Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers

[Lephys]

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.

I'm pretty sure Sneak Attack is exclusive to the Rogue class. The infliction of conditions supporting its "firing," however, are not. Flanked, for example. That was the specific example given in the update for how conditions aren't only fulfilled by the Rogue class for the Rogue's own Sneak Attacks. ANYONE can flank a target, and that target is then Flanked, allowing that to contribute to Sneak Attack. Then, there's, what... Deathblows. Upon re-reading, it simply says that they constitute additional damage on Sneak Attacks for "2 or more" of the Sneak-Attack-worthy conditions. So, I dunno if it's just that 2's the effective limit (17 conditions still gets you the same amount of bonus damage as 2) or what... but, anywho... I'm getting side-tracked. Sorry.

 

The point I was making is that, if one player uses party member A (not the Rogue) to knock a target prone, and party member B (not the Rogue) to flank that target, THEN has the Rogue come in and attack, he's going to be in Deathblow territory (the target is Flanked AND Prone -- that's 2 conditions) from the moment he gets within attack range. Versus just having your Rogue run in and directly try to rack up 2 SA (Sneak Attack) conditions on his own, against his own target.

 

Now, before, I wasn't thinking about the specific "2 or more" bit on Deathblows. I had forgotten that detail, so I was thinking it was kind of "the more the merrier." Which, it COULD still be. I have no idea. It doesn't specifically state that more than 2 conditions will have no effect. I would think if you're able to get a target with 6 conditions on it, you'd get something out of that. *shrug*. Anywho, either way, it's just a matter of how much effect, at that point. The Rogue who takes advantage of conditions he didn't cause/create, himself, is going to be dishing out statistically more damage than the Rogue who's been designed to directly take on his own opponents and create those SA conditions on his own, regardless of whether or not the rest of the party's offering healz and armor buffs and stuff (which they can still do to the Rogue who is indirectly running around scoring deathblows on everyone who's already been condition-smitten by the rest of the party).

 

Also, carrying a shield and heavier armor is going to slow your action (attack, in this case) speed, thereby causing your accumulation of conditions upon the enemy and subsequent sneak attacks/deathblows on that enemy to be even slower, not to mention the fact that the Rogue's being placed more directly in harm's way.

 

So, yeah, you can build a more direct Rogue, versus a less direct one, but, the point is simply that it's not just going to be all the benefits of Rogue without all the detriments or anything. It's not like you just get a more survivable Rogue who attacks head on, but with the freebie of awesome heavy-hits worth of sneak attack/deathblow damage. This isn't about "You can't build a certain type of Rogue because it'll suck" or anything. It's simply addressing people's concerns that the Rogue, by default, is some kind of shock trooper who just runs straight in and gun-katas everyone to death, head-on. Which isn't really the case. By design, the PoE Rogue exploits the conditions of the battlefield and the status of their target, which Captain McSmashyPants doesn't do. Captain McSmashyPants runs straight in and smashes, without regard for silly things like battlefield conditions and/or target status. Captain McSmashyPants does lots of damage because he's a powerhouse, not because conditions were fortuitous.

 

That's the whole "heavy-hitter doesn't necessarily mean what we're used to it meaning" bit I was getting at a couple of pages back.

[Silent Winter]

…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..

 

I'm pretty sure the 'Sneak Attack' advantage is part of the Rogue class and not available to other classes - would be good to get dev confirmation.  I'm also very sure that Josh mentioned (sorry, no link) that Rogues get that added damage for multiple statuses on an opponent at later levels (perhaps by taking an Ability at level up).

Edit: Despite a longer post, Lephys still ninja'd me

Edited February 6, 2014 by Silent Winter

[Stun]

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,

No. The term you're looking for is Glass Cannon, and it's not the same thing. Or at least not according to this update. There's nothing that suggests that Rogues and Rangers will be less resilient to damage than, say, Priests or Mages, Or Monks.... three classes that aren't in this "Heavy Hitters" category.

 

that is the trade for doing a lot of damage, otherwise it isn't going to be balanced.

That's not necessarily true or relevant. I would Hope that we'd get a system where the measurement of "balance" isn't some strict, soulless, one-dimensional ratio of: "The more damage you can do, the more susceptible to damage you're going to be." Because that would be lame, and completely unimaginative.

 

In a *good* system, "Balance" to a Rogue being a "heavy hitter" encompasses much, much more. It includes the ability for some other classes to be more versatile; it includes the ability for non-heavy hitters to be able to acquire more skills, and different types of skills, like AOE attacks, faster regeneration, better support ability, more non-damage debilitating attacks, etc.

 

But really. "Balance" isn't important. This is a party-based, single-player game. The classes should only be "balanced" enough to make you not want to reject them outright when forming a party because they're so worthlessly weak. And that's all. They don't have to all be equally powerful.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Stun

[Wombat]

Yeah, in my understanding, SA is rogue exclusive, too.  Also, I've gotten an impression that DEF of the rogue won't be so high (hence the glass cannon reference, I guess).  Glass cannon or heavy-hitter, what PE Rouge is designed for seems to be piling damages to the opponents while the style may be different-either relying on his/her own tricky abilities, just focused on the coordination with other characters (flanking) or somewhere inbetween.  So, building a rogue as an evasive tank which runs around battlefields like an annoying bee, letting others do damage would be a wrong presumption based on gameplay of IWD2/NWN2, I guess.

 

In any case, even in my experience with other games, it is much more fun in the long run when I adapt myself to a new setting rather than sticking to fixed ideas from old/familiar rule-sets.

[Stun]

Being able to convert grazes to misses; being able to disengage without penalty; being able to switch places with people on the battlefield, and probably being able to evade AOE spells like fireball... This doesn't sound like your traditional glass cannon. It sounds like something else. Glass cannons are like Icewind Dale's mages. Give them room and they'll destroy every enemy on the battlefield rather quickly, but if force them into melee and they'll have no answers, no exits, and no chance to survive for longer than a few disastrous (to them) rounds.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I take balance in a party based single player game as meaning you'll most likely need the four types of classes (Strike, Defender, Controller and Leader) to overcome the objectives in the game. Like 4 pillars to hold your party (or house) together. If you don't have one of those types, then your house will fall down, or at least be wobbling and make it very difficult to get through. All four need and rely on each other. If you stock up your party with Strikers, you're going to fail or at the very least, it's going to be very hard to get through. 

 

So I'm not too concerned about the different classes of Strikers or different classes of Defenders, because each class will bring something unique to the party but also maintain their central role of being a Striker or Defender, or whatever their role is. If there is to be balance between classes, then I believe it should be between the classes in that type, eg. balance between Rogue, Ranger and Cipher. Not trying to balance Strikers against Defenders, Controllers or Leaders because they have different roles. The encounters could be made that you may need all four types, and not a specific class.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Wombat]

Yeah, I have been wondering how much the defense capability of PoE rogue would be.  It may be a bee but with a more lethal needle and if I build it more defensive, it might play like a rogue in IWD2/NWN2.  That said, unlike high DEX build in the old games, DEF of PoE rogue, which doesn't seem to be high, may play as a limitation for that.

[Stun]

I take balance in a party based single player game as meaning you'll most likely need the four types of classes (Strike, Defender, Controller and Leader) to overcome the objectives in the game. Like 4 pillars to hold your party (or house) together. If you don't have one of those types, then your house will fall down, or at least be wobbling and make it very difficult to get through. All four need and rely on each other. If you stock up your party with Strikers, you're going to fail or at the very least, it's going to be very hard to get through. 

 

So I'm not too concerned about the different classes of Strikers or different classes of Defenders, because each class will bring something unique to the party but also maintain their central role of being a Striker or Defender, or whatever their role is. If there is to be balance between classes, then I believe it should be between the classes in that type, eg. balance between Rogue, Ranger and Cipher. Not trying to balance Strikers against Defenders, Controllers or Leaders because they have different roles. The encounters could be made that you may need all four types, and not a specific class.

Ugh. God I hope this isn't true.

[Sherr]

 

I take balance in a party based single player game as meaning you'll most likely need the four types of classes (Strike, Defender, Controller and Leader) to overcome the objectives in the game. Like 4 pillars to hold your party (or house) together. If you don't have one of those types, then your house will fall down, or at least be wobbling and make it very difficult to get through. All four need and rely on each other. If you stock up your party with Strikers, you're going to fail or at the very least, it's going to be very hard to get through. 

 

So I'm not too concerned about the different classes of Strikers or different classes of Defenders, because each class will bring something unique to the party but also maintain their central role of being a Striker or Defender, or whatever their role is. If there is to be balance between classes, then I believe it should be between the classes in that type, eg. balance between Rogue, Ranger and Cipher. Not trying to balance Strikers against Defenders, Controllers or Leaders because they have different roles. The encounters could be made that you may need all four types, and not a specific class.

Ugh. God I hope this isn't true.

 

 

that was some delusional stuff, of course it would not be that way)

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Yeah it's pretty delusional come to think of it. Considering you can have classes that can specialise in nearly any skill. I don't know how they're going to balance all the classes against each other and not have at least one stand out and make you go meh, not going to take it because this other class is better. 

[rjshae]

Yeah it's pretty delusional come to think of it. Considering you can have classes that can specialise in nearly any skill. I don't know how they're going to balance all the classes against each other and not have at least one stand out and make you go meh, not going to take it because this other class is better. 

 

The same as with professions in real life: by providing a variety of different situations in each of which the strengths and skills of just a subset of the classes is favored.

[Wombat]

I take balance in a party based single player game as meaning you'll most likely need the four types of classes (Strike, Defender, Controller and Leader) to overcome the objectives in the game. Like 4 pillars to hold your party (or house) together. If you don't have one of those types, then your house will fall down, or at least be wobbling and make it very difficult to get through. All four need and rely on each other. If you stock up your party with Strikers, you're going to fail or at the very least, it's going to be very hard to get through. 

 

So I'm not too concerned about the different classes of Strikers or different classes of Defenders, because each class will bring something unique to the party but also maintain their central role of being a Striker or Defender, or whatever their role is. If there is to be balance between classes, then I believe it should be between the classes in that type, eg. balance between Rogue, Ranger and Cipher. Not trying to balance Strikers against Defenders, Controllers or Leaders because they have different roles. The encounters could be made that you may need all four types, and not a specific class.

I think it's the general direction except that it doesn't sound that strict to my ears.  In fact, judging from the info so far, I could make a rogue bit defensive but I wouldn't be able to build it as a "Defender."  So, probably, I will most likely to end up with optimizing it among other party members rather than sticking to my personal image of the class and, personally, I believe even such adaptation process would be still fun if the system provides interesting options in that direction.

 

One of the questions I asked the designers during the Kickstarter campaign was why they use class system, instead of a skill system.  At least, they showed the general direction, where they decided distinct pros and cons for each class, separating skills from the combat gameplay.  Indeed, some of them step on my personal images on a certain classes but, at the end of the day, I like solid systems which make me try out different tactics with valid options rather than a "mixed soup" which tried to keep everyone happy.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

One of the questions I asked the designers during the Kickstarter campaign was why they use class system, instead of a skill system.  At least, they showed the general direction, where they decided distinct pros and cons for each class, separating skills from the combat gameplay.  Indeed, some of them step on my personal images on a certain classes but, at the end of the day, I like solid systems which make me try out different tactics with valid options rather than a "mixed soup" which tried to keep everyone happy.

 

I thought they went with classes because that's what the backers wanted. It could be a hard sell to win gamers over to have a fantasy party based IE type game without any classes. It'd cause a lot of confusion and questions being asked with, why isn't there a cleric, paladin, fighter, etc? This is a spiritual successor to the IE games and it has no classes? WTF? And then you'd have answers saying you can build a mage with the appropriate skills selected. This would probably be too hard for some people to grasp and they'd ask isn't it simpler to just put a mage in the game? Why do I have to select certain skills to make a mage?

 

To have 6 classless party members in your party but make them into any class you wanted? Sounds like an IE Skyrim game. I recall Feargus mentioning an Eternity meets Skyrim game and the derision on these and other forums was enormous. I don't see the problem myself.

[Tamerlane]

That's pretty much it. As Josh recently said elsewhere:

 

 

 

[A]nyone who pitched a game in the spirit of Fallout would be expected (by most of its backers) to make it classless and skill based with levels, perks, traits, and SPECIAL. We deal with the same type of expectations on this project.

[PrimeJunta]

I'd back a classless, level-less, XP-less party-based isometric fantasy cRPG. Mechanically I'd even prefer one to what we have.

[Wombat]

I thought they went with classes because that's what the backers wanted.

It's true.  From a relatively recent post of Sawyer at SAF

 

The IE games were class- and level-based and I think most of the people who backed the game want classes. The trade-off is that there's no way for us to structure classes in a way that everyone likes. I have known that for as long as I've been working with class-based games.

What I meant in my previous post was a possible implementation in which some people including me suggested to make a skill based game with class templates to make both IE and FO1/2 crowds happy.  Instead, they clearly went for the distinct class route, while keeping skill system out of combat (well, at least, directly-stealth skill can be helpful to take advantage before combat starts, for example, as you know).

 

-Off Topic-

I'd back a classless, level-less, XP-less party-based isometric fantasy cRPG. Mechanically I'd even prefer one to what we have.

You might be more interested in a different part of the same post.

 

If you want Obsidian to make a classless skill-based game, I certainly won't object (especially if it's a historical game -- classless skill-based games are what I make and prefer to play on my own time), but those proposals always seem to go over like a lead balloon.

Although Sawyer didn't say anything about "level-less," personally, I'd be more interested in supporting such project than the possible Sci-fi Skyrim clone Feargus mentioned while back.  The project sounded like more of business talk, which is unlikely supported by many of those who backed the crowd-funding project, IMO.

[Stun]

I'd back a classless, level-less, XP-less party-based isometric fantasy cRPG.

Like... Chess?

 

Check that. Even Chess has classes. You want.... Monopoly. LOL

 

It's not an RPG unless it has leveling of some sort. What you're asking for is a different genre entirely.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Stun

[tajerio]

I'd back a classless, level-less, XP-less party-based isometric fantasy cRPG. Mechanically I'd even prefer one to what we have.

 

I completely agree with your first sentence.  I think that game would be cool as all hell and I think it skews more towards Josh's personal preferences than PoE does, in terms of system.

 

That said, I don't know that I'd prefer it mechanically.  I think they'd be a little too different for me to compare in those terms.

 

Edit: @ Stun Last I checked, levelling is not intrinsic to playing a role in a role-playing game.  People tend to equate them because there's levelling in just about every RPG, but that's not because of a dictate from on high.

Edited February 7, 2014 by tajerio

[rjshae]

My understanding is that the class-based approach is favored in this game because it encourages synergistic tactics. That is, the different strengths and weaknesses of the party members need to be coordinated for best effect. If every party member can be anything, then there is less to differentiate them. Class-less works great for a single character game, but for a party-based game, specialties allow for more interesting tactics that can make the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

[Stun]

Edit: @ Stun Last I checked, levelling is not intrinsic to playing a role in a role-playing game.  People tend to equate them because there's levelling in just about every RPG, but that's not because of a dictate from on high.

Pontificate all you want. You can't have an RPG without a leveling mechanic. Period. It's what separates an RPG from any other game. Or to put it another way, simply playing a "role" does not by itself make a game an RPG. If it did, then there wouldn't be a such thing as a NON-RPG. Even Pac-Man and Street Fighter would be RPGs, since you're literally playing a role in those games. Edited February 7, 2014 by Stun

[tajerio]

 

Edit: @ Stun Last I checked, levelling is not intrinsic to playing a role in a role-playing game.  People tend to equate them because there's levelling in just about every RPG, but that's not because of a dictate from on high.

Pontificate all you want. You can't have an RPG without a leveling mechanic. Period. It's what separates an RPG from any other game. Or to put it another way, simply playing a "role" does not by itself make a game an RPG. If it did, then there wouldn't be a such thing as a NON-RPG. Even Pac-Man and Street Fighter would be RPGs, since you're literally playing a role in those games.

 

 

I don't classify my genres that rigidly.  If a game offers me choices about how to build my character, and offers my character choices in the course of the story that have different consequences, then that's an RPG to me.  Levelling up isn't intrinsic to that definition.  I'm not saying that you're wrong in your appreciation, but the definition of an RPG is going to see a lot of idiosyncratic variation between people.  There isn't just one.

[PrimeJunta]

Levels and XP are second-order abstractions. You can build a perfectly good RPG without either. Just award character points directly, which you can use immediately to buy skills, talents, or whatever the character advancement abstraction in your system is. If you want to support specialization, put the skills in a tree, with the more powerful ones costing more and being further down.

 

The Storyteller PnP system works like this, as do its computer implementations, e.g. VtM: Bloodlines. It wouldn't be hard at all to make, say, a class-, XP-, and level-less D&D 3.0/3.5. Just assign a character point cost to each feat, skill, ability, and spell level, lay them out as hierarchies so that, say, you can't take a higher-level spell slot before taking a sufficient number of lower-level ones, and recalibrate XP awards to award character points directly instead. No more leveling up, just buying abilities immediately when you advance.

[Stun]

 

Pontificate all you want. You can't have an RPG without a leveling mechanic. Period. It's what separates an RPG from any other game. Or to put it another way, simply playing a "role" does not by itself make a game an RPG. If it did, then there wouldn't be a such thing as a NON-RPG. Even Pac-Man and Street Fighter would be RPGs, since you're literally playing a role in those games.

 

I don't classify my genres that rigidly.  If a game offers me choices about how to build my character, and offers my character choices in the course of the story that have different consequences, then that's an RPG to me.

 

So let me get this straight. You don't define the genres so rigidly, but an RPG to you is a game that 1) gives you character- build choices, and 2) gives Choices in the course of the story.

 

Er... First, that's a pretty darn rigid definition to me. More rigid than any definition I've ever given for an RPG. Second, can #1 even happen without a leveling mechanic? Character building suggests that it's an ongoing process, and you can't do that without some kind of leveling mechanic. (and yes, PrimaJunta, awarding skill/attribute points during the course of the game to represent character progression IS a leveling mechanic. Planescape Torment did something like that) As for your #2, I guess the Icewind Dale Games (especially the first one) aren't RPGs by your definition, since the player really isn't given choices during the course of the story.

 

Levelling up isn't intrinsic to that definition. I'm not saying that you're wrong in your appreciation, but the definition of an RPG is going to see a lot of idiosyncratic variation between people. There isn't just one.

Not really. There are givens in the industry, and in the subject we're discussing. When someone points to one of the Madden Games (for example) and says: "That's an RPG!", we don't nod our heads and say: Well, Ok, I guess everyone has a different definition of what an RPG is! NO. Instead, we look at that guy and dismiss him away as someone who doesn't know what an RPG is. No need to further promote the watering down, and dumbing down of a genre that's already been bastardized enough over the last decade. Edited February 7, 2014 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

Cool. So, what level are you in VtM:B, roughly, once you reach the Giovanni mansion?

 

...

 

That's right: there is no answer to that, because there's no such thing as "level" in Storyteller.

 

I realize this is a matter of semantics (your definition of "leveling mechanics" is broader than mine; broad enough to include games with no notion of "level"), but I prefer to distinguish between character advancement mechanics in general and leveling mechanics in particular. This is because it is a significant mechanical distinction. (Cf. class-based RPG systems and class-less RPG systems with skill trees. They do more or less the same thing -- character advancement and differentiation -- but in different ways.) 

 

I agree that RPG's do need character advancement mechanics. However I am pointing out that level/XP is not the only way to accomplish this.

[Ffordesoon]

Ugh. This argument again.