Rogue archetypal characters

[Mouseferatu]

You're thinking of that other Harrison Ford character. Indy's a rogue like I'm an ultimate fighting champion.

Cheers,
Cam

Nope, I'm thinking Indy.

Reasonable combat ability but far from the best, heavy selection of skills and knowledges, spends a lot of time sneaking around and trying to avoid traps...

He may not be a "rogue" in the dictionary use of the word, but as far as D&D classes? Yep.

 

[The Little Raven]

Nope, I'm thinking Indy.

I have a player that plays rogues 2 out of every 3 characters. He almost always hums the Indiana Jones theme when he's doing something roguish and working it out in his head.

 

[ruleslawyer]

That'd be great. Any evidence for them saying that? All the Fighter stuff I've heard is about how much they still rock at dealing damage and are good at "locking down" their enemies, fullfilling their Defender role.

(No offense to Morrus & Co., but I really hate this forum's search engine...)

There's a thread somewhere on which the designers compare the fighter designed to be a diplomonster with the fighter designed to not be, and how the combat effectiveness is roughly equal. Anyone else got a link?

 

[Lizard]

Nope, I'm thinking Indy.

Reasonable combat ability but far from the best, heavy selection of skills and knowledges, spends a lot of time sneaking around and trying to avoid traps...

He may not be a "rogue" in the dictionary use of the word, but as far as D&D classes? Yep.

I'd almost say Ranger.

Actually, a lot of this discussion reminds me of why I like D20M. The highly abstract Strong/Tought/Etc classes made modeling most cinematic and fictional heroes much easier. Indy? Smart-3/Fast-3/Tough-1, with an Advanced Class from some supplement.

D20M had flaws -- I ran it for two years, I know -- but it had a LOT of good ideas. It was a sort of "3.25", and I would like to see if it's had an influence on 4e.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Actually, a lot of this discussion reminds me of why I like D20M. The highly abstract Strong/Tought/Etc classes made modeling most cinematic and fictional heroes much easier. Indy? Smart-3/Fast-3/Tough-1, with an Advanced Class from some supplement.

Heh. This may be why you and I are looking for such different things from 4E.

I hate D20M's class system. To me, it's got too many of the weaknesses of both a level-based system and a point-based system, without the strengths of either.

(And interesting you should mention that just now. I actually just had an LJ entry about that precise topic, oddly enough--what I want in a level-based system, I mean.)

 

[hong]

D20M's class system was idiotic. With classes that broad, you might as well ditch them completely and go classless.

 

[Hjorimir]

Vlad Taltos... actually I'm having a hard time placing him. He doesn't seem especially charismatic or strong. Probably brutal scoundrel, just 'cuz he places a lot of emphasis on striking first and doing it right so that there's nothing to dodge afterwards.

He's also a good example of a rogue using shuriken without being the least bit Asian.

When I read that rogues were getting shuriken I was reminded of Brill in the Belgariad and the Adder Sting; shuriken need not be Asian at all.

 

[Lizard]

D20M's class system was idiotic. With classes that broad, you might as well ditch them completely and go classless.

To quote Hong:
"You say this like it's a bad thing."

The main flaw w/it was that the classes didn't stack very well. It could have been fixed.

 

[hong]

To quote Hong:
"You say this like it's a bad thing."

The main flaw w/it was that the classes didn't stack very well. It could have been fixed.

Exactly. It could have been fixed by removing classes, thus rendering "stacking" moot.

 

[Lizard]

(And interesting you should mention that just now. I actually just had an LJ entry about that precise topic, oddly enough--what I want in a level-based system, I mean.)

Link?