lets talk about wizard & rogue

[dffgmmj]

In old ie games: (not very big fan but like it)

Wizard- Symbol of knowledge,ONLY THEM can access ALL arcane spells (not bard not sorcerer not other mod class).Every level up increase their spell-casting level and adaptation to more complex situation which is a big deal.

Rogue- Master of shadows,they know staff that OTHER CLASSES DONT,they know how to survive,and more importantly they can hide themself when others cant.

 

These features not just make them unique,also make them unforgettable/role-playing fun.

 

Forgive my poor english,i just played this game in my friends home and i admit its amazing(thanks for your hard work),and i just find out the wizard already "balanced" many their spells/schools(e.g summoning/conjuration spells) to other spell-casting class and the rouge EVEN DONT HAVE INDIVIDUAL STEALTH (even their fighting style has changed).

 

From my opinion, fighter/wizard/rogue, these 3 very very traditional class,their behavior model shouldnt be changed but only improve them. i know this is too late to mention something like this(maybe not appropriate), but i just want to say it.i think the devs focused on tactic balancing stuff but ignored some old games design ideas.

 

Maybe more playable?we ll see.

 

ps FIghter is good

 

I relied on machine translation. Thx for reading.

[Mlatimudan]

While I agree with you that individual stealth would  improve the game I disagree with your other points.

 

I don't see why other classes shouldn't be able to do things the rogue traditionally did albeit less well. Rangers for example conceptually seem to fit a stealthy type of character even more then a thief in my opinion, after all stalking deer in the woods is not a noisy activity. Locks and traps and other mechanical stuff are also not skills that are beyond the scope of any class. I think the thief could be better at these things with training but I don't see why for example a Cypher should be banned from picking locks,

 

As for spell selection, to me it seems very arbitrary you could argue for anything since it's magic. I would like wizards to have more spells and unique/interesting spells but I don't see why they should have access to all spells, after all cypher spells for instance manipulate peoples souls and only cyphers can do that for lore reasons. It is for balance but it also makes all the spellcasters feel different.

[Voss]

Rogue honestly shouldn't be a class at all, just a fighting style.   Anyone can learn how to deal with mechanisms, poisons and how to hide.  

 

This is particularly true for PoE, since the rogue looks more and more like a fairly useless contributor.   The D&D legacy is particularly poor to the rogue, as it is too often just a fairly shoddy character you have to take along to get through the doors and traps.  A dungeoneering tax, as it were.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I won't approach critiquing wizards. It's already been said, and yes, they are horrid in PoE. That aside...

 

Rogue honestly shouldn't be a class at all, just a fighting style.   Anyone can learn how to deal with mechanisms, poisons and how to hide.  

 

This is particularly true for PoE, since the rogue looks more and more like a fairly useless contributor.   The D&D legacy is particularly poor to the rogue, as it is too often just a fairly shoddy character you have to take along to get through the doors and traps.  A dungeoneering tax, as it were.

 

In PoE, Rogues essentially are a fighting style. They function as vicious flankers and skirmishers. Since taking damage is all but guaranteed in PoE, I find them to be wonderfully useful because their tremendous damage output minimizes the length of combat. Disrupt with Cipher then murder with Rogue. Or just simply have a team of hearth Orlan pikers spec'd to critical as frequently as possible. Stealth up, position, unleash. Pure murder.

[Voss]

I won't approach critiquing wizards. It's already been said, and yes, they are horrid in PoE. That aside...

 

Rogue honestly shouldn't be a class at all, just a fighting style.   Anyone can learn how to deal with mechanisms, poisons and how to hide.  

 

This is particularly true for PoE, since the rogue looks more and more like a fairly useless contributor.   The D&D legacy is particularly poor to the rogue, as it is too often just a fairly shoddy character you have to take along to get through the doors and traps.  A dungeoneering tax, as it were.

 

In PoE, Rogues essentially are a fighting style.

Great. The point is, a 'fighting style' isn't a class.  Killing people quickly isn't subject to a particular theme or concept, it is merely efficient.  The same results can be achieved by a gang of big guys with axes, or just obliterating people with spellfire.  You could do the same thing with a linked set of talents, and basically have a single nonspellcaster class that branches out into the meaningful abilities of the fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue or monk depending on what they pick.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Voss

[Stun]

Great. The point is, a 'fighting style' isn't a class.

I agree, but this is a semantics argument. One I used to loudly profess before the masses here put me in my place.

 

Sure, fighting style isn't a class, but if you want to go there, Rogue isn't a class either. It's a description given to anyone who 1) doesn't play by the rules (he's gone rogue!) and/or 2) doesn't adhere to the status quo (rogue elements in our society!). It's only D&D tradition that made them a profession, and even D&D called them Thieves initially, rather than Rogues.

 

In PoE, Rogues do #1 and #2. They're warriors who fight dirty rather than traditionally. They're scoundrel-like opportunists who kick others when they're down. Should they be more unique than that? Yes, but if the devs were to make them the only class who can sneak, the only class that can pick locks, and the only class that can disarm traps, then having a rogue in your party will be 'too vital', and I'm pretty sure that goes against Josh's philosophy of "no required party composition".

Edited February 9, 2015 by Stun

[Voss]

 

I agree, but this is a semantics argument. One I used to loudly profess before the masses here put me in my place.

 

Sure, fighting style isn't a class, but if you want to go there, Rogue isn't a class either. It's a description given to anyone who 1) doesn't play by the rules (he's gone rogue!) and/or 2) doesn't adhere to the status quo (rogue elements in our society!). It's only D&D tradition that made them a profession, and even D&D called them Thieves initially, rather than Rogues.

 

In PoE, Rogues do #1 and #2. They're warriors who fight dirty rather than traditionally. They're scoundrel-like opportunists who kick others when they're down. Should they be more unique than that? Yes, but if the devs were to make them the only class who can sneak, the only class that can pick locks, and the only class that can disarm traps, then having a rogue in your party will be 'too vital', and I'm pretty sure that goes against Josh's philosophy of "no required party composition".

 

Not so much a semantic argument as a design argument way past the point where it matters.     But considering the fighter is apparently built on knockdowns and other methods of putting people prone, monks totally cheat and at least one paladin order is all about brutal efficiency, the theoretical rogue doesn't seem to stand out at all.

 

Though as far as uniqueness goes, I think that is the fundamental problem: they aren't.  They were original written up as a special-snowflake class with noncombat abilities (which by bad design logic means that have to be less good in combat), and then were solidly entrenched as a sacred cow in later editions of D&D, and too many people have just copy/pasted that formula.  But really they offer nothing, because they _aren't_ unique.  A rogue is just someone with a eclectic mix of useful but unrelated dungeoneering skills (and a lot of dross) that Gygax or Arneson decided was a package deal, and they don't have anything at all to offer beyond that legacy.  Anyone can shiv you and steal your wallet. 

 

I'm all for no required party composition, I'm just puzzled by the logic in dragging along this particular legacy of bad design which serves no purpose if they're sincerely following that idea.  Which given the lack of an Imouen to tackle early game traps nonsense, it seems like Obsidian double-downed on it, but kept the class anyway.  Which is a shame, since it hacks out opportunities for a Bleak Walker, mercenary fighter or whatever to pick up backstab (and related talents) and murder some fools because they enjoy fighting dirty.  

 

And since the rogue abilities are just class-specific talents anyway, it seems like it would have been easy enough to shift them over to the general talent lists, rather than maintaining an illusion of choice at the class selection point, but denying more meaningful customization at the talent options. 

Edited February 9, 2015 by Voss

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

Forgive my poor english,i just played this game in my friends home and i admit its amazing(thanks for your hard work),and i just find out the wizard already "balanced" many their spells/schools(e.g summoning/conjuration spells) to other spell-casting class and the rouge EVEN DONT HAVE INDIVIDUAL STEALTH (even their fighting style has changed).

 

[...]

 

It's not a problem unique to the rogue, since anyone can put points into Stealth, but yes, the lack of individual stealth is a pretty huge issue. A developer said that it's an issue they really wanted to fix, but they had to prioritize bug-hunting and -fixing. Which isn't really an excuse, but at least an acceptable explanation.

 

Party Stealth/Forced Combat Unstealthing is pretty horrific, and actually, when I think of it, it does actually affect rogues specifically, since they are the ones that lose out on their backstabbing application/tactical combat introduction.

 

Rogue honestly shouldn't be a class at all, just a fighting style.   Anyone can learn how to deal with mechanisms, poisons and how to hide.  

 

This is particularly true for PoE, since the rogue looks more and more like a fairly useless contributor.   The D&D legacy is particularly poor to the rogue, as it is too often just a fairly shoddy character you have to take along to get through the doors and traps.  A dungeoneering tax, as it were.

 

I'm not saying I entirely disagree, but by that logic, most classes should just be "fighting styles" and "anyone can learn how to x, y, z".

[Sensuki]

Individual stealth will be implemented in a patch. They already said so.

[dffgmmj]

wow you guys said a lot of words......sorry i need some time to read

 

Meanwhile i want write a few thoughts here.Rogue need more unique staff,such as:(just for example)

 

*Focus on shadows- ONLY thiefs stealth will not automatically deactivate when combat started.(unless they expose themself in enemys sight)

 

*Study traps- when a rogue encounter a trap that they cant disarm,their mechanics skill will have a chance(depending on some attribute) to

automatically temporary +1,and they can try it again.In other words,ONLY them have more chances/times to challenge a high level trap.Lock is

same.

 

*Seize the moment- In combat when a rogue stand behind a fighter, meanwhile the fighter encounter an enemy ahead of him(enemy ,fighter, rogue 3

person become a straight line),and out of other enemys sight,a rogue can activate stealth mode(has a chance failure depending on distance etc.).

 

As for the wizard,actually i dont need some super power spell such as "stop the worlds time" or "trap that guy beneath earth forever", they r

learner/scholar. I think they alway (will) know a way to learn more stuff,at least a part of other class' spell,or some deep hiding staff.i am

not talking about the balancing/distinguishing to other classes,its just for fun,from my personal opinion,its also important compared to

balanced tactic.

[Diogenes]

It's important to remember that Rogues aren't Thieves. One of the descriptions of the class likens them to someone like Bronn from Game of Thrones, someone who is a soldier but is more willing to stab someone in the back or kick them in the balls rather than lead a glorious charge from the front lines.

As for Wizards one of the design goals for this game was to avoid the problems that a lot of DnD stuff fell into where there was no point bringing anyone who was not a wizard on any adventure since they could do literally anything: fly/make themselves super strong/summon armies of undead etc etc etc. So maybe wizards don't conform to everyone's immediate expectations but it is in the interest of making the game more fun and balanced where every class is worthwhile. Everything can link arms and dance happily under a rainbow, all of that.

[Luckmann]

Individual stealth will be implemented in a patch. They already said so.

 

They did? ^{[citation needed]}

[danielkx]

 

Individual stealth will be implemented in a patch. They already said so.

 

They did? ^{[citation needed]}

 

Only thing I remember reading was I think Adam saying that they either are planning on or are wanting to try to implement it in a patch or the expansion.

[Endrosz]

Though as far as uniqueness goes, I think that is the fundamental problem: they aren't.  They were original written up as a special-snowflake class with noncombat abilities (which by bad design logic means that have to be less good in combat), and then were solidly entrenched as a sacred cow in later editions of D&D, and too many people have just copy/pasted that formula.  But really they offer nothing, because they _aren't_ unique.  A rogue is just someone with a eclectic mix of useful but unrelated dungeoneering skills (and a lot of dross) that Gygax or Arneson decided was a package deal, and they don't have anything at all to offer beyond that legacy.  Anyone can shiv you and steal your wallet.

 

Ho-ho-ho-hold your horses, mate.

 

DnD archetypes have solid literary foundations, and the rogue is based on fantasy classics like Fritz Leiber's Ffahrd and Grey Mouser and Jack Vance's Cugel the Clever (the setting of Cugel's saga, Dying Earth also gave DnD the memorization system). Cugel's roguish stories are highly entertaining, I have fond memories of reading the Hungarian translations. Think of the real-world difference between regular army soldiers and the Somalian pirates. Both fight to win, with an assault rifle in hand, but they work very differently.

 

Based on the Let's Play videos, I say Eternity's rogues have enough to set them apart from all other classes. The various Hard/PotD discussions of the classes are proof of that.

[archangel979]

 

Great. The point is, a 'fighting style' isn't a class.

I agree, but this is a semantics argument. One I used to loudly profess before the masses here put me in my place.

 

Sure, fighting style isn't a class, but if you want to go there, Rogue isn't a class either. It's a description given to anyone who 1) doesn't play by the rules (he's gone rogue!) and/or 2) doesn't adhere to the status quo (rogue elements in our society!). It's only D&D tradition that made them a profession, and even D&D called them Thieves initially, rather than Rogues.

 

In PoE, Rogues do #1 and #2. They're warriors who fight dirty rather than traditionally. They're scoundrel-like opportunists who kick others when they're down. Should they be more unique than that? Yes, but if the devs were to make them the only class who can sneak, the only class that can pick locks, and the only class that can disarm traps, then having a rogue in your party will be 'too vital', and I'm pretty sure that goes against Josh's philosophy of "no required party composition".

 

To be fair D&D 3.0 and upward call them Rogue and Thief is usually just one of their facets.

[FlintlockJazz]

I agree about the Rogue and had this argument on these very boards ages ago.  The Rogue is a holdover from D&D 1st ed, back when stealth was something only the Rogue did (and which was pretty much magical in it's implementation), used only to help it get the backstab and the party as a whole just wandered from room to room in the dungeon with no attempt at being stealthy, with each room being a separate encounter that seemed to live in it's own world as the fighting in it would not alert the monsters in the next room despite letting off fireballs and screaming.  Due to Tradition we are now forced to have Rogues in most games, who ring-fence a set of skills which should really be universal adventuring skills in the same way fighting ability is a universal adventuring skill in order to give their existence meaning.  The Rogue should be gutted and disembowled, his skillset and abilities dispersed to other classes, as Rogue is an attitude, a mindset, not a class.

Edited February 9, 2015 by FlintlockJazz

[dorkboy]

 

 

Individual stealth will be implemented in a patch. They already said so.

 

They did? ^{[citation needed]}

 

Only thing I remember reading was I think Adam saying that they either are planning on or are wanting to try to implement it in a patch or the expansion.

 

Yep. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70311-new-engine/page-3?do=findComment&comment=1566279

[Voss]

 

 

Rogue honestly shouldn't be a class at all, just a fighting style.   Anyone can learn how to deal with mechanisms, poisons and how to hide.  

 

This is particularly true for PoE, since the rogue looks more and more like a fairly useless contributor.   The D&D legacy is particularly poor to the rogue, as it is too often just a fairly shoddy character you have to take along to get through the doors and traps.  A dungeoneering tax, as it were.

 

I'm not saying I entirely disagree, but by that logic, most classes should just be "fighting styles" and "anyone can learn how to x, y, z".

 

Yes, largely because the theme of a lot of classes are very weak, largely because WotC churned out a lot of filler garbage over the years, and some things (like barbarian and druid) are specific cultural trappings masquerading as a broader concept.

 

 

 

Though as far as uniqueness goes, I think that is the fundamental problem: they aren't.  They were original written up as a special-snowflake class with noncombat abilities (which by bad design logic means that have to be less good in combat), and then were solidly entrenched as a sacred cow in later editions of D&D, and too many people have just copy/pasted that formula.  But really they offer nothing, because they _aren't_ unique.  A rogue is just someone with a eclectic mix of useful but unrelated dungeoneering skills (and a lot of dross) that Gygax or Arneson decided was a package deal, and they don't have anything at all to offer beyond that legacy.  Anyone can shiv you and steal your wallet.

 
Ho-ho-ho-hold your horses, mate.

 
DnD archetypes have solid literary foundations, and the rogue is based on fantasy classics like Fritz Leiber's Ffahrd and Grey Mouser and Jack Vance's Cugel the Clever (the setting of Cugel's saga, Dying Earth also gave DnD the memorization system). Cugel's roguish stories are highly entertaining, I have fond memories of reading the Hungarian translations. Think of the real-world difference between regular army soldiers and the Somalian pirates. Both fight to win, with an assault rifle in hand, but they work very differently.
 
Based on the Let's Play videos, I say Eternity's rogues have enough to set them apart from all other classes. The various Hard/PotD discussions of the classes are proof of that.

 

That is partly where the class inspirations came from, but distilling a half-dozen character concepts down to 'this gets these abilities and no others' is not a good way to implement a literary character concept.  Played right and with a decent (and broad) general mechanical system, the Grey Mouser doesn't need to have 'rogue' written on a character sheet (and in fact does lots of things that a D&D rogue just can't do).  A concept or archetype doesn't have to be bound so tightly to mechanics that only X can do Y, and X can't do any Z.  

 

 

Soliders vs. pirates.  I'm not sure why this would support your argument.  Translating between games and  real world never goes well, and there really isn't anything stopping pirates from adopting military tactics apart from a lack of training or interest.  Nor is there anything stopping ex-soldiers from becoming pirates. Nor is the line between Somali 'soldier' and Somali 'pirate' particularly distinct in a lot of cases- the training of soldiers in that part of Africa is something soldiers in other parts of the world openly sneer at.

 

Proof?  How so?  

Yes, they are set apart- but it is an entirely artificial separation.  Move class talents to general talents and you can make the same character without losing anything but limitations.

[Endrosz]

I'm not sure what your point is. Should the rogue class be removed? Should it have more unique features? Do you want a classless system? (I like classless systems, but PoE's simply isn't.)

 

Yes, they are set apart- but it is an entirely artificial separation.  Move class talents to general talents and you can make the same character without losing anything but limitations.

 

 

Yes, and this is true for the fighter. Move fighter talents to general talents, and everyone can be a fighter, including rogues. Losing limitations, what kind of limitations? This isn't DnD, a rogue can wear any armor and wield any weapon.

 

There are many, many games which offer the "basic three" as class choices, which is fighter, rogue, mage. The latest is Underworld Ascendant. Even System Shock 2 offered a modern-day version of the basic three: soldier, hacker, psi-op.

 

Edit: The "entirely artificial seperation" is called game design. Everything is artificial in a game.

 

Edited February 9, 2015 by Endrosz

[treaves]

A good discussion, but, I'm really surprised by the simplistic interpretation a lot of non-Rouge players have of Rouges.  I've yet to find a game that does this class justice; either electronic or PnP (although for different reasons usually).

 

I like playing Rouges.  The problem I have is that my party in PnP games (ala Pathfinder) have no patience for the character to go off and scouts, investigate, LAY TRAPS, etcetera.  They just want to barge into the next area, kill everything, and move on.  Slash & grab.  And for computer games, it's hard to control various characters to do the same.  You either control the whole party, which makes fine-grained control hard, or different people play the characters, and the same arguments as presented for the PnP apply.

 

I like my character to be able to sneak in, see who & what is there, and go back out to formulate a plan of attack.  Traps (ala Neverwinter Nights) can be very useful in an encounter.

 

As to the people who say that a rouges skills are learnable by everyone, perhaps.  But so then could any non-Devine skill.  But your fully plated warrior is going to be constitutionally opposed to the amount of learning needed for that.  Nor would they necessarily have the fine motor skills, and (perhaps) all hands needed for such delicate work.  

 

So does a Rouge need to be a separate class, or merely a group of skills anyone can learn?  Well, if you are going to differentiate Monk, Fighter, Wizard/Sorcerer as classes, then clearly you should do so with Rouge too.  Otherwise do away with all classes, and just go with race,  Your character then could do what ever they choose to learn, and their equipment supports.

[rjshae]

All arguments for point-based builds mixed with career starter packages, I'd say.

[Stun]

All arguments for point-based builds mixed with career starter packages, I'd say.

Ala the Divinity: Original Sin way. I agree. Love that system to death. It's my preference in every RPG that isn't an IE spiritual successor.

 

For PoE, though, I want things to feel like they did in Baldurs Gate.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Stun

[Diogenes]

In regards to the trap/stealth discussion I think PoE handles it in a really good way, since anyone can be good with mechanics or sneaking you avoid that "you must have X class to pass" situation that you run into with stuff like Baldur's Gate. I like the idea of having a wizard who is fascinated by gizmos and becomes an expert locksmith just for the sake of learning it or having a Fighter who is really into being an adventurer so she's read up on every monster you can find, myths and legends and what herbs are safe to eat in the wild.

 

Who says the shifty bastard with the knives has to be the one to open all the chests?

[Stun]

In Baldurs Gate, thieves weren't the only ones who could unlock chests. Wizards got Knock, And everyone else got strength bonuses to lock bashing.

 

In Baldurs Gate, thieves weren't the only ones who could disarm traps. Wizards and clerics got summons they could send ahead to detonate traps, And everyone could use Algernon's cloak.

 

In Baldurs Gate Thieves weren't the only ones who could stealth. Rangers and Bards got stealth. Wizards got invisibility spells, and everyone had access to potions of invisibility.

 

Of course, none of this matters, because Baldurs Gate had multi and dual classing, so just about anyone could be a Thief, in addition to whatever other class they were.

[Diogenes]

I think you are being disingenuous here, lock bashing and sending summons into traps are alternate ways of dealing with a situation but they aren't the same as lockpicking/trap disabling.

 

Wizards being able to cast knock or invisibility is just part of the whole "wizards can do everything" problem. Rangers being able to stealth is good and thematic which is cool.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Diogenes