146 réponses à ce sujet

[Gamemako]

Note that is bandits, not the rogue class. Bandits in rpgs aren't rogues and in general are pretty blunt about robbing people. Rogues in general are about dexterity and stealth.

You're basically making my point for me. Without some arbitrary gameplay mechanic (dexterity), there's no sense at all to what a rogue is. It's not a type of person or behavior or lore-based combat style. Hell, stop and think about what dexterity even means and how it relates to real combat. All combat is dexterity. You can't overpower the point of a blade. The main advantage to strength is as it allows you to maneuver your weapon more quickly -- which is what you're thinking the gameplay stat dexterity does.
 

If you are going by Garrett in the Thief franchise for this reasoning,

I used that example, not him.
 

then it's to knock someone unconscious and in general you are sneaking around a lot in that game. Are you telling me you see rogues killing people with maces, warhammers, and such things in combat.

The gap between unconsciousness and death is a lot smaller than people like to believe. There's no safe way to crush someone's skull. Hell, most games gloss over non-lethal stuff for gameplay purposes. You can't just pump a place full of sedative and hope for the best. It will turn out badly.
 

If rogues weren't all about precision strikes on vital spots, then why is the Rogue's main stat dexterity, which is about hand/eye coordination?

This is circular logic.
 

Jarvia, the carta, etc. Very much a rogue group.

But the carta is filled with gameplay warriors, which is the point. If they are rogues, then rogues are not a class but a type of character, of which a human noble rogue is not.

[AlanC9]

Well, mages and non-mages are fundamentally different in lore. You can't really overcome that without opening magic to all in the storyline or ham-handedly forcing every player character and companion involved to be mages or non-mages. Even if you could, you have to deal with the other issues with making everyone classless in a party-based game.

I agree about the lore part being an issue. OTOH, it's fairly common for classless PnP systems to enforce a distinction between mages and non-mages by making certain abilities only buyable during initial character generation.

Classless works fine in a party-based game, assuming the system is any good in the first place.

[AlanC9]

You're basically making my point for me. Without some arbitrary gameplay mechanic (dexterity), there's no sense at all to what a rogue is. It's not a type of person or behavior or lore-based combat style. .

Maybe we should just declare that any physical fighter in light armor is a "rogue" and call it a day.

[Rawgrim]

Classless worked very well in Fallout 1-2, if I remember correctly.

[Gamemako]

I agree about the lore part being an issue. OTOH, it's fairly common for classless PnP systems to enforce a distinction between mages and non-mages by making certain abilities only buyable during initial character generation.

Classless works fine in a party-based game, assuming the system is any good in the first place.

You could do that, but it would require some dramatic changes to character creation, skill trees, and progression. I guess you could do something more like what ArcheAge does: pick 3 skill trees out of 10, and that's your class. Would ask a lot of players early on, though, and would really tempt people to pick mages far more often than non-mages simply because it seems cool: Sword, check. Chains, check. Laser beams, check. Body bags, check.
 

Maybe we should just declare that any physical fighter in light armor is a "rogue" and call it a day.

Which I'd be fine with, as long as the game lets my rogue carry a two-handed sword.

[Sylvius the Mad]

^ If rogues are not a viable class in action games, they should change the game, not the warrior.

I've always thought that a Rogue should be primarily built around non-combat utility.  I don't see why they need to be anywhere near as useful in combat as warriors are.

[Chernaya]

I dual wielded hand axes as a rogue all the time in Origins, I think you could also have a long-sword and a dagger if you leveled up dual wielding. I like daggers but I doubt we'll be just limited to that and bow/arrows

[Rawgrim]

I dual wielded hand axes as a rogue all the time in Origins, I think you could also have a long-sword and a dagger if you leveled up dual wielding. I like daggers but I doubt we'll be just limited to that and bow/arrows

 

1 sword in each hand too, actually.

[Gamemako]

I've always thought that a Rogue should be primarily built around non-combat utility.  I don't see why they need to be anywhere near as useful in combat as warriors are.

I would rather they be eliminated as a character class and their utility (lockpicking, trap detection) folded into revamped skills. Having a dead weight character is obnoxious, especially if you play a rogue and want to romance a rogue (2 gimpies = lolnope).

[Rawgrim]

I would rather they be eliminated as a character class and their utility (lockpicking, trap detection) folded into revamped skills. Having a dead weight character is obnoxious, especially if you play a rogue and want to romance a rogue (2 gimpies = lolnope).

 

They arn't deadweights, though. They might not be as good as a plain warrior in fights, but not everyone plays with a completely optimal party. I like bringing "poor" characters along in rpgs. Makes for more of a challenge.

[LPPrince]

I don't see how rogues are substandard;at times in DA2 I had an all rogue party(Archer Hawke, Archer Sebastian, Archer Varric, Dual Wield Isabella). We did just fine.

[metatheurgist]

It wasn't about making Rogues viable it was making them distinct from Warriors which DA2 did.

  

What warrior change are you talking about? Have we been talking about DW warriors the whole time and I didn't know it?

 
v this 

I've always thought that a Rogue should be primarily built around non-combat utility.  I don't see why they need to be anywhere near as useful in combat as warriors are.

Rogues were skill specialists. When RPGs became action games all the skill went to the player, so what did Rogues become? Dex based warrior knock-offs. There have always been flavors of warrior - archer, horseman, fencer, dancer, ambidextrous, spear/pole-man, brute, tank, unarmed, wrestler. Taking 2 branches of warrior and adding lock picking and saying "Yep, that's a Rogue", then saying "Uhhh...warriors can't do that now because distinction." is just plain bad game design.

Either remove the rogue and make the only skill that matters (lockpicking) open, or make more skills (and subsequently a rogue class) that matter and improve the depth of the game at the same time.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Rogues were skill specialists. When RPGs became action games all the skill went to the player, so what did Rogues become?.

Rogues are now excellent evidence that RPGs never should have become action games.

The solution is to fix the games, not the Rogues.

[Magdalena11]

Once again it comes down to what makes a rogue different than a warrior and why dual wielding warriors don't exist (at the moment.)  The word rogue is part of the problem, as it implies a thief or assassin.  History is full of dex-based warriors who contributed significantly to typical melee-based combat.  Banks of archers soften the punch of the initial charge or can pick off key targets (Harold at Hastings got an arrow through the eye, right.)  In close quarters, such as on a ship, short weapons and speed can be much more important than brute strength.  Craftsmen defend themselves and their property, or rise up in rebellion, using whatever tools they work with every day, since those are the weapons they're good at.  To paraphrase Zev, it's more of a tactical choice than a lifestyle.

 

Warriors, and everybody else, only have so many attribute points to spend.  If they go into strength and constitution, it's assumed their training has been in heavy weapons and wearing armor.  If they go into dex and cunning, their training has gone into fighting styles that require speed and precision.  I can see a system with only 2 classes, mage and warrior, working, but it might be a very frustrating experience.  Players who go in wanting to "do it all" might find that what they've really done is learned nothing well.  They will build up their dex and cunning to be able to pick locks and find their strength isn't high enough to use the good heavy weapons, and their hit points aren't high enough to field the aggro the heavy armor they're wearing is going to draw.  Or they've planned to use their plate mail and s&b and trained (allocated stats) with this in mind, only to find their dex and cunning are too feeble to pick anything but a bathroom door and their pauldrons get in the way of their draw.

 

Having 2 classes is there, in a way, to make it easier to create an effective character, not limit them.  If, instead of calling the classes warriors and rogues, there was only a warrior class with sub-classes for dex or strength, would it be easier to work with?  Would making lockpicking a skill anyone with sufficient dex and cunning can learn help?  Points spent in those attributes would not be available for the ones in the fighting style that's really desired.  Sure, only rogues can pick locks and only warriors can use greatswords, but they draw on entirely different attribute requirements.  All the names really do is give players a hint as to where they should spend their points.

 

Drawing on these arguments, dual wielding is a style that requires speed, and any shortish, lightweight weapon could fit the bill.  Hand axes (hatchet, tomahawk, etc.), sickles, razors, skinning knives, and coshes could all be used.  Hammers are potent weapons, but years of attempting to learn blacksmithing has taught me that there's a reason a smith uses a backup hammerman for work that has to be done quickly - hammers are too heavy to swing both quickly and accurately.  One at a time is enough.

[Rawgrim]

Rogues are now excellent evidence that RPGs never should have become action games.

The solution is to fix the games, not the Rogues.

 

Spot on.

[KennethAFTopp]

I've always thought that a Rogue should be primarily built around non-combat utility.  I don't see why they need to be anywhere near as useful in combat as warriors are.

 

Whether I agree with you or not is always 50/50, but I will always respect the seemingly very clear opinion of vision you have for ideal video game rpgs.

And that I can respect.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Whether I agree with you or not is always 50/50, but I will always respect the seemingly very clear opinion of vision you have for ideal video game rpgs.
And that I can respect.

All RPGs. I don't think the medium matters.

And thank you.

[Sylentmana]

I remember seeing what looked like a rogue carrying two long swords on his back in one of the Gamescom trailers. Perhaps they're just reall long daggers, but they look swordish to me.

 

http://youtu.be/m-OX4kdIkIE?t=1m6s

[BobZilla84]

I think the weapon options for Rogues should be

1.Dual Daggers

2.Bows

3.Repeating Cross Bows "Bianca"

4.Throwing Knives

 

Seriously B-Ware let my Rogues use Repeating Cross Bows I mean we can make Varric Dual Wield Daggers in DAI so let me use his C-Bow fighting Style.

[Rawgrim]

I don't see how rogues are substandard;at times in DA2 I had an all rogue party(Archer Hawke, Archer Sebastian, Archer Varric, Dual Wield Isabella). We did just fine.

 

That is because you can beat the game on Normal, with any party, simply by button mashing.

[TheEgoRaptor]

I'd just like to be able to use a small hair pin and my wits. (Preferably Varric's chest hair pin, it deals +9 Manliness)

[Gtdef]

That is because you can beat the game on Normal, with any party, simply by button mashing.

 

I did that on Nightmare as well. More fatiguing fog spam, about the same buttonmashing. But works better with Anders+3 rogues ^^

[Gamemako]

They arn't deadweights, though. They might not be as good as a plain warrior in fights, but not everyone plays with a completely optimal party. I like bringing "poor" characters along in rpgs. Makes for more of a challenge.

You're contradicting yourself. If they're not dead weight, then bringing them along should not constitute additional challenge. But it does, because that kind of rogue is a swiss army knife, not a combatant.
 

Rogues were skill specialists. When RPGs became action games all the skill went to the player, so what did Rogues become? Dex based warrior knock-offs.

That's because D&D was covering the bases: the magician, the physical fighter, the balanced leader, and the cunning utility player. Its creation and methods were as much happenstance as any fundamental assessment. Assigning one definition of rogue is no more valid than any other. They all just suit a particular gameplay design.

Of course, DA:O was just borrowing from D&D anyway. Warriors were physical fighters, mages were magical combatants, and rogues got bonus skill points where warriors and mages got talent and spell points, respectively. If you wanted to blend and be the cleric type, you could spec into that with Arcane Warrior and Spirit Healer. Except that it didn't work in combat, with rogues being everything a warrior was and more, and the skills that rogues were to focus on were a mess and were removed. Then we ended up with DA2 rogues fulfilling a different combat role where the 3 classes were meant to complement one another. That didn't work out too well either, and rogues' innate ability to pick locks and detect traps became increasingly irrelevant and obnoxious.

Rogues are basically a legacy element that no reason to exist at this point. I never liked it when it did, though.
 

That is because you can beat the game on Normal, with any party, simply by button mashing.

Well, it doesn't help that rogues are generally overpowered in DA2 due to combat and stat mechanics. Dex is the best damage stat, cunning is the best forced secondary stat as it increases defense and offense, and the two main stats synergize incredibly well; plus rogues regain stamina pretty quickly and reliably. Meanwhile, mages have a diluted primary stat (magic resist?), a totally useless secondary stat, and an unfortunate need to put points into constitution due to zero HP growth; and warriors have a defensive stat focus, a rubbish stamina pool unless they put points into willpower, and the most onerous stamina regen mechanic one could possibly imagine.

[NackterGolfer]

To apply realism on gameplay logic is a doomed attempt. (Or is it?)

 

I always wondered why archers are a dex-focused class in most fantasy rpgs. Using a Warbow, Composite Bow etc. involves mainly strength to draw and loose, and endless hours of practice. The impact an arrow has should primarily come from the strength of the bow and how far you could pull. One could argue that being dextrous and cunning helps to put the arrow there where it most hurts, but that doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to even let loose a deadly arrow.

 

Same goes for swordmanship, pure strength will help you, no doubt. But there is so much technique (so dex and cunning?) involved, because it doesn't matter how much damage your blow deals, because one good cut and you are dead.

 

So I think we can safely establish that no real world logic can be applied to combat in Fantasy/Medieval RPGs.

 

Still the question remains open, what is the role of a rogue in fantasy rpgs and what weapons should he use.

 

In my opinion a rogue suffers from the broadness of its term, it means almost everything. He could be a non-combative utility guy, but he could also be a ferocious fighter. In comparison the role of a warrior is clear, as he is the master of armed combat.

Another question which has come up, is what is the distinction between a rogue and a warrior specifically in an Action RPG, and specifically in combat.

 

To me, a warrior is formally trained who should be able to use a wide variety of weapons (because he was trained with all of them). There are tactical advantages and disadvantages in regards of which weapons are chosen and the nature or armor of the enemy. A sword is considered to be great against lightly armored foes, but against heavy armored opponents a warhammer or mace might be a better choice.

 

A rogue will use his cunning to survive combat, using his speed and the environment to his advantage, even lure the enemy into traps etc. He might be a skirmisher, who uses ranged weapons like javelins, arrows, knives before or without ever engaging in hand to hand. He might use his stealth to strike at an unprepared opponent. But still I think a direct confrontation between rogue and warrior should be in favor of the warrior.

 

So what makes the difference is the mindset and the training. A rogue who hasn't a clear advantage will not engage in a fight he can avoid, while a warrior will rely on his armor and his skill to make the difference.

 

So what weapons should be used then in a medieval like setting?

First of all, when there is plate armor, everyone needs a dagger. But to the point: Because I think the stat-wise differences between the two classes are rubbish, there shouldn't be a weapon a rogue can't wield. However I think there are bad choices:

 

A greatsword and twohanded sword without protection from plate armor, is suicidal. If you can carry a shield, even if it's a buckler or fist-shield, is your only defense, and even if you insist on the range it gives you, there are better choices like polearms, halberds, spears.

 

Same goes for anything big (except a shield) in your offhand, because what can two axes/swords/whatever do what one cannot? strike you off-balance, giving you no option to parry seems far too big a disadvantage.

 

To conclude my useless rant about the unrealistic depiction of combat in fantasy rpgs, I realise it is useless to argue with gameplay logic.

 

PS: dual-wield may look cool, but it sucks.

PPS: I realize that I only used male pronouns and you won't bother.

PPPS: I am not native of your wonderful language, so you won't teach grammar to me.