack of flexibility because then I will rely on my team mates... and I especially enjoy this if I don't even like the personality of the npc but have to use them anyways.

 

Creating roles, even in the earliest tabletop RPG games, is an artificial way of forcing a team to cooperate.

[BetrayTheWorld]

The one alternative would be to have base HP gained a level remain constant, but have the constitution bonus vary per class. At the most basic 1 point of constitution for a wizard gets you 1 extra HP/constituon/level, 1 points of constitution for a cleric or rogue gets 2 extra HP/constitution/level and for a fighter it's 3HP/constitution/level etc. But this would potentially end up even more unbalanced.

 

This would defeat the entire purpose of what he's proposing, and is actually almost identical to what DnD has done for decades. Before I go on, I want to point out that I see no problem with the HP system that DnD has used. It works, and balances out.

 

But to give you the example of why what you're proposing is essentially the DnD system:

 

Wizards get 1d4 hp per level, rogues get 1d6, clerics get 1d8, fighters 1d10.

 

If you actually follow the rules, and roll the dice, the average hitpoints per level are:

2.5 Wizard

3.5 Rogue

4.5 Cleric

5.5 Fighter

 

So you basically already get an average "bump" in hp of 1 per "hp class" you go up. Fighters get +1 over Clerics who get +1 over Rogues who get +1 over wizards.

[Alexjh]

The one alternative would be to have base HP gained a level remain constant, but have the constitution bonus vary per class. At the most basic 1 point of constitution for a wizard gets you 1 extra HP/constituon/level, 1 points of constitution for a cleric or rogue gets 2 extra HP/constitution/level and for a fighter it's 3HP/constitution/level etc. But this would potentially end up even more unbalanced.

 

This would defeat the entire purpose of what he's proposing, and is actually almost identical to what DnD has done for decades. Before I go on, I want to point out that I see no problem with the HP system that DnD has used. It works, and balances out.

 

But to give you the example of why what you're proposing is essentially the DnD system:

 

Wizards get 1d4 hp per level, rogues get 1d6, clerics get 1d8, fighters 1d10.

 

If you actually follow the rules, and roll the dice, the average hitpoints per level are:

2.5 Wizard

3.5 Rogue

4.5 Cleric

5.5 Fighter

 

So you basically already get an average "bump" in hp of 1 per "hp class" you go up. Fighters get +1 over Clerics who get +1 over Rogues who get +1 over wizards.

 

Well the one thing it would do would work out that a barbarian with 10 constitution (or whatever level is considered a "neutral" amount) would have the same XP as a wizard with a neutral level of constitution. It wasn't so much a solution to his problem so much as a slight tweak to the existing model that makes it marginally more in line with what he wanted (and I stress marginally).

 

If the additional HP bonus/constituion/level was derrived from feats rather than innate, you could mean that some classes get those feats by default (barb, fighter) while everyone else can take then to get more to then equalize them out if thats how you want to develop a character.

 

But it's a much messier system than DnD so I'd personally stick at approximatly that rather than this half baked thing I've just come up with

Edited November 9, 2012 by Alexjh

[ogrezilla]

in your opinion. I love this design for rogues. Having a different opinion than you doesn't make mine wrong.

 

It doesn't make it right either.

 

I'll just say that my proposal mantains the effectivenes of rouges and their "feel", while bing more credible. Compared to the standard.

no mine obviously isn't right either. we are both talking about our opinions. neither is more valid than the other. Ideally, I would like to see both combat and utility/skilled styles of rogue be possible and both be effective. More options is a good thing. in my opinion of course

[Osvir]

In-Combat thoughts, in the sense of Baldur's Gate; A Fighter, a Rogue and a Sorceress:

[TrashMan]

cred·i·bil·i·ty/ˌkredəˈbilitē/

Noun:

• The quality of being trusted: "the government's loss of credibility".
   
  
• The quality of being convincing or believable: "the book's anecdotes have scant regard for credibility".
  

Credibility is subjective. If your audience doesn't feel your opinion is the most trusted, convincing, and believable opinion, then your statement is erroneous. Helpful definitions below.

 

Realism is by defeinition believable.

 

Also, quoting definition doesn't make you look smart Or right.

[TrashMan]

Out of everything I've seen you post, I believe this argument has the most merit. I vastly prefer classless, skill/feat/perk systems like fallout had to class-based systems.

 

However, since we're talking about a system that has been pre-established as a class-based system, our opinions about class-based vs skill-based is irrelevant in this thread and any thread pertaining to PE. Any constructive opinions or thoughts we give must be based in our current reality to hold any weight whatsoever, and that reality is that PE is going to be a class-based game.

 

 

EDIT: On a sidenote, ethical dillemma: If you see someone with misspellings in their signature, do you tell them, or don't you?

 

 

I was merely commenting/responding.

I know PE is going to be a class-based system, and I have enjoyed class-based systems beofore.

 

 

P.S. - it is diliberate. I like to irritate grammar natzis

[TrashMan]

On the subject of HP/stamina difference the real reason is a gameplay reason but can be justified by reality. The main reason would be that if consitution were the sole difference between a wizard and a barbarian hitpoint wise, one of two things happens:

1) offensive spellcasters (wizards and possibly druids) become overpowered - as they are dealing out large quantities of damage to large numbers of targets, say a powerful fireball that they throw at an enemy party. In D&D it's balanced so that while the fireball may well take out the "softer" targets (wizard, sorceror, bard, rogue) the tougher classes (fighter, barbarian, paladin, ranger) can potentially get through this attack to be able to counter them. Without the tougher classes become vulnerable to these high intensity attacks without the possibility of surviving them that high HP affords.

The second scenario is that you see this and then go "well, perhaps if we make a point of constitution give 3HP level rather than 1HP" What happens then is constitution becomes overpowered as a stat and it debalances the game.

 

I don't see it.

Mages with high CON will never be able to match figters. For one, if they dump points in both con and INT, there is not a lot left for STR, so they won't be heavily armored.

And if you design armor properly, it can make a LOT of difference (especially since armor would take the brunt of the fireball to boot).

 

Balance is somewhat of a strange notion in a singleplayer game. Unless you insist that all classes must be equaly usefull/efficent/powerfull in all things... Which I don't see what that would have to be the case.

 

 

Personally I'd go with 10 HP per con point (no bonuses, no nothing. All classes the same)

So a mage with 10 CON would have 100 HP. Gaining a LVL doesn't give you HP. Putting points in CON does.

 

Would that mean that you can't 1-shot-kill a enemy mage with a fireball? Depending on balance, maybe. So what?

 

However, HP discussion is a different subject, altough it kinda ties into discussing calsses, since for a very long time they have been balanced by this HP inflation.

 

 

 

As for the real world precedent: take a pair of identical twins, make one of them do nothing but science all day every day and make one of them do nothing but boxing training all day every day, both for a year. At the end of this year, you've produced a hypothetical level 5 scientist and a level 5 boxer. Take a third guy and scientifically record the number of (equal) punches it takes to knock each of the twins out, and realistically, boxer twin should be surviving a lot longer than scientist twin. Now admittedly, being punched isn't equivical to being stabbed, burnt or electrocuted or axed, but there again if we did it realistically in that way the whole point of constitution, stamina etc wouldn't make any sense and the whole thing would be a lot more frustrating.

 

Except the CON stat IS the representation of that difference.

The scienists goes down faster because he has lower CON.

Why the hell would you divorce something that is a physical attribute from physical attributes and tie it to class?

 

If a mage has high CON then he obviously also trained his body and lived healty.

I don't see what is preventing him to do that.

[Osvir]

cred·i·bil·i·ty/ˌkredəˈbilitē/

Noun:

• The quality of being trusted: "the government's loss of credibility".
   
  
• The quality of being convincing or believable: "the book's anecdotes have scant regard for credibility".
  

Credibility is subjective. If your audience doesn't feel your opinion is the most trusted, convincing, and believable opinion, then your statement is erroneous. Helpful definitions below.

 

Realism is by defeinition believable.

 

Also, quoting definition doesn't make you look smart Or right.

 

Actually it kind of does, he researched I did not. Bending this into a Rogue on-topic post: I would love it if my Rogue would be a tool I could use to research stuff in the game, find tidbits of lore and/or information that leads to treasure.

[TrashMan]

no mine obviously isn't right either. we are both talking about our opinions. neither is more valid than the other. Ideally, I would like to see both combat and utility/skilled styles of rogue be possible and both be effective. More options is a good thing. in my opinion of course

 

And I again ask you why do you think that battlefield mobility doesn't make him effective enough?

Does he really have to have a special crit atack to be effective?

Of course not. There is no "must". Balance cna be achieved in may ways...especially if you're a immaginitive sort.

[Alexjh]

I don't see it.

Mages with high CON will never be able to match figters. For one, if they dump points in both con and INT, there is not a lot left for STR, so they won't be heavily armored.

And if you design armor properly, it can make a LOT of difference (especially since armor would take the brunt of the fireball to boot).

 

Balance is somewhat of a strange notion in a singleplayer game. Unless you insist that all classes must be equaly usefull/efficent/powerfull in all things... Which I don't see what that would have to be the case.

 

Personally I'd go with 10 HP per con point (no bonuses, no nothing. All classes the same)

So a mage with 10 CON would have 100 HP. Gaining a LVL doesn't give you HP. Putting points in CON does.

 

Would that mean that you can't 1-shot-kill a enemy mage with a fireball? Depending on balance, maybe. So what?

 

However, HP discussion is a different subject, altough it kinda ties into discussing calsses, since for a very long time they have been balanced by this HP inflation.

 

Ability scores in D&D are 90% set before you even begin leveling up so more or less represent the character before any training. In the case of the wizard/barbarian, the barbarian is being specifically trained to be tougher while the wizard is not, however, while the wizard isn't being trained in hardcore brawling as his "prime school of study", he can take feats like toughness in his "supplementary learning" and will have training in spells that'll make him tougher and more suited to frontline stuff if he goes that way. I'm all for wizards being able to learn how to fight on the frontline, or multiclass into a class that specializes it, but it shouldn't be a natural vocation for them, and while they are learning spells (that the barbarian doesn't get taught) the barbarian is learning how to both give and take attacks and so it only makes sense that of a pair of adventuring twins who start out with identical attributes, if one becomes a barbarian and one a wizard the barbarian twin will become tougher, quicker unless the wizard twin specifically trains in such a way as to keep up.