Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers

[Tamerlane]

Pickpocketing will be handled via specific dialogue prompts and scripted sequences, the sort of thing you saw a lot of in Planescape Torment (though that was usually other people trying to pick your pocket). Lock picking is A Thing, and any class can do it, though rogues get an inherent bonus to it.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Tamerlane

[Wombat]

If you build a rogue with high Mechanic skill, which "can be used to open locks as wells as find hidden objects and set/disable traps", determining "the power of traps that the character sets", and DEX, which governs "pickpocketing and sleight-of-hand actions in conversations and scripted interactions," it should pretty much cover a traditional image of Thief.

 

Also, although Sawyer is trying to make the rogue class "self-sufficient," I suspect it is still possible to make a low Might Rogue who lets other characters do damages while he/she lures the opponents into their AoE areas, escaping from getting caught.  Of course, over-enhancing this aspect may end up with a kiting heavy game and we have to wait and see, at least, till the gameplay gets available in a way or another...

Edited February 2, 2014 by Wombat

[Tamerlane]

Rogues have a lot of status effects, and according to Josh, focusing on things like effect duration and accuracy over might is very viable for the class. They hit hard by their nature, but that doesn't mean "pump Might or be bad".

Edited February 2, 2014 by Tamerlane

[plillevold]

Would love to see Wizards and Druids next! And I must say, those Engwithan ruins and the surroundings look amazing can't wait to crawl those dungeons!

[Abel]

I can't imagine that dev staff really read all the comments. It's a very long list of comments here. And i've not read all.

 

I'm opened to the idea of playing rogues or rangers in a way i never saw them. Rogues as dommage dealing class? Well, sounds strange for a BG fan, but why not? It may be interesting, new, intriguing.

 

Ranger=Archer? Why not? But i think even if the ranger is at his best with a bow, he should have some skills in melee weapons as an alternative way to fight. A less efficient, but more flexible one for the hard times when another fighter is hugely needed on the front line. I'm agree with the one who said that one interest of the old D&D rules was that all classes had not to be great in combat. But, it takes some time to understand how this kind of character is interesting to put in a party. It took a while before i learnt to love priests and rogues in Baldur's Gate, as for charisma oriented wizards as a main character. Multi classing allowed some kind of flexibility in BG, and i think PoE's goal is to extend this flexibility. And i'm all for that.

 

It's not because we are not used to things that these things are bad. I need to see the entire features system before being sure of my judgment. I may feel that some things are "strange", but for now it's impossible for me to just definitely say "it's out of place", without even knowing what i'm talking about. Having an idea and constructive criticism is great, but it's weird to me to read some radical comments focused on just a detail, without guessing the entire thing we don't really know so much about. And the ones who want to know more about skills may be right. So, interesting new approach in this update, but my question is:

 

"If classes have good strenght and specialties, how about their limits and weaknesses?". ie if you are a great archer, being a poor or average melee fighter is not a real weakness, and being a great damage dealer with poor defense is hardly more than of a counterpart designing style. These following examples are not the best ever because it's really basic, but in BG: it was hard to make powerfull charismatic fighters great in speaking with people and in fights, rogues were essential but weak, priests were usefull for the long journeys, but bad in fights, wizards were great with their varied spells but they didn't last long with just them, poor wisdom characters were easily mind controled, etc... I just want to learn more in order to make my own idea about all this stuff.

Edited February 2, 2014 by Abel

[Wombat]

Rogues have a lot of status effects, and according to Josh, focusing on things like effect duration and accuracy over might is very viable for the class. They hit hard by their nature, but that doesn't mean "pump Might or be bad".

I didn't even try to say such a thing.  Just a possibility of one of builds which fit the image of a tricky rogue in old IE context since it's very unlikely for him to go for sneaky backstab-and-win formula (stealth seems to be mainly for better positioning but it's still only effective at the start of the combat).  And yeah, a status effect (poisoning?) tricky build would be easier to be expressed in the context of rule-set on paper, without relying on the actual gameplay.

 

 

 I just want to learn more in order to make my own idea about all this stuff.

I cannot speak for others but I'm just speculating here.  Of course, there are too many things I would like to know and my knowledge about this new system is far from even an attempt to judge.  Since the devs are not replying comments (probably for the better), the optimized communication would be, as I have repeated, wait for the new info.

[Nonek]

If you can't make a Drizzle the Dark Elf imitator in Poe then I would regard it as a superior system.

[FlintlockJazz]

If you can't make a Drizzle the Dark Elf imitator in Poe then I would regard it as a superior system.

Death to all dark elves, just to be sure!!

[KaeseEs]

Ranger=Archer? Why not? But i think even if the ranger is at his best with a bow, he should have some skills in melee weapons as an alternative way to fight. A less efficient, but more flexible one for the hard times when another fighter is hugely needed on the front line.

 

I should say first that I don't think that the fact that 4 of the Ranger's 11 revealed Abilities give bonuses to ranged weapons necessarily makes him unable to step up in melee in a pinch (provided you've put points into the right Attributes and Skills), but you raise a good point.  A common choice in classed RPG systems is to give the player some opportunities to either mitigate weaknesses of their character's class or accentuate/amplify their class's strengths.

 

I would expect that PE will offer you this choice via its Talents.  What we know about these, quoth the wiki:

 

 

Talents are the Pillars of Eternity equivalent of feats. Talents are gained every three levels, but can also be gained from quests or through interaction with NPCs.^[1]

Description

Talents fall into two groups: class-specific abilities and class-neutral abilities. Class-specific abilities are only be available to members of certain classes; for example, Alteration School Specialization is only be available to wizards because it specifically augments wizard spells. You can take class neutral talents as long as you meet one of the prerequisites. Prerequisites are designed to be "or"s and many of them will have an option that opens at higher levels. E.g., to take this talent you need to be an Elf or Aedyran or 9th level.^[2] Weapon Specialization will likely be available to fighters at low levels, but will also become available to members of other classes at higher levels.^[3]

Some talents will affect groups of weapons; these groups will all contain at least one weapon for each of the three physical damage types.^[4] There will be combat style talents that improves fighting with weapon and shield, two-handed weapons, ranged weapons or two weapons. ^[5]

 

 

From this, I surmise that there could be two ways to make your Ranger more competent in melee:

1. Grab some non-class-specific Melee talents
2. Grab some class-specific Melee talents

The tradeoff for either of these, of course, would be not enhancing your ranger's ranged abilities.

[Lephys]

Rogues have a lot of status effects, and according to Josh, focusing on things like effect duration and accuracy over might is very viable for the class. They hit hard by their nature, but that doesn't mean "pump Might or be bad".

I things like "hitting hard" tend to get applied a bit too generally when people read them. Your Rogue being a "heavy hitter" does't mean he runs in and goes "It's CLOBBERIN' TIIIIME!". It just means that, in the grand scheme of things, and in the abstraction of damage and targets, the Rogue doles out some of the highest damage amounts to individual targets, when used properly. It doesn't mean you have to "do a lot of damage" as in "your sheer base damage value is high" or "all your hits produce oodles of damage, because you're just super powerful" or anything like that.

 

They basically (the Rogue and Ranger) specialize in creating opportunities to then take advantage of, to make the most of their strikes, rather than just plain smashing defenses and such. I imagine there are certain foes that make that a lot tougher without the direct support of the rest of the party, and other foes against whom it works amazingly without much help. Thing is, the Rogue can't always just run straight into any given situation and start "hitting hard," nor can a Ranger just pick a nice spot away from the frontlines and simply dish out effective arrows-to-the-eyeball.

 

So, essentially, it's a very specific, active style of "heavy-hitting." Not just a "this guy is your powerful damagey guy" situation. I dunno, maybe calling them "Cleverly-effective hitters" would eliminate any thoughts about a direct Might/DPS/what-have-you affiliation? *shrug*

Edited February 3, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

^ Actually, it does. You want your Rogue to run in and go 'It's CLOBBERIN' TIIIIME'. Because you'll have your Defenders helping the Rogue. And you'll want to get off your sneak attack in the first couple of seconds of combat when they have sneak attack active (combat advantage). This will probably be done with Ranged attack first to get off your sneak attack and then changed to melee, as is the case of pnp.

 

That was the main advantage of the optimised Artful Dodger/Trickster/Rogue in pnp. You are hard to hit, you almost never miss, you can move anywhere freely, and you hit hard. If you can do something like this in PoE, then running in will be a good option, especially with your Defenders taking the brunt of the damage.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

^ Actually, it does. You want your Rogue to run in and go 'It's CLOBBERIN' TIIIIME'. Because you'll have your Defenders helping the Rogue. And you'll want to get off your sneak attack in the first couple of seconds of combat when they have sneak attack active (combat advantage).

Yes, just like The Thing from the Fantastic Four only runs in to clobber baddies when several other party members are supporting him in this endeavor, as opposed to alone... oh wait.

 

I get that you'll have a party, and you'll have support. The point is, you won't just go "Oh hey, 3 dudes with swords? BRING IT ON, 'CAUSE I HIT REALLY HARD!" Your Rogue isn't about to just take on some foes directly. Sure, he's a good fighter, but it's just a different, wily type of fighting specialization. As opposed to, say, a Barbarian, or a Fighter.

 

Basically, I'm just pointing out that "heavy-hitter" isn't so much describing the manner in which they hit, as it is describing the functional role they're tailored for in party-based combat.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I don't see the distinction. If you can optimise the Rogue in PoE to have a high AC/Defense, then you should be able to take on 3 dudes with swords, especially if they have statuses on them that grants the Rogue combat advantage. Granted PoE is not pnp, but having a hard to hit Rogue that can do a lot of damage should be able to hold his own. And the added benefit of party members (including Defenders) would complement that. So you'll want to have your Rogue running into battle after they get off their ranged sneak attack in the first seconds of combat. It's what I did in pnp and my party members relied on me running into the fray.

 

Also you have the ability to 'escape' if things get to much for you with the Coordinated Positioning ability in PoE and that should allow you to keep attacking while the 3 dudes are now concentrating their efforts on your Defender. But you're still in battle clobbering away.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[rjshae]

If Rangers are going to be given the option to melee focus, I think Fighters should be provided a decent ranged capability.

[Lephys]

I don't see the distinction.

Well, for one thing, decking your Rogue out in full plate and giving him a shield (for example) to bolster AC/defense is taking that much away from his offensive capabilities. So, I'm not saying you can't make a stout Rogue who can hold his own in combat. But, now he's not nearly as much of a heavy-hitter, as he is a hold-his-own-er. Plus, a Rogue hacking away at three foes who are pre-occupied with one-or-more other party members is in no way "taking on" those three foes. The other party member(s) is/are doing the taking-onning, and your Rogue is simply enjoying the freedom to casually pour damage all over their heads and laugh whilst he does so.

 

Which, again, is fine. They work like that, too, and it's a sound strategy.

 

Look, people were worried this newfangled PoE Rogue isn't Rogueish, like we're used to, so I was simply emphasizing the fact that the manner by which this Rogue effects his "heavy-hitting" is via opportunity creation and exploitation, not via "I run at you and smash face with big stick and laugh while you hit me back!" This isn't some weird tank-Rogue who charges into battles and laughs in the face of danger.

 

A Rogue smiting folks in melee combat is going to function differently from a Fighter or a Barbarian doing the same thing.

 

That's all I'm saying/emphasizing. Seems plenty Rogueish to me.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Well, for one thing, decking your Rogue out in full plate and giving him a shield (for example) to bolster AC/defense is taking that much away from his offensive capabilities.

 

I don't see how. Give the Rogue a shield, no problem. I use a shield in pnp for my Rogue. I have the Master at Arms talent which lets me swap melee and ranged weapons with one hand as a minor action and still have actions left to sneak attack. So having a shield on my off-hand isn't a problem. Although all crossbows in PoE will probably be two handed. So you may be able to swap while the game is paused. Also, there are probably other ways to bolster AC and defences than giving full plate. However, since PoE doesn't operate the same as the IE games, it might be a viable option to deck them out in full plate.

 

But what this comes down to you is saying: "Your Rogue being a "heavy hitter" does't mean he runs in and goes "It's CLOBBERIN' TIIIIME!". I disagree. I think it's a good option to do so.

[Lephys]

But what this comes down to you is saying: "Your Rogue being a "heavy hitter" does't mean he runs in and goes "It's CLOBBERIN' TIIIIME!". I disagree. I think it's a good option to do so.

What it comes down to is that you're arguing against what I don't mean by specifically quoting Fantastic Four's The Thing. You disagree... with what I'm not actually getting at. Hence my explanations.

 

If it was perfectly viable to easily allow your Rogue to hold his own AND still fully take advantage of his heavy-hittingness, then the choice between Fighter and Rogue in that regard would be a no-brainer. I trust that team Obsidian's designs will make sense, so I trust that that will not be the case.

 

A "default" Rogue's hold-his-own factor will be lower than that of many other classes, while the effective heaviness of his hits will be higher than that of many other classes. In relation to the other classes, the Rogue will not be the lord of the rings Troll to your Orc party. Sort of a "the best defense is a good offense" combatant. As long as you can get the hits you need, you can make the most of those hits and produce more damage than others. But, you have to deal more with getting the hits you need than other classes do.

 

I'm simply looking at the distinction of the Rogue class from other classes. I'm not arguing what is and isn't variable within Rogue builds. You seem to be thinking I'm trying to say you can't build a Rogue specifically to be more gung-ho about charging straight at opponents head-on. I'm sure you can, but he's going to be far less heavy-hitting relative to the Rogue that you've designed specifically to hit heavily.

[Wombat]

Yeah, this is more like exploration of build possbilities.  Indeed, it is more of my wishful thinking to imagine a rogue character who avoids getting his/her hand dirty by relying on indirect methods-even in combat.  However, going through Rogue's ability list again, the class seems to be about how to make a big damage through its sneak attack ability while avoiding direct confrontation.  Also, if we want a mobile tank which spams negative effects on the enemies, there is a monk class.  Still, I'm not sure about how it goes with AoE and evasion conjuncture, though, since so far, the rogue is only class which has an ability tied to evasion.  Then again, how effective it would be in the non-save system of PoE remains unclear.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

But what this comes down to you is saying: "Your Rogue being a "heavy hitter" does't mean he runs in and goes "It's CLOBBERIN' TIIIIME!". I disagree. I think it's a good option to do so.

What it comes down to is that you're arguing against what I don't mean by specifically quoting Fantastic Four's The Thing. You disagree... with what I'm not actually getting at. Hence my explanations.

 

If it was perfectly viable to easily allow your Rogue to hold his own AND still fully take advantage of his heavy-hittingness, then the choice between Fighter and Rogue in that regard would be a no-brainer. I trust that team Obsidian's designs will make sense, so I trust that that will not be the case.

 

A "default" Rogue's hold-his-own factor will be lower than that of many other classes, while the effective heaviness of his hits will be higher than that of many other classes. In relation to the other classes, the Rogue will not be the lord of the rings Troll to your Orc party. Sort of a "the best defense is a good offense" combatant. As long as you can get the hits you need, you can make the most of those hits and produce more damage than others. But, you have to deal more with getting the hits you need than other classes do.

 

 

Nice back track. Your original quote doesn't say anything about Fighters, just Rogues and Rangers. And I was answering your quote at it stands. Hence everything I said was in relation to your first quote. Then you shifted the goal posts with your second quote by introducing red herrings.

 

Also the Fighter wouldn't be the best either as their damage is less than a Rogue. This is why it's a party based game. You play as a party. So your example of sending in the Rogue alone is moot. Also, why wouldn't you send in one of your biggest damage dealers in? Considering they are a 'heavy hitter' and deal more damage than say a Fighter or Barbarian, hence the title 'heavy hitters'. You wouldn't send a Fighter or Barbarian in alone either.

 

 

 

I'm simply looking at the distinction of the Rogue class from other classes. I'm not arguing what is and isn't variable within Rogue builds. You seem to be thinking I'm trying to say you can't build a Rogue specifically to be more gung-ho about charging straight at opponents head-on. I'm sure you can, but he's going to be far less heavy-hitting relative to the Rogue that you've designed specifically to hit heavily.

 

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. A Rogue that's designed specifically to hit heavily can still be gung-ho in charging in since the gung-ho seems to be a play style, not necessarily a Rogue build.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Ffordesoon]

@Hiro:

 

You're kind of right, in that wading into the fray and taking on dudes is definitely what this rogue does, but I think you're being sort of disingenuous here. Lephys did not pick the phrase "IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME!" out of thin air; his point was that the PoE Rogue is not going to act like the Thing from the Fantastic Four comics, who runs into the fray before anyone else and stays there, drawing heat and knocking heads, because he is a rock monster and can take a ton of punishment. He is, in other words, a tank. The Rogue hits hard and gets out, and as such does not fight like the Thing. Ergo, not a tank. That was a fear expressed by some in this thread, one which Lephys was attempting to dispel.

 

Now, I will admit that Lephys' example was maybe not phrased perfectly, in that a PoE Rogue could concievably run into the fray while also yelling "IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME!" But it's silly to call Lephys to the carpet over phrasing that wasn't as clear as it could have been when what he meant was crystal clear, and even sillier to drag it out over multiple posts instead of just reading his response and going, "I know, I was just saying that it may be possible for a Rogue to tank with a full party." You're nitpicking with all this "Ha, you didn't mention Fighters originally, ergo you are being tricksy!" stuff.

 

Yes, maybe Lephys should have said, "Your Rogue being a 'heavy-hitter' does not mean he is Benjamin J. Grimm, a.k.a. the Thing, a character in Marvel Comics' Fantastic Four who is a prototypical tank and uses the phrase "IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME!" quite often," but I think it is safe to assume that a group of human beings who know what THAC0 is also know the Thing says "IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME!" and is a tank-y character. Or maybe he should have said "PoE Rogues are presumably not going to be tanks." I don't know. What I do know is that it was very clear to me exactly what he was talking about.

 

And then there are all those other words in Lephys' post clarifying what he meant, which you seem to be ignoring out of... anger? Spite? Suspicion? Genuine ignorance? I can't tell.

 

Whatever the case, please stop. I apologize for backbench moderating, but this conversation really has been torture to read, and it is so pointless. No, maybe Lephys' posts do not refer to every single possible Rogue build and party configuration, but can't you just take that as read? He's not a murderer in an Agatha Christie novel, and you are not Hercule Poirot. You're a couple of dudes having a casual conversation on a video game forum. Last I checked, flawless formal composition and debate skills were not required on this forum. Let it go.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'm not being disingenuous at all. I didn't see the tank part of Lephys' post because it wasn't there. All I can see is you wouldn't run in with your Rogue. Being a heavy hitter, of course you would run in. And the Rogue works best with the Defender. So ideally you would have both run in together. You can also run in to get your sneak attack off and as I said, you have an 'escape' method to get out.

 

You're kind of right, in that wading into the fray and taking on dudes is definitely what this rogue does,

 

And this is what I'm trying to say. Not kind of right.

[Lephys]

You win, Hiro. Your posting skill is so far beyond mine, it's not even funny. I mean whatever you say I do, and I just need to quit trying to pretend you even have the capability to assume things and jump to conclusions that are incorrect. Thanks for setting me straight.

[FlintlockJazz]

Dudes!  Dudes!  Come on now, let's all just...get along!  Don't make me break out the man-hugs!

[Rabain]

I think people are focusing too much on heavy hitter.  To me heavy hitter means he does a lot of damage but when someone focuses on him he takes a lot of damage, that is the trade for doing a lot of damage, otherwise it isn't going to be balanced.  You won't want your rogue running ahead of everyone else straight into the front line of the enemy, you will want him either flanking or stealthed for an attack in the rear.  You will not want him going face to face with anyone if there is a Defender type in your party that could take those blows instead.

 

You won't be able to just stick a shield and some plate on a rogue and have the best of everything, again that won't be balanced.  There will be some trade off, either some abilities will not work in heavy armor or the abilities you need to take to wear and use heavy armor / shields will mean there are a handful of abilities you didn't take to increase damage.  I think the latter will be more likely as this works for any class.  Want to stick a mage in some armor?  Well maybe you need to train heavy armors etc and therefore you have not taken some other ability that would boost your magical firepower.

 

Meanwhile a rogue in leather armor is making the damage of your plate wearing shield bearing rogue look like some wench slapping a handsy patron in the local Inn.

 

Maybe if you want to solo a rogue or mage it will be worth investing in armors or shields for when brute force is required.  Otherwise the goal is synergy within the group, the Defenders hold the line and take the incoming damage while the heavy hitters whittle down the opposition and the Support keeps everyone fighting as long as possible.

[Wombat]

Rogues also get their high(er) damage sneak attacks by attacking opponents who are 'prone' or 'hobbled' or some other such status effect that the rogue can inflict (so it's about fighting dirty rather than having massive arms to swing a club).

Plus, they get even greater bonuses to their sneak attack damage (the heaviness of their hitting) with greater numbers of supportive factors in play (prone, hobbled AND flanked guy takes more damage from Rogue than just-prone guy, for example). And since many of these factors are bestowable by not-just-Rogues, the Rogue who simply charges in to handle things directly is always going to be at a heavy-hittingness disadvantage in comparison to the Rogue who relies on the rest of the party setting up as many factors as possible in addition to the ones he himself is setting up, THEN taking advantage of them all (indirectly).

About it-yeah, I was thinking of a similar thing…is sneak attack is not exclusive to the rogue class?  Or do you mean that the added conditions can be mildly exploitable by other party members than another rogue in the party?, which seems to be more likely to be the case.  Then again, whichever you meant, as I wrote, I am not obsessed with my fantasy enough to build a character which is not fitted to the actual gameplay and I'd rather be happy with hard-hitter rogue with some indirect non-combat approaches.