How does PoE innovate?

[Lephys]

Which can be an entirely different experience. A Party-based RPG where scouting can give you an edge; where disarming traps on the battlefield can actually be the difference between winning and dying horribly; where laying traps can mean the same; where information gathering is rewarded; where stealing is beneficial, etc. Will suddenly see the Rogue be just as useful as the Fighter even though he's not as good at fighting.

 

And THAT is balance.

Firstly, you are actually being quite civil here, which I appreciate. I'm sorry for being a bit overly snarky. It does become a bit irksome, though, when you basically point out "surely this isn't what you're implying with your words," but then argue against that as if it IS what I'm implying. I mean, if I say "yeah, that actually IS what I'm saying, and it's not ridiculous!", then, by all means, go for it. Otherwise, it just doesn't help things.

 

As for the above, yes, that is balance. I'm not telling you it isn't. However, there's more to Roguishness than JUST "oh, you totally get lots of utility, so that's ALL you get! MUAHAHA!" Thing is, there's a Roguish way of fighting, too. Doesn't mean you'll be doing the same thing in combat, just because you're also dealing damage.

 

Long story short, that IS balance, but that doesn't mean that anything else is not. Allowing someone to play as a Rogue AND actually be quite useful in combat is also balance. Making sure that Rogue is literally measured up against the Fighter class is still balance, but it's crappy/overdone balance. Simply allowing the Rogue to be quite combative is not. It's just another way of doing it.

 

Besides, the mere allowance of this (rather than just "ROGUES ARE AUTOMATICALLY AWESOME IN COMBAT") is kind of the point of stat systems and all that jazz. Hell, in DnD, you can make a friggin' Charisma Fighter and such. Sure, he's still a Fighter, but he's a lot less combat-oriented than an 18-STR 18-CON Fighter.

 

That's the whole point. The actual use of balance is to make sure the style/methods of a class do not get trampled by some particular role for that class (i.e. Rogue Skill Monkey). If you CAN have more skills/utility than any other class, that's awesome. That can be your class's strength without defining every character in that entire class.

 

I'm not going to tell you allowing the Rogue to be skillful at combat is the right way to do it, and that balancing his skill utility versus the lack-there-of in the rest of the classes in a party setting somehow isn't balance. They're simply both two different balances. It's about making sure the Rogue's set of scales work the same way as any other class's set of scales. Not making one half of a scale the Rogue, and the other half some other class, and making sure they come out even.

 

People are quite fond of pointing out instances when the latter is attempted, then crying "see? Balance is SO DUMB of an aspect to focus on at ALL! >_<" It's kind of a leap, really. Which is why I tried to point that out to Volourn.

[Stun]

To be honest, I would do away with "Fighter" as a class in itself in a heartbeat. I'd keep the mechanical role, but the name itself is too broad to convey anything about a character. Which one is more descriptive, "Fighter" or "Barbarian"? Which one sounds cooler, "Fighter" or "Kensai"? I'd rather see Fighter elevated to a party role, and the specific class replaced by "Warrior."

 

And yes, I think 4E's party roles were a smart idea. I don't think it's a bad idea to have "metaclasses" which multiple classes can fit into. It's the logical progression of 2E's increased focus on class kits and 3E's focus on level-dipping, and it hearkens back to the earliest days of D&D, when the only "classes" were Fighter, Thief, Magic-User, and Cleric. Those are still the four mechanical archetypes every D&D character fits into, if you think about it (though I would change "Thief" to "Rogue" and "Cleric" to "Healer" in order to make those party roles sound as broad as "Fighter" and "Magic-User").

 

The party role system had the same two big problems all of 4E had: presentation and - to a lesser degree - implementation. They could have saved themselves a lot of agitation if they'd A) given the party roles the names I just suggested instead of the weird MMO-y ones, and B) upgraded all the extant 3E class kits to full classes. Yes, all of them; the thing that made Pathfinder into the juggernaut it is today is the simple process of conversion between 3.5 and PF. What people hated about 4E more than any mechanical changes was the lack of cross-compatibility and openness, and the consequent gutting of build customization. I think the rational argument against 4E would be substantially weaker if you could use all the weird 3-3.5 classes right out of the box.

If we replace "classes" with "roles" the discussion we're having on this thread doesn't really change. We'd just be using different terminology.

 

You'd have someone saying: NO, my... "Roguish-opportunist" should NOT be equal in fighting skills as my..."Full-Time-Battlefield-Dweller". Then someone else would come along and ask: Why not? And the answer to that would be: Because what would be the point in dividing the classes into different roles when the system will just allow for all classes to do all roles equally?

 

LOL

Edited April 23, 2014 by Stun

[Ffordesoon]

@Stun:

 

I was expressing an opinion about the absurdity of "Fighter" as the name of a single class in D&D, a game in which many other character classes are basically Fighter class kits. I realize it's an artifact of the Gary 'n' Dave days, but so is "Magic-User," and that isn't a class now that there are Sorcerers and Wizards and whatnot. A simple name change with no change to the mechanics would make the class distinction easier to understand without reducing complexity one iota, and you could keep "Fighter" as a party role, in the same way that "Magic-User" is a party role. The game is easier to understand for new players without being dumbed down, and the Gygax-Arneson names are preserved for the old-timers who are attached to them. Everyone wins.

 

And yes, it's semantics, but semantics are important. Otherwise, "Full-Time-Battlefield-Dweller" would be precisely as good a name as any other.

 

All of which is a general comment on the occasionally confusing names of D&D/OGL classes, not a call for anyone to stop using the word "Fighter" when discussing the Fighter class. Clearly, using the class name that is commonly agreed upon is important for a discussion of that class.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Ffordesoon

[Arthalon]

I expect something "old school" and that's quite innovative these days. Let me explain myself.

 

Nowadays the so called RPG games are games that just give us a few options. I'm not gonna mention any name, but only a few make us feel that we REALLY are inside a world. They are supposed to give us a lot of options, a lot customization, different ways to approach the ending, situations, characters...

 

All those things nowadays are lost (almost). Just a few choices are given to us and no dialogs to carry on with different choices. Let me take an example, Vampire: Bloodlines, for that. The system is quite simple, intimidation, charisma or seduction. But it truly works! Also, you have more choices if you have played the game and you can feel yourself quite "inside" the game in a lot of moments and your character development.

 

For Eternity, I don't expect a HUGE INNOVATIVE combat system, incredible adventures... I expect THE GAME. The game that gives me choices in the dialogs that TRULY affect the development of my character, different enemies, towns that hate me or love me because of my actions, different ways of doing a quest (violence, sneak, dialog...). I just WANT all those things that nowadays are almost lost.

 

For me THAT'S the game. I don't really need innovation. I just want the use of the new technologies to make something for the fans of RPG games (now we don't have tiny hard drives or lack of memory). Those who grew up like me, killing Ogres in Dungeons and Dragons, being heroes against Chaos in Warhammer Fantasy, and, of course, being night predators who want to rule de city.

 

And, BTW, the graphic engine for me is perfect. Looks great. Now I want to have the game in my hands to see "The core" of the RPG. I also expect a normal and funny combat system, because sometimes slaughtering and burning villages is fun.

 

P.S.: Sorry, English is not my mother tonge so I might have some errors in the sentences

[PrimeJunta]

As an aside, I don't see any conceptual problem with the rogue-as-damager and warrior-as-defender roles in P:E, even with this whole "full-time-battlefield-dweller" thing.

 

I would expect that a full-time-battlefield-dweller's primary skill would be to be very good at not dying. I.e., defensive, recuperative, as safe as possible, including factoring in the risk of getting executed for cowardice. I.e., he'd be someone you can park in a formation on a battlefield and expect not to get killed nor to run away even as horrible things are happening around and to him, and to get in the occasional stab when the opportunity presents itself.

 

Whereas the talented amateur who doesn't actually live on the battlefield would be foolish enough to go for riskier, showier, more damaging strikes, while sticking out his head more.

 

My guess is that one-on-one, toe-to-toe, the P:E fighter should beat the P:E rogue, by the way -- but that in party statistics, if both are played to their strengths, the rogue would rack up more kills.

 

Next topic: samurais and ninjas. Which is better and why? Discuss.

[The Mist Devil]

Why choose?

 

[teknoman2]

 

PoE will take Balance to new heights of innovation.

 

 

Balance is good  

 

balance slays the demon

[Volourn]

Balance is a hype word that is meaningless and never leads to good stuff.

 

 

Again, if a theif can fight as good or better than a fighter why have a fighter at all? Just be a rogue and get all the things that makes a rogue a rogue and go kick the fighetrs' butt. It's like making the fighter great at fighting AND give him magic to equal the mage. Then, I'd have to ask, why bother being a mage? Just be the fighter.

 

IT. DOES. NOT. COMPUTE. A fighter fights. A rogue rogues. A mage mages. That's the only 'balance' that should be acceptable. A rogue has never been 'less fun' than a fighter just because it can't beat a fighter in a fight or outmagic the mage. LMAO

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Bilbo or Frodo should be able to do more damage in combat than Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas or Gandalf. That's called balance.

[Lephys]

Bilbo or Frodo should be able to do more damage in combat than Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas or Gandalf. That's called balance.

As I recall, Frodo ended up out-DPSing everyone else, entirely by (inadvertently...ish) dropping the Ring into the liquid-hot magma from whence it was forged, felling countless-thousands of shadowspawn in an instant, along with their all-but-immortal master.

 

"Out-damage" is meaningless without context. Show me where PoE's design has a lone Rogue taking on (and felling) more enemies than a lone Fighter undergoing the same challenge, and I'll worry about the design.

 

The combatant who can afford to spend the least amount of time confronting his adversary (to maintain a state of non-death) must surely make the most of that time. Is that not true?

 

Balance is a hype word that is meaningless and never leads to good stuff.

That's just plain false. Obviously balance is a real thing, as well as something that can be misused as merely a hype word.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Lephys

[illathid]

Balance is a hype word that is meaningless and never leads to good stuff.

 

 

Again, if a theif can fight as good or better than a fighter why have a fighter at all? Just be a rogue and get all the things that makes a rogue a rogue and go kick the fighetrs' butt. It's like making the fighter great at fighting AND give him magic to equal the mage. Then, I'd have to ask, why bother being a mage? Just be the fighter.

 

IT. DOES. NOT. COMPUTE. A fighter fights. A rogue rogues. A mage mages. That's the only 'balance' that should be acceptable. A rogue has never been 'less fun' than a fighter just because it can't beat a fighter in a fight or outmagic the mage. LMAO

 

Vol, you said rogues should not be as good as fighters in a fight. What metric are you using? Max damage? Average damage? Ability to take a hit? Battlefield control? Protecting allies? Some other thing I haven't mentioned? As I see it there are lots of ways a character can be good in fight. Does the fighter need to be better in everything or just some? I'm trying to unpack your statement.

 

Vol, I am asking this once again because you didn't respond the first time. I'd like to understand your position, but I can't until I understand what you mean by "can fight as good or better than." What do you mean by "better?"

[Hiro Protagonist II]

As I recall, Frodo ended up out-DPSing everyone else, entirely by (inadvertently...ish) dropping the Ring into the liquid-hot magma from whence it was forged, felling countless-thousands of shadowspawn in an instant, along with their all-but-immortal master.

"Out-damage" is meaningless without context. Show me where PoE's design has a lone Rogue taking on (and felling) more enemies than a lone Fighter undergoing the same challenge, and I'll worry about the design.

 

The combatant who can afford to spend the least amount of time confronting his adversary (to maintain a state of non-death) must surely make the most of that time. Is that not true?

 

 

You recall incorrectly as always. Because it was Gollum who destroyed the ring and not Frodo.

 

Also an idiot request since the game hasn't been released. It's been confirmed Rogues are the heavy hitters in PoE and do more damage than Fighters. Hence, the heavy hitter title. So who would do more damage to the enemy in the least amount of time? The Rogue that can do a lot of damage to an opponent or the Fighter who chips away round after round?

 

I wouldn't have a problem renaming the Rogue as Swashbuckler in PoE because that's essentially what they are. The Robin Hood, Jack Sparrow type of swashbuckler. Not the Thief / Burglar type like Bilbo Baggins.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[anameforobsidian]

I don't think they are really swashbucklers, as the stereotypical swashbucklers in media do less damage not more, and rely on parry and dodge for defense.  They are really ambushers, special forces, men of intrigue, enforcers, that kind of thing.  Quite honestly, I think rogue fits perfectly.  It's people conflating thief and rogue that is the problem.

[Stun]

Vol, I am asking this once again because you didn't respond the first time. I'd like to understand your position, but I can't until I understand what you mean by "can fight as good or better than." What do you mean by "better?"

I'll take a shot at this, since I happen to also hold the viewpoint that rogues shouldn't be equals to fighters on the battlefield. A couple of caveats, however, before I give my explanation. First, I will not be speaking in PoE terms, since I don't know the specifics behind its mechanics (and neither does anyone else here) and Second, I WILL occasionally be using D&D terms but only because it's easier (for me at least) to conceptualize and explain things in those terms. But such explanations can easily be applied to any other system you wish to apply them to.

 

So here goes.

 

By saying that fighters should be better at fighting than Rogues I mean:

 

1) They should hit harder on average. (higher damage output. But note: I have no problems with rogues occasionally being able to "spike damage" more than fighters...ie. backstabs)

2) They should be more resilient (more hitpoints, be more resistant to debilitating combat effects, like knockdown and stagger and stun)

3) They should have more combat skills (They should hit more and miss less; They should get More weapon proficiencies; and more weapon style choices (Yeah, that also means that they should be better at dual-wielding than rogues, contrary to even the D&D trope), they should get more attacks per round and have more melee talents, etc.)

 

 

Oh and this should go without saying: I'm using superlatives here, NOT absolutes. Meaning, I still believe that you should be able to, if you wish, build a combat-centric rogue who's still great at fighting... even a master on the battle field....just not as good at fighting as a fighter.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I don't think they are really swashbucklers, as the stereotypical swashbucklers in media do less damage not more, and rely on parry and dodge for defense.  They are really ambushers, special forces, men of intrigue, enforcers, that kind of thing.  Quite honestly, I think rogue fits perfectly.  It's people conflating thief and rogue that is the problem.

 

In 4th ed, they're swashbucklers under the name of rogue. Thief is its own class in 4th ed and not a Rogue. So you can create either a Thief or a Rogue and they have different abilities. Also, in media they do just as much if not more damage as with my examples. Robin Hood, Jack Sparrow, the swashbuckler type of Fighter/Rogue.

[Lephys]

You recall incorrectly as always. Because it was Gollum who destroyed the ring and not Frodo.

Haha. "As always." I love it, ^_^.

 

Methinks you missed my "inadvertently." I believe it was Gollum who was speared off the ledge by an encrazened Frodo. Thus, even though Frodo, at the time, wasn't actually trying to destroy the ring (even though his entire mission up to that point was to travel there TO destroy it, so, in general, he was "trying to destroy the ring") -- actually he was trying to the-opposite-of-destroy it and just possess it and selfishly hold it -- he still technically did the deed.

 

Anywho, all of that is what I meant by "inadvertently." But, as a-lot-of-times-but-not-always, you're so hellbent on correcting people and feeling superior that you ignored that entirely.

 

Also an idiot request since the game hasn't been released. It's been confirmed Rogues are the heavy hitters in PoE and do more damage than Fighters. Hence, the heavy hitter title. So who would do more damage to the enemy in the least amount of time? The Rogue that can do a lot of damage to an opponent or the Fighter who chips away round after round?

A) I don't understand what's an idiot request. Please clarify, if you don't mind.

 

B) Rogue's do more damage... when? If a Rogue goes up against 17 kobolds, and a Fighter goes up against 17 kobolds, who's going to actually dish out more damage before they die? Every single second in combat that passes, the Rogue just produces an aura of damage about his person, and it's greater than the aura constantly emanating from the Fighter's person?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Haha. "As always." I love it, ^_^.

 

Methinks you missed my "inadvertently." I believe it was Gollum who was speared off the ledge by an encrazened Frodo. Thus, even though Frodo, at the time, wasn't actually trying to destroy the ring (even though his entire mission up to that point was to travel there TO destroy it, so, in general, he was "trying to destroy the ring") -- actually he was trying to the-opposite-of-destroy it and just possess it and selfishly hold it -- he still technically did the deed.

 

Anywho, all of that is what I meant by "inadvertently." But, as a-lot-of-times-but-not-always, you're so hellbent on correcting people and feeling superior that you ignored that entirely.

 

 

I didn't miss anything. You said Frodo dropped the ring into the magma. He didn't drop it into the magma. But nice dodge and weave by going on about all this nonsense and trying to deflect it back onto me.  

 

And I'm not hell bent on correcting people. It's not hard correcting you with so much wrong in your post. And you must have an inferiority complex to accuse me of feeling superior by correcting you.

 

 

 

 the ring and not Frodo.

A) I don't understand what's an idiot request. Please clarify, if you don't mind.

 

B) Rogue's do more damage... when? If a Rogue goes up against 17 kobolds, and a Fighter goes up against 17 kobolds, who's going to actually dish out more damage before they die? Every single second in combat that passes, the Rogue just produces an aura of damage about his person, and it's greater than the aura constantly emanating from the Fighter's person?

 

 

 

Idiot, stupid Request. It's all the same. You asked for specific designs between a Rogue and Fighter against enemies where no one on this board can supply.

 

Contract those two and you have an idiot request by Lephys.

 

So Rogues don't do more damage than Fighters? When did this change? Can you show us where in the updates that Rogues don't do more damage than most of the other classes? That other classes like the Fighter do more damage than the rogue? And if a Rogue goes up against 1 Kobold and a Fighter goes up against 1 Kobold, who's going to dish out more damage in the first attack in combat? Going by the updates, it appears the heavy hitters are going to be the ones dealling out more damage against that one Kobold.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[illathid]

 

Vol, I am asking this once again because you didn't respond the first time. I'd like to understand your position, but I can't until I understand what you mean by "can fight as good or better than." What do you mean by "better?"

I'll take a shot at this, since I happen to also hold the viewpoint that rogues shouldn't be equals to fighters on the battlefield. A couple of caveats, however, before I give my explanation. First, I will not be speaking in PoE terms, since I don't know the specifics behind its mechanics (and neither does anyone else here) and Second, I WILL occasionally be using D&D terms but only because it's easier (for me at least) to conceptualize and explain things in those terms. But such explanations can easily be applied to any other system you wish to apply them to.

 

So here goes.

 

By saying that fighters should be better at fighting than Rogues I mean:

 

1) They should hit harder on average. (higher damage output. But note: I have no problems with rogues occasionally being able to "spike damage" more than fighters...ie. backstabs)

2) They should be more resilient (more hitpoints, be more resistant to debilitating combat effects, like knockdown and stagger and stun)

3) They should have more combat skills (They should hit more and miss less; They should get More weapon proficiencies; and more weapon style choices (Yeah, that also means that they should be better at dual-wielding than rogues, contrary to even the D&D trope), they should get more attacks per round and have more melee talents, etc.)

 

 

Oh and this should go without saying: I'm using superlatives here, NOT absolutes. Meaning, I still believe that you should be able to, if you wish, build a combat-centric rogue who's still great at fighting... even a master on the battle field....just not as good at fighting as a fighter.

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond, although I'd still like to see Vol's response as well. You've listed 3 things you think fights should be better than rogues at, what if not all of these are true? What if rogues have a higher average damage than fighters but are less resiliant and have less combat skills? Or worse resiliance and average damage, but more combat skills?

Or, ignoring the other catagories you mentioned for now, what if Rogues have higher average single target damage, but fighters have have higher multi target damage? So for example, a rogue can do 7 damage per every tick in combat to a single target, and a fighter can do 5 damage to two targets per tick.

 

Would you say in these cases that rogues are equal to or better than fighters on the battlefield?

[Stun]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, although I'd still like to see Vol's response as well. You've listed 3 things you think fights should be better than rogues at, what if not all of these are true? What if rogues have a higher average damage than fighters but are less resiliant and have less combat skills? Or worse resiliance and average damage, but more combat skills?

Many games do this mix-n-match, blurring of the lines that you are describing. In the Dragon Age games you can build a rogue who does much more damage than a warrior but is not nearly as resilient as one. Other games are very strict, in the name of their God Balance, so naturally they give Rogues exactly the same number of combat skills as warriors, exactly the same damage output as warriors, and then they give them super defensive/dodge skills to match a warrior's brute resilience. And this is, of course, completely separate from all the NON-combat skills they give rogues that warriors Don't get. The end result is.... endless powergamer debate about which class is better at combat but virtually no discussion about which one is better outside the battle field. Ironically, that's the opposite of balance.

 

^IMO (you did ask for my opinion here, right?) This shouldn't be. Fighters are already the simplest of the core four classes by nature. They can only do one thing: Fight. So they should be the best at it. Period.

 

 

Or, ignoring the other catagories you mentioned for now, what if Rogues have higher average single target damage, but fighters have have higher multi target damage? So for example, a rogue can do 7 damage per every tick in combat to a single target, and a fighter can do 5 damage to two targets per tick.

Are they using different weapons? Or are we dealing with a limited use "whirlwind attack" ability that we've given to Fighters but not Rogues? If it's the first one, then I'd be all right with it, since in that situation you're giving the fighter access to a type of weapon that can damage more than one foe at once. If it's the second one then we'd need more information. How often may the fighter employ this ability? And is he restricted to just attacking 2 foes at once? If there's just 1 foe on the battle field then does that mean that the Rogue is better in this situation since he's doing more damage to that one foe? Edited April 24, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

I didn't miss anything. You said Frodo dropped the ring into the magma.

Except that I quite literally typed "inadvertently," and you are quite blatantly ignoring it. He caused the ring to fall (aka "drop," due to gravity) to its doom. Freak out about it all you want. It's not doing any good.

 

Idiot, stupid Request. It's all the same. You asked for specific designs between a Rogue and Fighter against enemies where no one on this board can supply.

 

Contract those two and you have an idiot request by Lephys.

 

So Rogues don't do more damage than Fighters? When did this change? Can you show us where in the updates that Rogues don't do more damage than most of the other classes? That other classes like the Fighter do more damage than the rogue? And if a Rogue goes up against 1 Kobold and a Fighter goes up against 1 Kobold, who's going to dish out more damage in the first attack in combat? Going by the updates, it appears the heavy hitters are going to be the ones dealling out more damage against that one Kobold.

It wasn't a request. We've been told how Fighters and Rogues function and you and others are simplifying this somehow to sheer damage numbers = effectiveness. I simply asked questions. Do you believe, based on what we've been told, that Rogues will consistently and effectively out-damage Fighters 24/7?

 

See, in the context of tactics, the Rogue's ability to deal more damage in a given, focused instance is a lot more significant than some kind of general, DPS-rate number that tells "how much damage they do." How much damage they do when? They're not going to be hitting things at the same rate, or engaging things in the same fashion, etc. Not to mention that they can't cause all of the afflictions or whatever -- which facilitate the actual functioning of their Sneak Attack/Lethal Strike -- on their own, effectively. They're not going to single-handedly walk up to every enemy, bestow upon them 4 afflictions, then flank them, for their Lethal Strike damage.

 

So, yes, Rogues will deal more focused damage. I don't think they'll deal "more damage." Let a Wizard toss a fireball at a cluster of 10 enemies, and he's just outdamaged the Rogue by far, even if the Rogue was capable of one-hitting each of those foes by himself. OH NO! A WIZARD IS A BETTER FIGHTER THAN A FIGHTER!

 

You're the one worried about the Rogue-Fighter comparison, and jumping on the "Rogues shouldn't be Fighters!" bandwagon, so I don't understand why I'm the one actually breaking this down while you just simplify everything to "Josh said Rogues do a lot of damage, THEREFORE ROGUES ARE BETTER FIGHTERS THAN FIGHTERS ARE!"

 

Like this game isn't designed with tactical combat in mind, and everyone just has a DPS-rating that constantly burns foes around them at a constant rate.

 

I've pointed things out. Take it or leave it. And please... keep the chuckles coming with the exasperated "you're such an idiot, and literally everything you say is wrong and doesn't make a lick of sense!" speech. I don't understand what your goal is. To hurt my feelings? You know what, Hiro? You're an awesome person, and you don't deserve to hate the Rogue's design based on a misunderstanding. And I know you're highly intelligent, which is why I'm here taking the time to simply point out stuff you may not have seen but can easily grasp and respond intelligently about. I couldn't care less about making you feel bad. I just wanna bounce sense off other people, and take advantage of the sense they provide, so that we can all achieve a greater understanding of the topic at hand.

 

So, just have fun with whatever response you deem fit, I suppose.

[illathid]

 

Many games do this mix-n-match, blurring of the lines that you are describing. In the Dragon Age games you can build a rogue who does much more damage than a warrior but is not nearly as resilient as one. Other games are very strict, in the name of their God Balance, so naturally they give Rogues exactly the same number of combat skills as warriors, exactly the same damage output as warriors, and then they give them super defensive/dodge skills to match a warrior's brute resilience. And this is, of course, completely separate from all the NON-combat skills they give rogues that warriors Don't get. The end result is.... endless powergamer debate about which class is better at combat but virtually no discussion about which one is better outside the battle field. Ironically, that's the opposite of balance.

 

^IMO (you did ask for my opinion here, right?) This shouldn't be. Fighters are already the simplest of the core four classes by nature. They can only do one thing: Fight. So they should be the best at it. Period.

 

Okay, I think I'm getting a better idea of the position your supporting. Would it be fair to say that you think rogues shouldn't be the equal of of fighters in combat situations, because fighters are not equal to rogues in non-combat situations? If so, would that opinon change if rogues were not more skilled in non-combat situations? My understanding is that this is the goal of PoE, rogues are not more skilled in non-combat than fighters, they just work better in some situations over others.

 

 

Are they using different weapons? Or are we dealing with a limited use "whirlwind attack" ability that we've given to Fighters but not Rogues? If it's the first one, then I'd be all right with it, since in that situation you're giving the fighter access to a type of weapon that can damage more than one foe at once. If it's the second one then we'd need more information. How often may the fighter employ this ability? And is he restricted to just attacking 2 foes at once? If there's just 1 foe on the battle field then does that mean that the Rogue is better in this situation since he's doing more damage to that one foe?

 

I'm thinking as just a basic attack situation, regardless of weapon choice. if the fighter has only one arget that target only takes 5 damage per tick, but if there are two targets, each takes 5 damage. The goal of this example was to better understand what you meant by "damage output" in terms of different combat situations (i.e. is single target damage output more important than multi target?). 

Edited April 25, 2014 by illathid

[Stun]

Okay, I think I'm getting a better idea of the position your supporting. Would it be fair to say that you think rogues shouldn't be the equal of of fighters in combat situations, because fighters are not equal to rogues in non-combat situations?

That's a fairly accurate assessment of my stance, yes. There's more to it of course, but that's good enough.

 

If so, would that opinon change if rogues were not more skilled in non-combat situations?

You mean, like, if they weren't more skilled at picking locks, disarming traps, silently sneaking into places they're not supposed to be, spying, scouting, and laying traps? That's a loaded question. Of course my entire stance would change. If they weren't the *best* at this stuff, they wouldn't even be rogues, would they.

 

But that's a good point actually. Classless systems can potentially be the best systems. Because the player can pick and choose the specific skills he's going to build his clean-slate character with, without having to adhere to any actual skill sets or arch-types. So of course, if we're dealing with that kind of system we wouldn't be having a rogue vs. warrior discussion in the first place.

 

My understanding is that this is the goal of PoE, rogues are not more skilled in non-combat than fighters, they just work better in some situations over others.

Well, again, I'll wait and see how everything works in PoE. We simply don't have the whole picture yet to make a judgement call on this matter. But there are a couple of specific things that Josh has said. He HAS said that while every class can sneak and pick locks (for example), none will be better at it than a rogue who chooses to focus on those skills. And this is no different than how 3e D&D does it. That's the way it should be. What I'm worried about though is combat. Josh has already defined Rogues as "Heavy Hitters". But since we haven't had the Warrior class update yet, we don't know what that really means.

 

I'm thinking as just a basic attack situation, regardless of weapon choice. if the fighter has only one arget that target only takes 5 damage per tick, but if there are two targets, each takes 5 damage. The goal of this example was to better understand what you meant by "damage output" in terms of different combat situations (i.e. is single target damage output more important than multi target?).

In that case, no. I wouldn't be in favor of such a system. Warriors should always do more damage in melee (be it against single or multiple targets) than Rogues. At best, if we're dead set on giving rogues something "equal or better" then fine, lets gives rogues better defensive skills in combat. Let them be more agile. Let them survive a fireball or sword swing by dodging it, instead of absorbing it with a smile like a warrior. Edited April 25, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

You mean, like, if they weren't more skilled at picking locks, disarming traps, silently sneaking into places they're not supposed to be, spying, scouting, and laying traps? That's a loaded question. Of course my entire stance would change. If they weren't the *best* at this stuff, they wouldn't even be rogues, would they.

But... why wouldn't they even be rogues at that point? Where is it mandated that a Rogue can't be different from a Fighter with regard to combat, with the exception of being lesser? A Ranger is balanced against a Fighter with combat, and not by out-non-combating him, right? They both are very offensively effective. And yet, The Ranger does things a lot differently than the Fighter does (namely with mostly ranged weaponry and an animal companion.) The Fighter can even also use ranged weapons, but he has completely different abilities with them and doesn't get an animal companion.

 

Why is it against the rules of the universe for a Rogue to have significantly lesser non-combat differences than a Fighter, and simply be good at combat while being inherently/stylistically different from a Fighter with regard to combat?

 

I don't see anywhere in the definition of Rogue "Is only sneaky, cunning, and highly skillful in everything that isn't in any way related to combat."

 

Warriors should always do more damage in melee (be it against single or multiple targets) than Rogues.

Based on what? Why is this true? "do more damage" does not equal "is overall better than." There's more to combat than how much damage you can do. If you have 50 hitpoints and can deal 10 damage per hit, you're much better off than the guy who has 1 hitpoint and can deal 7,000 damage per hit. The second that guy has to face two things at once, or simply can't land a hit first, his damage becomes meaningless. It literally doesn't matter how much damage he does, because he's not any "better" than the 50hp, 10dmg guy at "combat." He's just better at "damage," specifically.

 

I don't understand why sheer damage is being equated to betterness at all of combat here. The entire essence of traditional backstab/sneak attacks is that they're extremely damaging, but not able to be consistently used.

 

Your arguments apply perfectly to the setup MMO's use. I'd agree that, in those games, it's silly that Rogues simply do more damage, across the board. You fight something for 20 minutes with a Warrior, and do the same with a Rogue, and the Rogue will always dish out more damage (if you're using them both equally skillfully, whether it be a noob behind the wheel of both, or a pro). But, here, it's not just a running tally of damage. There are so many more factors at play that can render damage pretty obsolete.

[illathid]

Okay, I think I'm getting a better idea of the position your supporting. Would it be fair to say that you think rogues shouldn't be the equal of of fighters in combat situations, because fighters are not equal to rogues in non-combat situations?

That's a fairly accurate assessment of my stance, yes. There's more to it of course, but that's good enough.

 

Good, I wanted to make sure putting words in your mouth. I'm sure there's more to it, but I find it can helpful to make brief summaries like this on occasion.

 

 

If so, would that opinon change if rogues were not more skilled in non-combat situations?

You mean, like, if they weren't more skilled at picking locks, disarming traps, silently sneaking into places they're not supposed to be, spying, scouting, and laying traps? That's a loaded question. Of course my entire stance would change. If they weren't the *best* at this stuff, they wouldn't even be rogues, would they.

 

But that's a good point actually. Classless systems can potentially be the best systems. Because the player can pick and choose the specific skills he's going to build his clean-slate character with, without having to adhere to any actual skill sets or arch-types. So of course, if we're dealing with that kind of system we wouldn't be having a rogue vs. warrior discussion in the first place. 

 

Maybe an example would be helpful here as I think I didn't make myself the most clear before. Lets imagine a system where there are two classes, X and Y, and 6 non-combat skills A, B, C, D, E, & F. Class X starts with bonus points in skills A and B, while class Y starts with bonus points in skills E and F. Each class also gets the same number of skill points per level (maybe have the exact number tied to an attribute score of some kind), and you can only put one point into any given skill per level. With this hypothetical system classes X and Y are equally skilled in non-combat situations (assuming each skill has roughly equal utility), but class X will always be better at skills A and B than class Y when comparring two chracaters of the same level. If we mapped this onto the rogue/fighter discussion, we could say that rogue is not more skilled at non-combat situations than a fighter, but the rogue will always be best at the skills you mentioned.

 

So if the non-combat system looks somewhat like the one I've described above, would you still think that fighters should be better in comnbat situations than rogues?

 

 

My understanding is that this is the goal of PoE, rogues are not more skilled in non-combat than fighters, they just work better in some situations over others.

Well, again, I'll wait and see how everything works in PoE. We simply don't have the whole picture yet to make a judgement call on this matter. But there are a couple of specific things that Josh has said. He HAS said that while every class can sneak and pick locks (for example), none will be better at it than a rogue who chooses to focus on those skills. And this is no different than how 3e D&D does it. That's the way it should be. What I'm worried about though is combat. Josh has already defined Rogues as "Heavy Hitters". But since we haven't had the Warrior class update yet, we don't know what that really means. 

 

Well from what I recall of D&D 3e,  a rogue wasn't neccesarily the best at stealth or lockpicking. If another class has those as class skills, they could be just as good as the rogue at any given level. The rogue, however, had an inherent boost to the number of skill points they recieved per level so they could max out those skills without losing functionality elsewhere as would likely be the case with some other class.

 

 

I'm thinking as just a basic attack situation, regardless of weapon choice. if the fighter has only one arget that target only takes 5 damage per tick, but if there are two targets, each takes 5 damage. The goal of this example was to better understand what you meant by "damage output" in terms of different combat situations (i.e. is single target damage output more important than multi target?).

In that case, no. I wouldn't be in favor of such a system. Warriors should always do more damage in melee (be it against single or multiple targets) than Rogues. At best, if we're dead set on giving rogues something "equal or better" then fine, lets gives rogues better defensive skills in combat. Let them be more agile. Let them survive a fireball or sword swing by dodging it, instead of absorbing it with a smile like a warrior.

 

You've just mentioned something I hadn't touched on yet but adds another wrinkle. You say "warriors should always do more damage in melee," does that apply to ranged combat as well? What if the situation was that rogues did 5 damage per tick in melee but, 10 damage per tick in ranged, and vise versa for fighters?

 

I apologise for asking so many questions. After spending a lmost a decade studying philosophy and law, the socratic method has been beaten into me pretty heavily.

Edited April 25, 2014 by illathid

[Stun]

Maybe an example would be helpful here as I think I didn't make myself the most clear before. Lets imagine a system where there are two classes, X and Y, and 6 non-combat skills A, B, C, D, E, & F. Class X starts with bonus points in skills A and B, while class Y starts with bonus points in skills E and F. Each class also gets the same number of skill points per level (maybe have the exact number tied to an attribute score of some kind), and you can only put one point into any given skill per level. With this hypothetical system classes X and Y are equally skilled in non-combat situations (assuming each skill has roughly equal utility), but class X will always be better at skills A and B than class Y when comparring two chracaters of the same level. If we mapped this onto the rogue/fighter discussion, we could say that rogue is not more skilled at non-combat situations than a fighter, but the rogue will always be best at the skills you mentioned.

 

So if the non-combat system looks somewhat like the one I've described above, would you still think that fighters should be better in comnbat situations than rogues?

Yes. And I'll go ahead and openly admit here that "perfectly balanced classes" is not at the very top of the list of things that I judge a game's greatness on. But I'll try to be fair even with that. I don't think Warriors should get the same number of non-combat skills as rogues.

 

 

 

Well from what I recall of D&D 3e,  a rogue wasn't neccesarily the best at stealth or lockpicking. If another class has those as class skills, they could be just as good as the rogue at any given level. The rogue, however, had an inherent boost to the number of skill points they recieved per level so they could max out those skills without losing functionality elsewhere as would likely be the case with some other class.

Not exactly. The "rogue skills", like trap disarming, pickpocketing, stealth etc. were cross-class skills for everyone not of the rogue class, meaning those other classes are only able to put 1 point in them for every 2 levels they gain, not every level like a rogue can.

 

 

 

You've just mentioned something I hadn't touched on yet but adds another wrinkle. You say "warriors should always do more damage in melee," does that apply to ranged combat as well? What if the situation was that rogues did 5 damage per tick in melee but, 10 damage per tick in ranged, and vise versa for fighters?

Short answer: Yes, I'd be OK with that.

 

Long answer: This is indeed a huge situation-dependent wrinkle. One that requires us to factor in Attribute scores, the nature of the weapon enchantments that a game has, how effective archery is in relation to melee in the game's system, and in 3d games, how common ground-to-air combat is.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Stun