The Role of Rogues?

[ogrezilla]

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.

Fair enough. I worded that poorly. I meant I prefer the more direct stab guys in the back style, but would definitely be happy to see the style you are talking about as a valid option as well. I like choices and both sound fun to use to me.

 

In general, I do agree that rogues don't really need to do more damage from behind than other classes do. I'd be perfectly happy with them simply being more adept at getting into position to take advantage of it than other classes. Because ya, a trained fighter can probably find a weak spot in someones back just as well as the rogue; the fighter would probably just have a harder time getting behind his enemies.

Edited November 10, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Shevek]

I think it makes sense for rogues to have more of a bonus to sneak attack. They are more cunning fighters and should excel when not fighting toe to toe. The bonus does not necessarily have to be damage, however. All classes should get a bonus to hit from flanking but perhaps rogue sneak attacks could result in status afflictions or the like. The rogue might get a slightly higher bonus to hit when flanking certain foes. They could also give the rogue an array of positional abilities. Similary, rogues should be more adept at damage avoidance than other classes (save perhaps the monk).

 

In the same sense, the rogue could be adept at the applying of poisons and laying of traps. These could be class specific combat skills for the rogue. Their use could better define the rogue class as a cunning combatant who disables his foes.

 

The trick comes with skills like pickpocket, lockpicking, open lock and detect/disable device. I am against these being "rogue skills." When these are "rogue only" then a rogue is basically necessary (especially for a first time playthrough). Instead, these are the kinds of skills all classes should be able to use.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Shevek

[AlKim]

Before I kick off, I'd like to point out that I've played a Rogue in D&D 3.5e and observed a few others in the same system. Keep this in mind when considering the relevance of the following post. I also haven't bothered to trawl though the entire topic,

 

My thoughts regarding the stereotypical pure Rogue or roughly similar builds (Rogue/Assassin and what have you) with emphasis on high DEX and plenty of Skill Ranks:

1) Off-combat, the Rogue is pretty good, if only for the wide variety of class skills. However, there are other skill beasts as well (Scout, Bard, Ranger, Factotum etc.) so removing Sneak Attack would leave little motivation to select a Rogue over the others.

2) The Rogue has a rather limited selection of weapons. All of the weapons are unremarkable in terms of damage; if there was no Sneak Attack, I probably wouldn't bother investing in them at all.

3) Even with Sneak Attack, the Rogue cannot compete with the Fighter or the Barbarian in dishing out damage or taking it. Sneak Attack is potentially devastating, but the Fighter and Barbarian are devastating all the time because they hit more often and have a more consistent damage figure (say, 1d10+10 versus the Rogue's 5d6+2). Fair enough. I'm just not sure how removing Sneak Attack from Rogues or giving it to everyone would make any sense, whether you'd regard it as more realistic or not. CRPG's in general haven't aspired to great realism since they allowed magic.

4) Sneak Attack only works on enemies that can be struck with a critical hit, which creates many situations where the Rogue cannot realistically hope to do any damage at all whereas the Fighter and Barbarian remain effective (undead hordes and golems spring to mind).

5) Basically, if you were to remove Sneak Attack and replace it with nothing, the Rogue would sit on the sideline during every combat, minding his own business while everyone else did the fighting for them. I know because we once had a streak of sessions filled with nothing but the undead. Being there just because the party wants someone to open a few locks for them feels pointless. It's like being an HM slave.

[BetrayTheWorld]

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

 

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

 

As a grammar "nazi", I'm not at all irritated by your gross misspellings and sloppy quote. Quite the opposite, actually. It's amusing to me.

 

But as I like a fair fight, I feel that I should inform you that it does not irritate intelligent, well-spoken people, but instead simply detracts from your credibility with them(Hey look, I used your word correctly). However, if you are deliberately cultivating this image for your personal amusement, by all means, continue. I assure you it's entertaining us as well.(Or at least me.)

 

On the other hand, when you typically use words well, and don't have gross misspellings throughout every post you make, you can use quotes like this without looking like a complete ass:

 

"My conceptual metaphors, similes, analogies, onomatopoeias, allusions, double entendres, parenthetical asides, innuendos and non sequiturs are so sinister I could verbally slap box with the Devil." -Michael Mason

 

Personally, I prefer not to look like an idiot, or be wrong at all, for that matter. But when I inevitably come across that point where I am wrong, I try to be wrong gracefully. Buy hey, I get it. Not everyone is me. So I'll do me, and you do you.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Highborn Rogue (Shameless thread tie-in)

[Reddaye]

I've always felt that from a combat perspective that rogues should be very skilled at "controlling" the battlefield. The idea of being "top dps" is just too gamey for me. Rogues should be skilled at blinding foes temporarily with a kick of dust to the face, a boot in the groin, a blade to the leg for crippling, or things like that. I don't mind damage from behind being a bit more lethal, but the rogue's advantage needs to be the fact they can get back there more easily and get away before things get hairy.

 

They also obviously need to provide the normal utility people expect. Lockpicking, pickpocketing, etc. Things that Obsidian need to make sure ARE useful.

[FlintlockJazz]

Before I kick off, I'd like to point out that I've played a Rogue in D&D 3.5e and observed a few others in the same system. Keep this in mind when considering the relevance of the following post. I also haven't bothered to trawl though the entire topic,

 

And here are my thoughts on your thoughts! First being: this isn't D&D 3.5 and therefore your experience in that system or others may not be relevant or can be changed.

 

 

My thoughts regarding the stereotypical pure Rogue or roughly similar builds (Rogue/Assassin and what have you) with emphasis on high DEX and plenty of Skill Ranks:

1) Off-combat, the Rogue is pretty good, if only for the wide variety of class skills. However, there are other skill beasts as well (Scout, Bard, Ranger, Factotum etc.) so removing Sneak Attack would leave little motivation to select a Rogue over the others.

 

The devs have already stated that non-combat skills will be developed separately from combat skills for each character: each class will develop fighting skills and non-fighting skills separately from each other, so you can't make an all combat or all-talkie character, each class will be equal points combat and non-combat with all others. Therefore, this is irrelevant as all characters will be equal 'skill beasts'.

 

2) The Rogue has a rather limited selection of weapons. All of the weapons are unremarkable in terms of damage; if there was no Sneak Attack, I probably wouldn't bother investing in them at all.

 

No, the D&D rogue has limited weapon selection, there has been no mention of the same rules being applied here. On the contrary, since mages are now able to wear armour I think it's safe to assume that the rogue weapon selection will be different, if limited at all. Then again, I never needed Sneak Attack for most of my rogues to feel useful, so...

 

3) Even with Sneak Attack, the Rogue cannot compete with the Fighter or the Barbarian in dishing out damage or taking it. Sneak Attack is potentially devastating, but the Fighter and Barbarian are devastating all the time because they hit more often and have a more consistent damage figure (say, 1d10+10 versus the Rogue's 5d6+2). Fair enough. I'm just not sure how removing Sneak Attack from Rogues or giving it to everyone would make any sense, whether you'd regard it as more realistic or not. CRPG's in general haven't aspired to great realism since they allowed magic.

 

Should rogue's combat role be in competition for dishing out or taking damage? This is what the discussion has been about, and so your claim that the rogue can't compete in those roles anyway even with sneak attack raises the question "What's the point of sneak attack anyway?" Those arguing against sneak attacks are those who are trying to define a better role in combat for rogues, as the disrupter to combat. If you don't understand why we believe removing sneak attack from rogues makes sense then you have not read the many posts on the matter, even if you don't agree with them you should understand why people believe that just as I understand but don't agree with those supporting backstab. We want positioning to be important for all characters not just the one 'speshul' class. The last sentence is just not worth bothering with, and is an attempt at strawmanning.

 

4) Sneak Attack only works on enemies that can be struck with a critical hit, which creates many situations where the Rogue cannot realistically hope to do any damage at all whereas the Fighter and Barbarian remain effective (undead hordes and golems spring to mind).

 

At which point the rogue then has no combat utility whatsoever, resulting in the NWN2 situation that rogues were often useless. If sneak attack is their 'combat role' then you are again putting the rogue in the situation of having nothing worthwhile to contribute to combat. Hell, this point is one against sneak attack and not for as you had intended!

 

5) Basically, if you were to remove Sneak Attack and replace it with nothing, the Rogue would sit on the sideline during every combat, minding his own business while everyone else did the fighting for them. I know because we once had a streak of sessions filled with nothing but the undead. Being there just because the party wants someone to open a few locks for them feels pointless. It's like being an HM slave.

 

No one has said to replace it with nothing, the whole discussion is about what roles the rogue could conceivable fulfill. Your example of how the sneak attack rogue can be rendered useless is a prime example of how the sneak attack ability is worthless for giving the rogue a consistent role in combat, and that it should instead focus on something else.

[BetrayTheWorld]

Why should a dagger do more backstab damage? I would think a surprise claymore to the skull far more effective than a knife. That being said, I would like to see stealth penalties on larger weapons as an effective way to mitigate the problem. Daggers ought to be for backstab because they are concealable, not because of some illusiory advantage of lore. I would even be ok with nothing greater in size than a shortsword even capable of backstabbing, or at least for sneaking, to get around this issue.

 

Posting the response to this line of thought here, as to not resurrect a related thread that hasn't been posted in for awhile. It's relevant, and allows me to address the underlying question of why this is a specialized type of attack instead of a bonus that everyone gets access to.

 

It's not just the element of surprise that constitutes sneak attack damage. It's about catching someone off-guard so that you can stick a small object into a critical, unprotected area. For instance, a warrior has a helm with slits for the eyes and ears, so that he can see and hear reasonably well. A rogue sneaks up and shoves a dagger in his ear-hole: *boom - sneak attack*. This simply cannot be achieved with a claymore. A claymore is far too clumsy a weapon to be aimed at a 3mm by 1 inch slit in a helm. The longer a weapon is, the more difficult it is to reach pinpoint precision with a thrust because the center of gravity is further out from your point of control. Source: Try it IRL.

 

Small weapons like daggers are about finesse and precision, and are capable of such feats due to their size(being able to fit into smaller slits), and weight. The best you could hope for with a surprise claymore attack is to swing it at their general head region, which may or may not collide and contend with the armor they have there. Damaging? Absolutely. Representative of sneak attack damage? Not at all. It does plenty of damage on it's own.

 

1. We want positioning to be important for all characters not just the one 'speshul' class.

 

2. Your example of how the sneak attack rogue can be rendered useless is a prime example of how the sneak attack ability is worthless for giving the rogue a consistent role in combat, and that it should instead focus on something else.

 

Numbered your quotes for responses:

 

1. You can make positioning and flanking useful for all characters without taking away sneak attack. I believe D&D did this in at least one of their versions by applying penalties to the one being flanked, as well as bonuses to those attacking. This was in ADDITION to the fact that most characters don't get their dex bonus while being flanked. So, in essence, positioning is already useful against challenging opponents for almost all classes.

 

2. Having an ability that doesn't work well against every single enemy doesn't mean that the ability shouldn't exist. I don't see people arguing to take turn undead away from paladins and clerics, even though it doesn't work on 80% of opponents. Paladins and clerics are FAR more useful in combat against undead than against beasts or other living foes. Rogue's sneak attack is far more useful against the living than the undead/constructs. All this means is that using positioning and sneak attack is a tactical decision, to be used in the circumstances that call for it. It's a tool in the toolbox. Just because you're using a thumb tack to hang up a picture THIS TIME, that doesn't mean you throw away the hammer.

[FlintlockJazz]

1. We want positioning to be important for all characters not just the one 'speshul' class.

 

2. Your example of how the sneak attack rogue can be rendered useless is a prime example of how the sneak attack ability is worthless for giving the rogue a consistent role in combat, and that it should instead focus on something else.

 

Numbered your quotes for responses:

 

1. You can make positioning and flanking useful for all characters without taking away sneak attack. I believe D&D did this in at least one of their versions by applying penalties to the one being flanked, as well as bonuses to those attacking. This was in ADDITION to the fact that most characters don't get their dex bonus while being flanked. So, in essence, positioning is already useful against challenging opponents for almost all classes.

 

2. Having an ability that doesn't work well against every single enemy doesn't mean that the ability shouldn't exist. I don't see people arguing to take turn undead away from paladins and clerics, even though it doesn't work on 80% of opponents. Paladins and clerics are FAR more useful in combat against undead than against beasts or other living foes. Rogue's sneak attack is far more useful against the living than the undead/constructs. All this means is that using positioning and sneak attack is a tactical decision, to be used in the circumstances that call for it. It's a tool in the toolbox. Just because you're using a thumb tack to hang up a picture THIS TIME, that doesn't mean you throw away the hammer.

 

You didn't just numbered my quotes, you ignored the vast majority of my post, deleting the vast majority of it in your quote, and focused on two points. Considering the fact that the rest of my post dealt with the points you use in your response I am led to believe that either you didn't bother to read my post in full or knew that the rest of my post dealt with your points and so chose deliberately to ignore them, ignoring the whole point I was trying to make in doing so and attempting to make it look like I was arguing for something completely different. Considering the fact that I took the time to address each of your points in turn, something I now consider a waste of my time, only to get this as a response, well I can't be bothered to address your points any more.

 

EDIT: Changed my mind, I will address one point and then I'm done: you are the one claiming that sneak attack is the one defining feature of Rogues! You are the one claiming that there is no reason to take a rogue if they have no sneak attack! No one has argued for or against taking turn undead from clerics or paladins, because they are not the defining feature of those classes and in fact there has been no sign that those features are in the game! Considering how the Turn Undead abilities are not only not those classes' sole defining feature in combat, but most people seem to consider them rather useless anyway unless you take something like Divine Might feats to increase their use! I am arguing for giving the rogue something more than just burst dps, especially considering the situational requirements, and your own posting has actually proven that Sneak Attack is often a useless feature!

 

Oh, and this game isn't D&D.

Edited November 11, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[Jojobobo]

I'd like to see rogues have backstab, but not so that it would one-shot a tough enemy with the right character build (as with a fully armoured enemy, even if your rogue targeted say a joint in that armour, joints don't lie over vital organs and daggers don't give enough penetration to kill someone - no matter how magical they are). Even if they could kill a weaker enemy in one shot, then there'll be all his buddies to put the hurt on the rogue (so no magic invisibility that can be used in combat either, or at least if there was it should have a long cool down). Maybe something like smoke bombs might be a nice touch, but obviously they'd cause everyone to fight blind (i.e. other party members) even if they do allow the rogue a getaway.

 

I'd like to see the rogue better being able to spot environmental factors that could put the hurt on an enemy (he spots that a patch of ice is thin and makes an enemy cross it, or make a pitfall trap out of a natural hole in the ground etc.). I'd also like to see them use traps and poisons in conjunction, but without a fatal poison or trap combination that could be used to win most situations (so you may have a poison that prevents a mage from casting and put it on a trap that you lure a mage into - great - but this combo is situational, may be difficult/costly to make and may be heavy to carry around as well). Finally I'd like to see use of traditional rogue skills, i.e. thievery, used to spread dissension in enemy ranks (say you have a group of goblins with a leader and his right hand man with obvious designs on leadership which you observe from the shadows, you take a ancestral charm from the leader and stick it in the second in comands belongings - then wait for the fireworks to start). Maybe a soul based ability would allow them speech mimicry (to again spread dissension - "What did you just say to me?!"), but I'd imagine mimicry and voice-throwing would probably be the purview of the chanter.

 

Ultimately what I'm after is non-combat skill use to whittle the enemy down, then maybe backstabs to off the remaining weakened members of the group. To me, this is the perfect rogue.

[BetrayTheWorld]

You didn't just numbered my quotes, you ignored the vast majority of my post, deleting the vast majority of it in your quote, and focused on two points.

 

you are the one claiming that sneak attack is the one defining feature of Rogues! You are the one claiming that there is no reason to take a rogue if they have no sneak attack!

 

Yes, I quoted the specific points I'm responding to, as I'm doing now. This lowers thread clutter and was not meant to "disrespect" the rest of your post. Relax, this is how quotes work. And I don't recommend that you work in the public arena if having only bits and pieces of what you say quoted bothers you.

 

I'm not saying that it is THE one defining feature of a rogue, simply one of them. If you're arguing for their role to be expanded in combat, and to give them additional utility, that's fine. I don't particularly disagree with that, however, I don't think they should have sneak attack taken away, so that's the point I responded to. You can expand their role in combat without removing sneak attack.

 

You can keep both of these options valid by adhering to the main tenant of nearly every post I make here: Options.

 

If there are sufficient character customization options through feats/perks/whatever, one rogue could be geared towards sneak attacks while another is designed for more utility/support. I don't know if maybe you're not familiar with my previous posts, but I am all for any solution that puts control in the hands of players, and serves to make the game enjoyable for the largest majority possible.

 

Anyhow, you'd said you're no longer going to respond to me, so...good chat. Have a great day.

[Uszi]

I like the idea that any attack to a flank or behind has a greater critical chance or does more damage. Also, there are ways to design back stabbing rogues that doesn't force it and doesn't make it arbitrary. There are a lot of reasons why a stealthy, stabby character uses light armor and uses knives.

 

Wearing chain, scale or plate armor should have a huge impact on your sneakiness. Unless it's enchanted to some how muffle the noise, there's no way in heck you should be able to sneak up behind someone in field plate. The same goes for a lot of melee weapons. The larger or heavier a weapon is, the more noise it is going to make or the more awkward it's going to be to carry. I think bows and crossbows are already pretty stealthy, but still probably not as quiet as a knife?

 

I mean, you quickly arrive at wearing some sort of catsuit and using knives as your best option for a stealthy character when trying to maximize or metagame your character, but you're not forced to do that if you want to try to be some sort of plate wearing stealth wizard.

 

Making a rogue specialize in this kind of combat or equipment sets them up for what's seen as their usual role by players these days, but it doesn't force anyone's hand.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Uszi

[jfood]

One mechanic I have always thought favoured the rogue class was the gambit and advantage system, a series of abilities that in combination unlock attack variants to a coup de grace then reset. Some of these would be +damage type abilities, others much more akin to your tanglefoot bag and choking dust. They could be resource based, but I think making a rogue character carry around inventory to unlock 'fun **** to do' compared to a whizzard who just needs to rest, isn't really a great mechanic. I can see limited number of uses per encounter being a useful balance mechanism however, cooldowns too. There could also be a chance for critical failure chances, which fits since I have refered to them as 'gambits', like Paradox in Mage or the slapstick comedy of the Jinxed trait in Fallout, but I'm more of a fan of simple dc checks as rtwp doesn't really track or allow recovery from critical errors very well.

 

There's a similar mechanic in 3.5, Feint, where a combt action opens up secondary attack effects on target. It's limited, tied to a particular skill and only opens the enemy npc to attack multipliers. Positional based abilities, while an interesting aspect and adding depth mechanically, often involves playing 'ring around the pixels' 'til you hit the sweet spot, then parking. It's not very active, yet tedious and something you probably can't rely on ai for. Even if you could, it was the poor spot in IE/Aurora games, for non-spell based classes the only real combination of abilities you could string together were 'click on character' and 'click on mob'. The gameplay expanded in the nwn series to include um... knockdown and taunt mebbe? Not much to be honest and kotor offered up some basic melee attack moves. Extremely limited in interactivity compared to spell making mages and priestly power conduits. What I would like to see is a set of secondary, then tertiary abilities open up for rogue characters based on character build and effect status applied by their opening 'gambit' or ability. I'll give a brief combat scenario to explain.

 

We have a melee build rogue in our party and combat initiates with four heavily armored fighter baddies on the half-step towards the party, backed up by a enemy mage. Our maximum ranged and spell combat distance is thirty feet, thrown weapons and abilities about fifiteen and melee five feet. Rounds, just to keep it in a IE/Aurora framework, are six seconds, one 'gambit' can be chosen per round but are instant with no cast time, only animation required. I don't care for 'rounds', not sure how instant abilities fly in a round based system and the numbers are also entirely arbitrary. Pause Combat.

 

As we assign standard combat actions to mage types, ie. assay resistance into spell breach into charm person, we do the same for our melee rogue. Where a wizard and all ranged characters would have extreme distance abilities or attacks at least, and the fighter types a more minimal melee focused range, we assign the rogue the middle distance for opening abilities. Throw range, more or less, but I only use it for the sake of diversity and as an example. I think it's a nice distance for rogues to carve out a niche in, with useful goodies for both stabby types and ranged rogue builds. Our rogue opens up with one of the following:

 

- 'Childs Play' tossing marbles and tripping up one target for one round, no action possible when in downed state.

 

- 'Get Stuck In' throwing a glue grenade, medium sized aoe. Sustained five round snare for all npcs affected. Friendly fire on.

 

- 'About yer Mum...' a series of insults, which not only showcase your learned vernacular vocabulary, but place a -1 to attack debuff on all enemy npcs in a 15 foot range. Two rounds. Can be talented/skilled/feated for better results.

 

- 'Dirt in Your Eye' one round blind, double cast time increase for two rounds. Affected character still has control of movement, can cast at penalty and suffers attack/defense rating reduction.

 

Through feat/trait selection our rogue has also opened up an additional ability:

 

- 'Flash Git', a short-distance sprint like ability that charges them directly to a target and applies a two round snare. Regardless of where the character is in the combo system, this ability is always available. Three round cooldown

 

Other chosen 'gambits' can be open use or only during a certain stage, at different distances, with or without damage components or multipliers for said damage, against the same target, against a new target, against multiple targets et al. then balanced accordingly, allowing for character build diversity. There does need to be a limit and I think ten to fifteen(?) different abilities in a build is more than sufficient for both fun and having options during combat without being overwhelming. Armor debuffs, snap agro management, snares, silences... a whole host of choices, but a limited playbook at anytime, with less overall options than casters.

 

In this instance our rogue chooses 'Childs Play', tripping up one of the four platemail mooks who fails his 'reflex' save or whatever. This opens up our secondary attack abilities, that work side by side with and are balanced against continual auto-attack damage. We have a few options open to us and those abilities could be:

 

- 'Kick in the Jibblies' a longer-term duration stun, four rounds, that breaks on damage. Disables auto-attack against selected target.

 

- 'OUCH!' a high damage attack, does double damage against targets affected by the 'downed' or 'stunned' state. Stackable 2 round bleed effect. 1 round cooldown. Can be used at both ranged and in melee. This replaces our usual 'backstab', requires a bit of forethough to use but still allows for the meatblender high damage rogue builds we all know and love. Could also be the default action the ai assigns automatically to the rogue character when no ability or action sequence has been specified.

 

- 'Pistol Whip', stun enemy for two rounds. Great for a single target disables but really excellent against casters, as it inhibits spell casting too. Requires neither pistol, nor whip. Three round cooldown, can be talented/traited/feated down to two for gooby stunlock goodness. Contrasts nicely against 'Dirty In Your Eye', which while not as strong can be used at range.

 

- 'Quick Fingers' the rogue attempts to steal the enemy's equipped weapon. Only useable on 'downed or 'stunned' enemies. Five round cooldown.

 

- and our chosen open use feat 'Flash Git', a dash like ability that closes the distance between the rogue and any target, not just the one we've disabled.

 

As the rogue levels they could of course unlock additional abilities per action tier, but there does need to be a limit. Our rogue, given the situation chooses 'Kick in the Jibblies', disabling the enemy fighter for an additional period of time and so he can go after the real target, that mage in the back. Booting the downed enemy npc in the junk opens up our tertiary abilities, again a mix of chosen and given abilities, but more limited in scope and not as powerful as the mage, priest, druid or cipher. In this stage our options are:

 

- 'OUCH!', the high damage move again, giving us options for building towards high damage, high critical chance rogues and quickly dispatching lower hp enemies.

 

- 'Nimble FIngers'

 

and...

 

- 'Flash Git'... which seems a bit limited, doesn't it?

 

However, if we had chosen 'OUCH!' at stage two in the combo sequence, we would have opened up another choice as well:

 

- 'Fatal Wound', does 1.5x damage compared to 'OUCH!', multipliers allowed, all stacked bleed damage becomes instant. Can only be used after 'OUCH!'. Again, by exploiting advantages, either created by the rogue or through class and companion synergy, the rogue class can access higher damage output through smart, reactive play, not just relying on position.

 

Not wanting to break the stun that's taken one of the enemy mooks out of the fight and given that no other player character/companion is going to break the soft cc on the enemy fighter, our rogue switches up to the mage and hits 'Flash Git'. This closes the distance between the rogue and his target almost instantly, and resets our character back to stage one of the combo chain, which now looks slightly different as our character begins this sequence in melee range. Our characters ability bars now looks as follows:

 

- In slot one, 'Childs Play' is now greyed out and unuseable. Maybe it's on cooldown, maybe we've used it the maximum number of times we can per encounter. Perhaps we can trait for additional uses or a shorter cooldown as we level.

 

- In slot two, 'Dirt In Your Eye'. Maybe this is on cooldown? Maybe it shares a per encounter limit with 'Childs Play'? Maybe it doesn't but does provoke an 'attack of opportunity' like reaction when used in melee range and that doesn't matter since our rogue is tusslin' with a mage? Just giving avenues to balance these small, spell-like abilities against one another and the larger framework of the system as a whole.

 

- In slot three, 'Pistol Whip'. Still doesn't need a pistol or a whip to use and possibly the best choice considering the target. It will keep the mage from casting and moving all in one go. Enemy npc gets some sort of save against or course. Hard crowd control on melee classes does a great deal to combat the dumb as **** 'day at the race track' style shenanigans rtwp combat can look like.

 

- In slot four, 'OUCH!'. We can pair this with a stun from another class, say a ranger ability called 'Blunted Arrow'. If we do so, we access both the damage multiplier in addition to regular critical hit tables and opens up 'Fatal Wound' for the third step as well. With our ranger companion supplying the disable effect as well as both auto-attack and ability damage, perhaps 'OUCH!' into 'Fatal Wound' will be enough to kill the mage outright? It's an option and a calculated risk, if you don't kill him outright he could bubble up or turn invisible.

 

- In slot five, 'Flash Git', now greyed out and on cooldown.

 

If we follow the example of a cross class stun being applied, by the ranger, 'Nimble Fingers' could also be up for use as well. Etc. And we head into combo sequence two for the rogue character.

 

A brief example of how the sytem could play out.

 

It offers up more variety and activity than standard IE/Aurora games have allowed melee classes. It's reactive, requires some forethought and generally has options that extended beyond 'stealth up and stab'. I also like the idea of either creating advantages in combat, or exploiting the actions of the party as a whole in combat. It actually borrows a bit from more reactive, mmo systems to be honest, particularly the Black Orc and Swordmaster from WAR, compared to the whole 'click on and ride the auto-attack' lameness that's been so prominent in Black Isle/Obsidian rtwp games and their melee classes. Having access to a tactics and scripting system, as in Dragon Age, could allow the player to set these action sequences in advance based on type of class, enemy hp et al. keeping it from being too hectic while still giving options to change it up on the fly.

Edited November 12, 2012 by jfood

[Hormalakh]

I have tried to read most of the conversation for the past eleven pages, and I tend to agree that I wouldn't want a rogue that is a consistent heavy-hitter during battles as I would delegate that responsibility to fighters. The occasional sneak attack is fine with me, and I generally use my rogues' out-of-combat abilities much more than I do in-combat. Usually, unless they are assassin-kitted, they are ranged lower DPS combatants.

 

I did want to mention that these arguments about game mechanics having to FULLY correlate with realism is something I don't agree with. These ideas are abstractions and as such are meant to help guide players into better understanding their mechanics quickly; a class is only good in that it quickly identifies what that character's skill-sets are and nothing more. Classes are meant to relay a theme to the character's personality and skills. A rogue, like any adventurer worth his salt, should be able to fight, but it's how he takes down his opponents that matter. The over-all theme that the rogue utilizes is that of someone in the shadows.

 

I guess Batman would be a good example to think about. Do you consider Batman a fighter or a rogue? Why? The abilities of Batman under a general theme would "class" Batman as either a fighter or a rogue, and maybe that would depend on how you'd like to portray him. Perhaps, he's both. But if you were to choose one, which would it be?

Edited November 12, 2012 by Hormalakh

[BetrayTheWorld]

I guess Batman would be a good example to think about. Do you consider Batman a fighter or a rogue? Why? The abilities of Batman under a general theme would "class" Batman as either a fighter or a rogue, and maybe that would depend on how you'd like to portray him. Perhaps, he's both. But if you were to choose one, which would it be?

 

Good comparison. If he had to be one or the other, I'd say rogue(utility belt ftw). But under D&D formats, I'd say he's multiclassed into epic levels.

[TrashMan]

Fair enough. I worded that poorly. I meant I prefer the more direct stab guys in the back style, but would definitely be happy to see the style you are talking about as a valid option as well. I like choices and both sound fun to use to me.

 

The thing with "option&choice" defense is that it can be horribly misused.

 

For example, I'd like for paladins to have a lighting fart attack. If you're gaisnt it, you are limiting my choices to play the paladin the way I want to. What a bad man you are for limiting peoples choice!

 

Which is why I draw the line at things that make sense and feel right.

[TrashMan]

But as I like a fair fight, I feel that I should inform you that it does not irritate intelligent, well-spoken people, but instead simply detracts from your credibility with them(Hey look, I used your word correctly). However, if you are deliberately cultivating this image for your personal amusement, by all means, continue. I assure you it's entertaining us as well.(Or at least me.)

 

On the other hand, when you typically use words well, and don't have gross misspellings throughout every post you make, you can use quotes like this without looking like a complete ass:

 

"My conceptual metaphors, similes, analogies, onomatopoeias, allusions, double entendres, parenthetical asides, innuendos and non sequiturs are so sinister I could verbally slap box with the Devil." -Michael Mason

 

Personally, I prefer not to look like an idiot, or be wrong at all, for that matter. But when I inevitably come across that point where I am wrong, I try to be wrong gracefully. Buy hey, I get it. Not everyone is me. So I'll do me, and you do you.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Highborn Rogue (Shameless thread tie-in)

 

 

Ah yes....because making a typo when writing in a non-native language late at night is clear indication of an inferior intellect and undisputed proof that the poster is "a complete ass".

 

You can post as many intelligent-sounding quotes as you want, and you can type fancy word with flawless perfection. If you think that makes you look smart, more power to you.

Personally I just think it makes you a salve that desperately tries to mantain a fake internet image.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

some guy on the internet

[BetrayTheWorld]

But as I like a fair fight, I feel that I should inform you that it does not irritate intelligent, well-spoken people, but instead simply detracts from your credibility with them(Hey look, I used your word correctly). However, if you are deliberately cultivating this image for your personal amusement, by all means, continue. I assure you it's entertaining us as well.(Or at least me.)

 

On the other hand, when you typically use words well, and don't have gross misspellings throughout every post you make, you can use quotes like this without looking like a complete ass:

 

"My conceptual metaphors, similes, analogies, onomatopoeias, allusions, double entendres, parenthetical asides, innuendos and non sequiturs are so sinister I could verbally slap box with the Devil." -Michael Mason

 

Personally, I prefer not to look like an idiot, or be wrong at all, for that matter. But when I inevitably come across that point where I am wrong, I try to be wrong gracefully. Buy hey, I get it. Not everyone is me. So I'll do me, and you do you.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Highborn Rogue (Shameless thread tie-in)

 

 

Ah yes....because making a typo when writing in a non-native language late at night is clear indication of an inferior intellect and undisputed proof that the poster is "a complete ass".

 

You can post as many intelligent-sounding quotes as you want, and you can type fancy word with flawless perfection. If you think that makes you look smart, more power to you.

Personally I just think it makes you a salve that desperately tries to mantain a fake internet image.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

some guy on the internet

 

That's not what I said. I'd normally suggest working on your reading comprehension, but in your case, you can take it how you like. And if my words are "fancy" to you, well, I don't know what to say to that.

 

EDIT: Oh, but I do feel like mentioning the fact that you previously said it was on purpose, and are now saying it was a typo late at night in a non-native language. These two things are not the same. Don't take this the wrong way. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just pointing out two facts.

Edited November 12, 2012 by BetrayTheWorld

[Alexjh]

I guess Batman would be a good example to think about. Do you consider Batman a fighter or a rogue? Why? The abilities of Batman under a general theme would "class" Batman as either a fighter or a rogue, and maybe that would depend on how you'd like to portray him. Perhaps, he's both. But if you were to choose one, which would it be?

 

Good comparison. If he had to be one or the other, I'd say rogue(utility belt ftw). But under D&D formats, I'd say he's multiclassed into epic levels.

 

I was considering the Batman example to some other point, but I'd go with him being some sort of a monk/rogue multiclass.

 

But really there are a huge range of things which fall within the remit of rogue, I'd argue that in addition to Batman, some other inhabitants (or partial inhabitants) of that category include snipers, James Bond, Sam Fisher like secret agents, ninjas, classic "knives and poison" fantasy assassins, the non-violent characters of the TV show "Hustle", terrorist bombers and some thug who sneaks up behind someone to crowbar them in the back of their head to steal their stuff.

 

That's a big range of archetypes, and about their only linking feature is "success through being unexpected".

[Hertzila]

I feel like I'm hammering the same point but why not give a sneak attack bonus to everybody who can attack from sneak? If your double-door sized warrior can somehow sneak behind a guard, he sure as hell should get some bonus for that. But the thing is, in the end it's the sneaky type, usually the rogue, who will benefit the most from this.

If somebody else manages to be the sneaky type, I'd argue that he should get the bonus too.

 

But really there are a huge range of things which fall within the remit of rogue, I'd argue that in addition to Batman, some other inhabitants (or partial inhabitants) of that category include snipers, James Bond, Sam Fisher like secret agents, ninjas, classic "knives and poison" fantasy assassins, the non-violent characters of the TV show "Hustle", terrorist bombers and some thug who sneaks up behind someone to crowbar them in the back of their head to steal their stuff.

 

That's a big range of archetypes, and about their only linking feature is "success through being unexpected".

 

I'd like to add bow-and-blackjack trusting Garrett-like thieves and Solid Snake -like infiltrators to that list. All of whom should have a sneak attack bonus if there is one, whether or not they really are rogues.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Hertzila

[FlintlockJazz]

Anyhow, you'd said you're no longer going to respond to me, so...good chat. Have a great day.

 

I'm going to disappoint myself again and fall for being incited into a response. I try to stop myself from doing so often but alas I am a man of passion it seems.

 

Yes, I quoted the specific points I'm responding to, as I'm doing now. This lowers thread clutter and was not meant to "disrespect" the rest of your post. Relax, this is how quotes work.

 

I'm actually going to apologise here: I thought you were AlKim, the guy I was responding to originally, and so your post was read in a completely different light, which is why I felt you were ignoring my points I was making about his points. I still feel my whole post actually answers the points you raised, and I'm suspicious how you have cut my response there so that it looked like I was just upset at being cut down and not because I felt I was being taken out of context, but I guess that must be down to you not understanding why I got upset (since it must have looked weird), so again I apologise. Enjoy this moment while you can.

 

And I don't recommend that you work in the public arena if having only bits and pieces of what you say quoted bothers you.

 

What bothers me is when I'm trying to have a honest discussion with someone on a gaming forum and they resort to quoting out of context and ignoring the questions I raised in my post, trying to manipulate it to look like I am arguing for something I wasn't. I now realise that you weren't, so um just take it as a warning as to what I'll do if you or any of the lowlifes in this forum tries something like that: explode in rage and hulk-smash you all!

 

I'm not saying that it is THE one defining feature of a rogue, simply one of them.

 

I disagree that it is a defining feature, but my main argument before was against it being THE defining feature as the post I was arguing against was claiming that. For reference, here is the post I was responding to:

 

Before I kick off, I'd like to point out that I've played a Rogue in D&D 3.5e and observed a few others in the same system. Keep this in mind when considering the relevance of the following post. I also haven't bothered to trawl though the entire topic,

 

My thoughts regarding the stereotypical pure Rogue or roughly similar builds (Rogue/Assassin and what have you) with emphasis on high DEX and plenty of Skill Ranks:

1) Off-combat, the Rogue is pretty good, if only for the wide variety of class skills. However, there are other skill beasts as well (Scout, Bard, Ranger, Factotum etc.) so removing Sneak Attack would leave little motivation to select a Rogue over the others.

2) The Rogue has a rather limited selection of weapons. All of the weapons are unremarkable in terms of damage; if there was no Sneak Attack, I probably wouldn't bother investing in them at all.

3) Even with Sneak Attack, the Rogue cannot compete with the Fighter or the Barbarian in dishing out damage or taking it. Sneak Attack is potentially devastating, but the Fighter and Barbarian are devastating all the time because they hit more often and have a more consistent damage figure (say, 1d10+10 versus the Rogue's 5d6+2). Fair enough. I'm just not sure how removing Sneak Attack from Rogues or giving it to everyone would make any sense, whether you'd regard it as more realistic or not. CRPG's in general haven't aspired to great realism since they allowed magic.

4) Sneak Attack only works on enemies that can be struck with a critical hit, which creates many situations where the Rogue cannot realistically hope to do any damage at all whereas the Fighter and Barbarian remain effective (undead hordes and golems spring to mind).

5) Basically, if you were to remove Sneak Attack and replace it with nothing, the Rogue would sit on the sideline during every combat, minding his own business while everyone else did the fighting for them. I know because we once had a streak of sessions filled with nothing but the undead. Being there just because the party wants someone to open a few locks for them feels pointless. It's like being an HM slave.

 

I've bolded the important bits, I was arguing that sneak attack should not be used to define the class, and that it was actually a weakness to do so. I do not consider sneak attack to be a defining feature of a rogue at all. An attacker of opportunity, yes, but that should be because they have skills that enable them to get into that position, and not because they get to do burst dps.

 

You can keep both of these options valid by adhering to the main tenant of nearly every post I make here: Options.

 

Then why not make it available to all classes if it's all about options? If any character is in the situation that they can attempt a sneak attack why shouldn't they be allowed it? If you are so insistent that it be a class skill then why limit it to rogues? Shouldn't all classes be allowed to learn it? Rename it Targeted Strike: Vitals and let it do increased damage at the cost of a hefty to-hit penalty that can be offset by bonuses such as flanking or surprise. As I mentioned in my original post, if Sneak Attack does not enable the rogue to be able to compete in damage dealing with a fighter then what's the point of it, and if it does let them compete then you either have overlap or the poor warrior gets relegated to meat shield again. Sometimes adding options to one class destroys options for another is what I am pretty much saying I guess.

 

 

If there are sufficient character customization options through feats/perks/whatever, one rogue could be geared towards sneak attacks while another is designed for more utility/support. I don't know if maybe you're not familiar with my previous posts, but I am all for any solution that puts control in the hands of players, and serves to make the game enjoyable for the largest majority possible.

 

Whatever happens, I do not want Sneak Attack built into a rogue as standard: it then means to get the most out of the rogue you need to make use of sneak attacks, as they are balanced for it's use and are often useless in combat otherwise. Even when Sneak Attack is an option it's blatantly obvious the devs expect you to take it sooner or later for the class, or you are limited to dual-wielding sneak attacker and bowman (I'm looking at you DAO). Again, I see no reason why it should also be limited to rogues.

[Alexjh]

Whatever happens, I do not want Sneak Attack built into a rogue as standard: it then means to get the most out of the rogue you need to make use of sneak attacks, as they are balanced for it's use and are often useless in combat otherwise. Even when Sneak Attack is an option it's blatantly obvious the devs expect you to take it sooner or later for the class, or you are limited to dual-wielding sneak attacker and bowman (I'm looking at you DAO). Again, I see no reason why it should also be limited to rogues.

 

OK, here's the question then, what do you propose as an alternative? If you are going to take it out sneak attacking as the primary option, what are you adding back in to make rogues more than a cut rate fighter?

[BetrayTheWorld]

1. I've bolded the important bits, I was arguing that sneak attack should not be used to define the class, and that it was actually a weakness to do so.

 

2. Then why not make it available to all classes if it's all about options?

 

1. I respectfully disagree, and actually do agree with :1) Off-combat, the Rogue is pretty good, if only for the wide variety of class skills. However, there are other skill beasts as well (Scout, Bard, Ranger, Factotum etc.) so removing Sneak Attack would leave little motivation to select a Rogue over the others.

 

Now, this doesn't mean that my opinion is the only one, and someone else might be perfectly OK with playing the stereotypical rogue archetype sans the sneak attack. Personally, I would view said character as being completely ineffective in combat, and would probably go with a bard instead to fill the role of lockpicker/trap disarmer who can also buff the party while having the same bab. Either way, I've been a huge proponent of giving options so that players can customize characters to specialize in the roles they want them to fill.

 

2. I have already responded to this point, in support of it earlier in this thread. I am not opposed to sneak attack being available to all classes as a feat/perk that you buy. However, it should be weapon-specific. Not every weapon is appropriate for backstabbing, for reasons I've already explained. Rather than rehash those reasons, I will quote myself...again. Sneak attack also isn't the only appropriate way to grant bonuses for flanking, as I have again, described below.

 

Why should a dagger do more backstab damage? I would think a surprise claymore to the skull far more effective than a knife. That being said, I would like to see stealth penalties on larger weapons as an effective way to mitigate the problem. Daggers ought to be for backstab because they are concealable, not because of some illusiory advantage of lore. I would even be ok with nothing greater in size than a shortsword even capable of backstabbing, or at least for sneaking, to get around this issue.

 

It's not just the element of surprise that constitutes sneak attack damage. It's about catching someone off-guard so that you can stick a small object into a critical, unprotected area. For instance, a warrior has a helm with slits for the eyes and ears, so that he can see and hear reasonably well. A rogue sneaks up and shoves a dagger in his ear-hole: *boom - sneak attack*. This simply cannot be achieved with a claymore. A claymore is far too clumsy a weapon to be aimed at a 3mm by 1 inch slit in a helm. The longer a weapon is, the more difficult it is to reach pinpoint precision with a thrust because the center of gravity is further out from your point of control. Source: Try it IRL.

 

Small weapons like daggers are about finesse and precision, and are capable of such feats due to their size(being able to fit into smaller slits), and weight. The best you could hope for with a surprise claymore attack is to swing it at their general head region, which may or may not collide and contend with the armor they have there. Damaging? Absolutely. Representative of sneak attack damage? Not at all. It does plenty of damage on it's own.

 

1. We want positioning to be important for all characters not just the one 'speshul' class.

 

2. Your example of how the sneak attack rogue can be rendered useless is a prime example of how the sneak attack ability is worthless for giving the rogue a consistent role in combat, and that it should instead focus on something else.

 

Numbered your quotes for responses:

 

1. You can make positioning and flanking useful for all characters without taking away sneak attack. I believe D&D did this in at least one of their versions by applying penalties to the one being flanked, as well as bonuses to those attacking. This was in ADDITION to the fact that most characters don't get their dex bonus while being flanked. So, in essence, positioning is already useful against challenging opponents for almost all classes.

 

2. Having an ability that doesn't work well against every single enemy doesn't mean that the ability shouldn't exist. I don't see people arguing to take turn undead away from paladins and clerics, even though it doesn't work on 80% of opponents. Paladins and clerics are FAR more useful in combat against undead than against beasts or other living foes. Rogue's sneak attack is far more useful against the living than the undead/constructs. All this means is that using positioning and sneak attack is a tactical decision, to be used in the circumstances that call for it. It's a tool in the toolbox. Just because you're using a thumb tack to hang up a picture THIS TIME, that doesn't mean you throw away the hammer.

 

From here on out, if someone argues points with me that I've already answered in this thread, I'm not going to do all the work for them to find answers I've already addressed. I will simply be saying "asked and answered". They can find the information themselves. I've put too much time into my posts to have to rehash them over and over.

[Hormalakh]

I would actually like to see the rogue as being the one who is detected with difficulty during a battle. The rogue should be able to stay in shadows during combat to be most effective, regardless of how the actual damage is dealt over time. Perhaps instead of actually damaging opponents, they can be best utilized as enemy disablers, in that they can poison or sap enemies out of battle.

 

They would be a good class in disabling that lone patrolling orc before it calls its friends to battle.

 

--------------

 

How about making the rogue's possible skill sets wider in depth AND range? What else can rogues do other than backstab, sneak attack? Sap. Poison. Disable. Set traps. Etc. These are all combat capabilities and perhaps thieves could either know a little about all of them (jack of all trades) or specialize in a certain rogue-field. Poison master. Assasin (sneakattack master). Traps Master. Sapper.

 

-----------------

 

This idea that because in real-life everyone can perform a "sneak-attack" or climb or do any other action while certain classes are locked out is, as I said before, an abstraction. The point is that certain classes should become masters in these skills and are more focused on these aspects. Perhaps a fighter can bacakstab enemies, but maybe rogues have spent a lifetime working on the best methods used in backstabbing people. These are as I've said before, abstractions of a relaity, to make the players quickly understand the skills specialized by any certain class. While I understand the argument that melee fighters are masters in combat, perhaps it can be explained that most fighter training emphasizes fighting your enemies as they face you; while fighters can get a limited bonus to attacking from behind, the rogue has mastered his fighting techniques as those that rely mainly on attacking from behind/shadows. Thus they get a higher bonus to these "backstabs."

 

Just some thoughts....

Edited November 13, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Osvir]

Potions Suck could they be an ability tree like a spellbook? (But for a Rogue/Class Support Build?)

[TrashMan]

Too much abstraction is bad. And unnecessary given the processing power of computers.