I'm so glad someone finally made a game where a rogue isn't necessary....

[Two-Bull]

A lot of the old i.e. games you had to have a rogue. They we're the only ones that could disarm traps and open locks. You could get by with a Knock spell but you would still get blown into little bits in the BG tower full of loot.

 

I find it extremely liberating that I can finally give that duty to someone that is usefull for something other than sneak attack/backstabbing/half assed archer. I've never been a fan of stealth in these games, and I don't really care for the sneaky combat approach. I like my party to be able to and be forced to take a frontal approach minus all the sneaky rogue play.

 

Bravo to Obsidian. I've been waiting for this change in gameplay for a long time.

[Heijoushin]

Yeah, that's true. I guess the problem with rogues is that they always sound so cool in concept (dirty-fighter! legendary assassin! man in the shadows!) but just end up being super fragile in practice.

 

Multi-class and dual-class helped to boost them up but since there's none of that in PoE, its a good thing that rogues aren't essential.

[Odd Hermit]

There were ways around it in all IE games. Find Traps spell, and sending summons to get rid of traps for example.
 

Also, some spells allowed for high resistance or immunity to damage from traps so you could potentially tank them with certain characters.

 

In 2e based games though I just used dual class or multiclass rogues. Fighter/Rogue was good, and Rogue-> Wizard had some synergy(invis+buffs+backstabs).

 

In 3e(IWD II) I just used Rogue 1/Wizard. With high int/dex character it was easy enough to keep up on Search/Disable/Open.

[Luckmann]

I find it funny that you'd say that a rogue is "necessary" in the IE games, when one of the single most iconic IE games, Baldur's Gate II, doesn't even supply you with a pure Thief.

Sufficient to say is that while a rogue is nice to have in the IE games, they're pretty far from necessary.

And it's even funnier that you say "I can finally give that duty to someone that is usefull for something other than sneak attack/backstabbing/half assed archer. I've never been a fan of stealth in these games, and I don't really care for the sneaky combat approach."

• Rogues in PoE is far more than backstabbing.
• They make great archers.
• Stealth "in these games" does not apply; sneaking works completely differently in PoE than it did in IE and is largely useless.
• "The sneaky combat approach" is practically useless and all but impossible, but if you by "the sneaky combat approach" mean scouting ahead, that is more or less mandatory because 90% of a fight is decided by initial positioning.

[GrinningReaper659]

 

<p>

 

I find it funny that you'd say that a rogue is "necessary" in the IE games, when one of the single most iconic IE games, Baldur's Gate II, doesn't even supply you with a pure Thief.

 

Sufficient to say is that while a rogue is nice to have in the IE games, they're pretty far from necessary.

Say what? You get a pure thief right at the beginning.

 

OP is right, in IE games thief was the only class with all rogue skills.

 

 

There is no pure class thief in BG2. Imoen is a dual-class Thief/Mage and yoshimo is a Bounty Hunter kit, which isn't considered a pure Thief; neither of them are consistent party members anyway. Apart from those two are Nalia, a Thief/Mage, and Jan, an Illusionist/Thief. So, the point is that you don't need a pure thief in BG2, nor is one available.

[Stun]

I see this as a semantics argument. We know that we don't need a rogue in PoE. But do we know for a fact that we don't need rogue skills in PoE? Because that's what we're really talking about.If I make an All Wizard party in PoE, and I decide not to give anyone points in Mechanics or Athletics, will I run into a wall? Will I find myself locked out of whole swaths of the game? Or will it be exactly the same as it was in the IE games when you don't use a thief (ie. inconvenient but still totally doable)?

 

 

 

As for the thread title. Bluh. in just about all RPGs out today you don't need a thief. D:OS? Nope. don't need a thief (scoundrel). Witcher series (what's a thief?) Dragon Age? Nope. Skyrim? (no classes in that game at all, and everyone has access to all the roguish skill trees.)

 

Since PoE is a party based game, I kinda would have preferred a system where party composition actually matters, but whatever. I can just pretend that it does and take a thief anyway.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Stun

[Luckmann]

 

<p>

 

I find it funny that you'd say that a rogue is "necessary" in the IE games, when one of the single most iconic IE games, Baldur's Gate II, doesn't even supply you with a pure Thief.

 

Sufficient to say is that while a rogue is nice to have in the IE games, they're pretty far from necessary.

Say what? You get a pure thief right at the beginning.

 

OP is right, in IE games thief was the only class with all rogue skills.

 

 

Yoshimo? Oh, sweet summer child...

 

 

Come back when you've played the game.

 

[mrmonocle]

I'm still going to use an archer rogue in PoE.

[wanderon]

 

 

 

<p>

 

I find it funny that you'd say that a rogue is "necessary" in the IE games, when one of the single most iconic IE games, Baldur's Gate II, doesn't even supply you with a pure Thief.

 

Sufficient to say is that while a rogue is nice to have in the IE games, they're pretty far from necessary.

Say what? You get a pure thief right at the beginning.

 

OP is right, in IE games thief was the only class with all rogue skills.

 

 

There is no pure class thief in BG2. Imoen is a dual-class Thief/Mage and yoshimo is a Bounty Hunter kit, which isn't considered a pure Thief; neither of them are consistent party members anyway. Apart from those two are Nalia, a Thief/Mage, and Jan, an Illusionist/Thief. So, the point is that you don't need a pure thief in BG2, nor is one available.

 

 

A kit isn't considered a class? By whom? Since when? In that case we only have 3 classes represented by NPC's (Ranger, Cleric and Fighter).

 

Nobody argued about needing a pure thief, OP said that there was a need in IE games for a "rogue character". So it's either solo, multi or dualclassed. And all of those options are represented by NPC's.

 

The point is if you don't have rogue you don't have the option to for example disarm trap. 

 

Yoshimo? Oh, sweet summer child...

 

 

Come back when you've played the game.

 

What? Yoshimo isn't an NPC?

 

 

Not very useful for the Underdark...

[Luckmann]

 

I find it funny that you'd say that a rogue is "necessary" in the IE games, when one of the single most iconic IE games, Baldur's Gate II, doesn't even supply you with a pure Thief.

 

Sufficient to say is that while a rogue is nice to have in the IE games, they're pretty far from necessary.

 

And it's even funnier that you say "I can finally give that duty to someone that is usefull for something other than sneak attack/backstabbing/half assed archer. I've never been a fan of stealth in these games, and I don't really care for the sneaky combat approach."

• Rogues in PoE is far more than backstabbing.
• They make great archers.
• Stealth "in these games" does not apply; sneaking works completely differently in PoE than it did in IE and is largely useless.
• "The sneaky combat approach" is practically useless and all but impossible, but if you by "the sneaky combat approach" mean scouting ahead, that is more or less mandatory because 90% of a fight is decided by initial positioning.

 

BTW it's amusing how Obsidian fanboys are willing to defend PoE even in a topic where OP made a positive comment on the games design.

 

 

How.. how did you interpret that as "defending" PoE? While I'm actually a pretty big fan of Obsidian and I genuinely think that PoE will be pretty good, I'm generally referred to as toxic. I absolutely loathe the sneaking mechanics in PoE.

 

 

What? Yoshimo isn't an NPC?

Warning, spoilers for BG2, which may come as a great surprise to you:

 

Yoshimo betrays the party partway into the game, and is unfortunately unredeemable. He's effectively a temporary tag-along.

 

 

[...]

 

Nobody argued about needing a pure thief, OP said that there was a need in IE games for a "rogue character". So it's either solo, multi or dualclassed. And all of those options are represented by NPC's.

 

The point is if you don't have rogue you don't have the option to for example disarm trap.

Semantics. You still still "need" a "rogue character" as much in PoE as you "needed" it in the IE games. You just won't "need" someone that happens to have the rogue class.

[wanderon]

If you don't need a rogue class but still need the rogue skills then what is YOUR problem - it's just a multiclass rogue under another name...

[Kjaamor]

I see this as a semantics argument. We know that we don't need a rogue in PoE. But do we know for a fact that we don't need rogue skills in PoE? Because that's what we're really talking about.If I make an All Wizard party in PoE, and I decide not to give anyone points in Mechanics or Athletics, will I run into a wall? Will I find myself locked out of whole swaths of the game? Or will it be exactly the same as it was in the IE games when you don't use a thief (ie. inconvenient but still totally doable)?

 

 

 

As for the thread title. Bluh. in just about all RPGs out today you don't need a thief. D:OS? Nope. don't need a thief (scoundrel). Witcher series (what's a thief?) Dragon Age? Nope. Skyrim? (no classes in that game at all, and everyone has access to all the roguish skill trees.)

 

Since PoE is a party based game, I kinda would have preferred a system where party composition actually matters, but whatever. I can just pretend that it does and take a thief anyway.

 

I agree with all the above points, and share the same concerns.

 

To be honest, for a long time I've wondered whether traps and locks are actually earning their keep in RPGs. I recently completed Wasteland 2, and while I was initially delighted with the skill system, by the end it grew extremely tiresome and didn't really offer gameplay so much as spamming a random number generator. The skill check system offers more than the skill roll, but it still seems like a very tame mechanic, although I acknowledge that Wasteland 2's is particularly bad just because you have such a surplus of points that there is next to no strategic thinking behind skill allocation.

 

I actually found the BGs to be rather better than this, because the question was whether you wanted a full thief or a multi-class. In BG1, the question was whether the multi class could handle traps to the extent you needed. In BG2, the question was whether the thief's other powers were so good as to justify using the single class. In the latter, I personally have never done so, but I appreciate that other people have and that there is a lot of worth to the trapping and detect illusion build.

 

It troubles me that, as Stun says, party composition (beyond needing a fighter) seems to matter so little in PoE, because to my mind that is a core mechanic of any strategy RPG worth its salt.

 

And as a final note; Trap and Lock exp. Wai.

[Stun]

I think the comparison to BG2 is completely valid. That is to say, I'd argue that Rogues in BG2 are just as un-needed as they are in PoE. As mentioned, Knock replaces Open Locks. (as does a bash from a high strength character). Invisibility (via spells or items) replaces stealth (and does a better job actually) Clerics can detect traps, and just about anyone can safely detonate them. Detect illusion? Mages, clerics, paladins, druids and bards all have the means, via their skillsets, of detecting illusions, and everyone else can find items like the Book of infinite spells to cast true sight.

 

That leaves only 3 rogue skills.

 

1) Back Stabbing.

2) Pick Pocketing.

3) Trap setting.

 

 

Backstabbing, as cool as it is, is merely a roleplaying novelty. Sneaking up behind someone and hitting them for 100 points of damage may be "awesome", but for practical purposes, wouldn't it be better to just cast finger of death or Flamestrike from a safe distance?

 

Pick pocketing is another novelty. But in Bg2 it was next to worthless. You can count on one hand the noteworthy items to be gained from it. And BG2 does not let you pickpocket hostile entities (you can't, for example, pickpocket Celestial Fury from its wielder during the guarded compound encounter) so its strategic value is nil.

 

Trap setting...is the unique one here, as it is a pre-fight, ambush-based skill and it's super useful in the game's biggest battles. Still, the result is not much different than a standard cleric or wizard Nuke barrage.... which unlike thief traps, can be done at any time (ie. even right in the middle of a battle)

Edited March 1, 2015 by Stun

[Two-Bull]

It might have been possible in earlier i.e. games to play without a rogue. It still wasn't practical. You still didn't have a way to disarm traps. The only alternative to a rogue in those games was more pigeon-holing than actually having a rogue in your party. You had to bring someone with knock, someone with detect traps, someone with invisibility, and then you needed to spam rests or bring lots of heals to make up for the damage you would absorb while detonating traps. There were certain levels, like the tower in BG, that we're almost impossible without a rogue.

 

I hold nothing against anyone that enjoys playing rogues. I just don't. I don't like having them in my party. I prefer the opposite type of player: someone with high armor, high health pool, doesn't have to damage anyone to be effective, and doesn't have to "sneak" around. I prefer to NOT have to micro-manage to keep them up. For me, I truly appreciate the Pillars game mechanic that seperates disarm traps from a class type. It allows me the freedom to play how I want to play. That's a positive.

 

So those of you enjoy that enjoy the sneaky backstabber, enjoy them until your hearts content. This change in game mechanics has been long over due for those of us that have no interest in playing that archetype. Now both types of gamers can play the type of party they want to play.

 

So, again, Bravo to Pillars for the change. It's music to my ears.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Two-Bull

[bonarbill]

A rogue was never needed in the IE games.  There were a variety of different ways to get around a lock or a trap.

 

 

 

I find it funny that you'd say that a rogue is "necessary" in the IE games, when one of the single most iconic IE games, Baldur's Gate II, doesn't even supply you with a pure Thief.

Considering how multi and duals outclassed normal classes, I don't see why this makes a difference.  A thief is a thief.  You still get a character that gets thief levels and has magic to enhance his thief abilities.  

Edited March 1, 2015 by bonarbill

[Stun]

It might have been possible in earlier i.e. games to play without a rogue. It still wasn't practical. You still didn't have a way to disarm traps. The only alternative to a rogue in those games was more pigeon-holing than actually having a rogue in your party. You had to bring someone with knock, someone with detect traps, someone with invisibility, and then you needed to spam rests or bring lots of heals to make up for the damage you would absorb while detonating traps. There were certain levels, like the tower in BG, that we're almost impossible without a rogue.

 

I hold nothing against anyone that enjoys playing rogues. I just don't. I don't like having them in my party. I prefer the opposite type of player: someone with high armor, high health pool, doesn't have to damage anyone to be effective, and doesn't have to "sneak" around. I prefer to NOT have to micro-manage to keep them up. For me, I truly appreciate the Pillars game mechanic that seperates disarm traps from a class type. It allows me the freedom to play how I want to play. That's a positive.

 

So those of you enjoy that enjoy the sneaky backstabber, enjoy them until your hearts content. This change in game mechanics has been long over due for those of us that have no interest in playing that archetype. Now both types of gamers can play the type of party they want to play.

 

So, again, Bravo to Pillars for the change. It's music to my ears.

Minor note: A dungeon that's "nearly impossible" to do without a specific party composition is NOT a good argument against the traditional AD&D class roles. It's a commentary about bad dungeon design.

 

In my Pen and paper days, my DM used to design the greatest dungeons ever. And one of the reasons why his dungeons were so good was that he didn't assume any specifics about party makeup. Instead, he designed the dungeon to be fully self contained. if there was a challenge that needed to be overcome, then the tools needed to overcome it were made available to the party within that dungeon (locked doors had keys or they were bashable), and traps had clues to tell you that they existed, and then they either had switches to turn them off, or alternate paths to avoid them outright. Stuff like that.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Stun

[Two-Bull]

 

It might have been possible in earlier i.e. games to play without a rogue. It still wasn't practical. You still didn't have a way to disarm traps. The only alternative to a rogue in those games was more pigeon-holing than actually having a rogue in your party. You had to bring someone with knock, someone with detect traps, someone with invisibility, and then you needed to spam rests or bring lots of heals to make up for the damage you would absorb while detonating traps. There were certain levels, like the tower in BG, that we're almost impossible without a rogue.

 

I hold nothing against anyone that enjoys playing rogues. I just don't. I don't like having them in my party. I prefer the opposite type of player: someone with high armor, high health pool, doesn't have to damage anyone to be effective, and doesn't have to "sneak" around. I prefer to NOT have to micro-manage to keep them up. For me, I truly appreciate the Pillars game mechanic that seperates disarm traps from a class type. It allows me the freedom to play how I want to play. That's a positive.

 

So those of you enjoy that enjoy the sneaky backstabber, enjoy them until your hearts content. This change in game mechanics has been long over due for those of us that have no interest in playing that archetype. Now both types of gamers can play the type of party they want to play.

 

So, again, Bravo to Pillars for the change. It's music to my ears.

Minor note: A dungeon that's "nearly impossible" to do without a specific party composition is NOT a good argument against the traditional AD&D class roles. It's a commentary about bad dungeon design.

 

In my Pen and paper days, my DM used to design the greatest dungeons ever. And one of the reasons why his dungeons were so good was that he didn't assume any specifics about party makeup. Instead, he designed the dungeon to be fully self contained. if there was a challenge that needed to be overcome, then the tools needed to overcome it were made available to the party within that dungeon (locked doors had keys or they were bashable), and traps had clues to tell you that they existed, and then they either had switches to turn them off, or alternate paths to avoid them outright. Stuff like that.

 

 

I don't think it's bad dungeon design. That dungeon was great fun and tons of loot. I loved that dungeon. I'm a loot whore and there was no way I was going to skip that dungeon. It's not like it was just that dungeon, in the early i.e. games, disarm trap was a must have.

 

The bad design was a game mechanic that made trap disarm specific to one class. That's the bad design mechanic.

 

Either way, Pillars is an improvement. It gives players the freedom to play the party they want and not have to either take a rogue or take the alternative to a rogue: the necessary classes to access Knock, Detect Traps, and the heals necessary to compensate for the damage you'll absorb detonating said traps.

 

Pillars improved on that. Obisidian 2015 deserves the credit.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Two-Bull

[Stun]

The bad design was a game mechanic that made trap disarm specific to one class. That's the bad design mechanic.

And the fix to this would be... Every class gets every vital skill? What's the point of having classes in the first place if you're going to do that?

 

 

In any case, there are quite a few things that PoE improves upon from Bg1. I don't necessarily think the classes are one of them, though. But since that's a judgment call that will require that we play the entire game before confidently making, I'll withhold my final judgement.

 

I will say this though, after playing the beta, I'm feeling that some classes are simply pointless because of this everyone-can-do-everything design. (why be a rogue, when barbarians are better in every way. Why be a mage when magic is so....dull and isn't nearly as useful as a chanter's chants? etc)

 

That is what the devs themselves would call bad design. (they certainly didn't intend this)

Edited March 1, 2015 by Stun

[DrBrian]

For all the people apparently clueless to what the OP said, he was appreciative a rogue fighting type character is not required in your party. Having traditional rogue skills independent of the class does that.

[Stun]

The OP's argument was based on a comparison, which is why we're still here debating.

[Gromnir]

If you don't need a rogue class but still need the rogue skills then what is YOUR problem - it's just a multiclass rogue under another name...

 

yeah, people keep getting hung-up on names-- we observed this problem in another thread.

 

we watched josh do one o' his gameplays o' the beta, and more than once he observed that for his party build he really shoulda' given his stealthy character, his scout character, a higher mechanics skill. is a couple times we saw him disarm traps via the old non political correct pnp PMD method.  so, we is still likely gonna want a stealthy character who can disarm traps-- whether we make such a party member with a rogue or a cipher is hardly noteworthy.  

 

*shrug*

 

in iwd2 we frequent had no rogue or a character with a single level o' rogue. there is also any number o' crpgs that is complete classless and have no rogue character.  stun mentioned a few crpgs that also not rely on rogue or thiefy inclusion for sucess. for folks new to crpgs, wasteland 2 is an example o' a classless system with no rogue class. so, regarding the genesis poster's observation, poe is not representing any kinda sea-change for crpgs ... and as we noted in another thread, the developers o' poe, inexplicably, still has inherent skill bonuses tied to classes.  wth?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Two-Bull]

 

The bad design was a game mechanic that made trap disarm specific to one class. That's the bad design mechanic.

And the fix to this would be... Every class gets every vital skill? What's the point of having classes in the first place if you're going to do that?

 

 

In any case, there are quite a few things that PoE improves upon from Bg1. I don't necessarily think the classes are one of them, though. But since that's a judgment call that will require that we play the entire game before confidently making, I'll withhold my final judgement.

 

I will say this though, after playing the beta, I'm feeling that some classes are simply pointless because of this everyone-can-do-everything design. (why be a rogue, when barbarians are better in every way. Why be a mage when magic is so....dull and isn't nearly as useful as a chanter's chants? etc)

 

That is what the devs themselves would call bad design. (they certainly didn't intend this)

 

 

I think the goal is to make every class playable, but not essential to the party. That way you have more options and more diverse builds.

 

Giving an essential skill to every class would limit your options. Imagine if fighters we're the only tank, priest were the only healer, wizards were the only aoe damager, rogues were the only disarm class.....It would force more people to play the same way.

 

People will still play rogues. They're the highest damage melee class in the game. Obsidian changed it so I don't have to take one if I don't want, but they didn't make it so no one is going to play them.

 

Giving the ability to disarm to anyone is an improvement.

[Uomoz]

In any case, there are quite a few things that PoE improves upon from Bg1. I don't necessarily think the classes are one of them, though. But since that's a judgment call that will require that we play the entire game before confidently making, I'll withhold my final judgement.

I will say this though, after playing the beta, I'm feeling that some classes are simply pointless because of this everyone-can-do-everything design. (why be a rogue, when barbarians are better in every way. Why be a mage when magic is so....dull and isn't nearly as useful as a chanter's chants? etc)

 

That is what the devs themselves would call bad design. (they certainly didn't intend this)

 

 

 

The same could be said about a lot of D&d (and IE games) classes, filled with recycled spells from the base classes (mage/cleric). At least PoE has different combat mechanics for each class, and powers aren't shared between classes. I can see way more difference between poe's rogue/barbarian than a IE mage/sorcerer honestly, and they aren't even casters.

[Sock]

 

 

I find it funny that you'd say that a rogue is "necessary" in the IE games, when one of the single most iconic IE games, Baldur's Gate II, doesn't even supply you with a pure Thief.

 

Sufficient to say is that while a rogue is nice to have in the IE games, they're pretty far from necessary.

 

And it's even funnier that you say "I can finally give that duty to someone that is usefull for something other than sneak attack/backstabbing/half assed archer. I've never been a fan of stealth in these games, and I don't really care for the sneaky combat approach."

• Rogues in PoE is far more than backstabbing.
• They make great archers.
• Stealth "in these games" does not apply; sneaking works completely differently in PoE than it did in IE and is largely useless.
• "The sneaky combat approach" is practically useless and all but impossible, but if you by "the sneaky combat approach" mean scouting ahead, that is more or less mandatory because 90% of a fight is decided by initial positioning.

 

 

BTW it's amusing how Obsidian fanboys are willing to defend PoE even in a topic where OP made a positive comment on the games design.

 

 

Maybe the lesson to take here is that they aren't "fanboys", so much as they are people who have their own opinions.

[Bazy]

I see this as a semantics argument. We know that we don't need a rogue in PoE. But do we know for a fact that we don't need rogue skills in PoE? Because that's what we're really talking about.If I make an All Wizard party in PoE, and I decide not to give anyone points in Mechanics or Athletics, will I run into a wall? Will I find myself locked out of whole swaths of the game? Or will it be exactly the same as it was in the IE games when you don't use a thief (ie. inconvenient but still totally doable)?

This is such a good point. In the end you need mechanics the same way you needed thieving in IE games. Though the health/endurance system does alleviate part of it. And you do have the choice of which toon to pump mechanics on.