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

[Yabaddi]

To be honest, I can't imagine playing a party without sneak-attacking rogue. For me it's a bread and butter of a RPG. Just look at my precious one, isn't she cute? (especially with all those wonderful toys xD )

 

Edited March 2, 2015 by Yabaddi

[rheingold]

Yeah, I reckon you are still going to need one character to take up the scouting, sneaking, disarming role. You can call him/her whatever you want - a scout, an archer, the chocolate Easter bunny, dosn't matter, except that character will still be fulfilling a rogue like position in the party. Only thing it might not do is sneak attack or be the main dps bunny. In D&D and all its bastard offshoots a rogue was not just a rogue, hell you could have a fighter or mage who picked up a couple of skills to get by, or an assasin. There was huge variety in how you played a "rogue". Frankly from what I see with pillars nothing has changed whatsoever. You want a traditional rogue, go ahead. You want another character class to function as a part time rogue- go for it. Semantics indeed.

Edited March 2, 2015 by rheingold

[Two-Bull]

Yeah, I reckon you are still going to need one character to take up the scouting, sneaking, disarming role. You can call him/her whatever you want - a scout, an archer, the chocolate Easter bunny, dosn't matter, except that character will still be fulfilling a rogue like position in the party. Only thing it might not do is sneak attack or be the main dps bunny. In D&D and all its bastard offshoots a rogue was not just a rogue, hell you could have a fighter or mage who picked up a couple of skills to get by, or an assasin. There was huge variety in how you played a "rogue". Frankly from what I see with pillars nothing has changed whatsoever. You want a traditional rogue, go ahead. You want another character class to function as a part time rogue- go for it. Semantics indeed.

 

That's what you would think. I can tell you from the perspective of someone thats never liked rogues or rogue gameplay: about all they do for me is disarm traps. I don't sneak unless absolutely necessary. I just go head on. So really, my wizard can disarm traps. The rest of it: we'll make due without backstab or the ability to sneak. I doubt if I'll give any of my party stealth skill. They'll be loaded up on athletics, lore, and mechanics for the wizard.

[Yabaddi]

That's what you would think. I can tell you from the perspective of someone thats never liked rogues or rogue gameplay: about all they do for me is disarm traps. I don't sneak unless absolutely necessary. I just go head on. So really, my wizard can disarm traps. The rest of it: we'll make due without backstab or the ability to sneak. I doubt if I'll give any of my party stealth skill. They'll be loaded up on athletics, lore, and mechanics for the wizard.

 

I'm not sure if you are aware how exactly the sneak attack in PoE works.. You don't need Stealth (unless going for ability like Backstabb) to make use of Rogue's sneak attack. Every hit that Rogue delivers counts as a sneak attack when the target is Blinded, Flanked, Hobbled, Paralyzed, Petrified, Prone, Stuck, Stunned or Weakened, as well as when any target is struck within two seconds of combat starting. So, in fact you don't have to invest a single point in Stealth if you don't want to. Personaly, I only use Stealth while getting in shooting range with my fighter to pull the mobs.

[rheingold]

 

Yeah, I reckon you are still going to need one character to take up the scouting, sneaking, disarming role. You can call him/her whatever you want - a scout, an archer, the chocolate Easter bunny, dosn't matter, except that character will still be fulfilling a rogue like position in the party. Only thing it might not do is sneak attack or be the main dps bunny. In D&D and all its bastard offshoots a rogue was not just a rogue, hell you could have a fighter or mage who picked up a couple of skills to get by, or an assasin. There was huge variety in how you played a "rogue". Frankly from what I see with pillars nothing has changed whatsoever. You want a traditional rogue, go ahead. You want another character class to function as a part time rogue- go for it. Semantics indeed.

 

That's what you would think. I can tell you from the perspective of someone thats never liked rogues or rogue gameplay: about all they do for me is disarm traps. I don't sneak unless absolutely necessary. I just go head on. So really, my wizard can disarm traps. The rest of it: we'll make due without backstab or the ability to sneak. I doubt if I'll give any of my party stealth skill. They'll be loaded up on athletics, lore, and mechanics for the wizard.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you at all - you don't have to have a rogue in pillars or the older games - all I'm saying is that not much has actually changed because of that.

[Shevek]

Yeah, I reckon you are still going to need one character to take up the scouting, sneaking, disarming role. You can call him/her whatever you want - a scout, an archer, the chocolate Easter bunny, dosn't matter, except that character will still be fulfilling a rogue like position in the party. Only thing it might not do is sneak attack or be the main dps bunny. In D&D and all its bastard offshoots a rogue was not just a rogue, hell you could have a fighter or mage who picked up a couple of skills to get by, or an assasin. There was huge variety in how you played a "rogue". Frankly from what I see with pillars nothing has changed whatsoever. You want a traditional rogue, go ahead. You want another character class to function as a part time rogue- go for it. Semantics indeed.

I dont think the argument is pure semantics. In some games you had to give up combat ability for trap/lock/stealth utility in one or a few classes. Now you can choose from all classes, not compromise combat ability and still have that utility.

[Gromnir]

 

Yeah, I reckon you are still going to need one character to take up the scouting, sneaking, disarming role. You can call him/her whatever you want - a scout, an archer, the chocolate Easter bunny, dosn't matter, except that character will still be fulfilling a rogue like position in the party. Only thing it might not do is sneak attack or be the main dps bunny. In D&D and all its bastard offshoots a rogue was not just a rogue, hell you could have a fighter or mage who picked up a couple of skills to get by, or an assasin. There was huge variety in how you played a "rogue". Frankly from what I see with pillars nothing has changed whatsoever. You want a traditional rogue, go ahead. You want another character class to function as a part time rogue- go for it. Semantics indeed.

I dont think the argument is pure semantics. In some games you had to give up combat ability for trap/lock/stealth utility in one or a few classes. Now you can choose from all classes, not compromise combat ability and still have that utility.

 

fair observation, but very different from the genesis poster's observation.  you is still gonna need a sneaky trap disarmer in poe, and most likely that character is gonna be a character who gots inherent bonuses to stealth and mechanics.  so, how much has actual changed regarding the need for a character with traditional rogue abilities?

 

now, on the positive side, rogues is no longer sacrificing combat efficacy for trap disarming.  the ie vanilla thief was a handicap once combat started.  sure, you could fix a thief by making it a multi or dual-class, but thief = crap in combat.  if the genesis poster had observed that it were a boon that the rogue/thiefy character were actual combat viable in poe we woulda' agreed w/o reservation.  it were jack-arse stoopid that old ad&d vanilla thieves were so inept once combat began.  even 3 and 3.5 d&d were only a limited improvement as absent prestige class requirements, it rare made sense to take more than a few levels of rogue for your rogue character.  'course that ain't what the genesis poster were talking 'bout.

 

HA! Good Fun!