Rogue archetypal characters

[JohnSnow]

Suppose I want a "three musketeers" type character.

1) Attributes are rapier, side arm pistol, no armor, charming, smart, valiant but undisciplined, willing to do stunts and fight in unusual terrain in acrobatic ways.
2) Nothing that violates game balance seems present.
3) The pistol violates genre. What is a pistol in the Three Musketeers, really? Its a hold out or surprise ranged weapon. Lets make it a thrown dagger.
4) Valiant but undisciplined is basically a roleplaying attribute. At most, we'll make him Chaotic Good.
5) What's the best fit for what's left? Rapier, thrown dagger, no armor, charming, smart, stunts and acrobatics. Lets say Swashbuckler. It can use the rapier, the dagger, can be charming (through skills if not through ability score), can be smart, can do stunts and acrobatics.
6) But it doesn't fight with no armor. Can this be a compromise issue? I think so. We'll give him a chain shirt at low levels, and eventually leather armor as his Dex improves.

Tadaa! I'd do Jack Sparrow, but I never watched the movies.

Well, I'll try the musketeer with 4e.

1) Fine. Repeated for clarity. Attributes are rapier, side arm pistol, no armor, charming, smart, valiant but undisciplined, willing to do stunts and fight in unusual terrain in acrobatic ways.
2) Fine.
3) I agree that the pistol violates genre. But as a hold-out, ready-to-fire, single-shot weapon, I'd go with hand crossbow over throwing dagger.
4) Fine.
5) For 4th Edition, this is clearly a rogue. Most swashbucklers are a trifle larcenous, or at least have background skills in disguise, sneaking around, and the like. Combat advantage can be used to model the feints and thrusts of classic swashbuckling, and if we have our character take "artful dodger," he's better able to maneuver. Getting the rapier takes a feat (according to Michele Carter), but that's alright.
6) Leather armor or none works for the rogue. I think this can be left to the player.

Ta-Da! Swashbuckler.

Captain Jack?

1) Attributes are smallsword, side arm pistol, no armor, larcenous, charming, deceitful, acrobatic, good fighter, with a love for the treasure, rum and the sea.
2) Nothing game breaking. Of course, Captain Jack's probably not 1st-level, so some multiclassing may be involved.
3) The pistol is genre-breaking - as above, let's replace it with a hand crossbow. A shortsword could replace the smallsword, but the more period-appropriate weapon is probably a rapier.
4) the love for treasure, rum and the sea are roleplaying attributes. He's a pirate.
5) Rapier, hand crossbow, no armor, larcenous, charming, deceitful, acrobatic, and good fighter all sound like a mid-level rogue with some extra weapon skills, probably fighter-related.
6) Rogues tend to use leather armor, but I think you can compromise on this issue. Giving up said armor probably doesn't cost you much (a few points of AC, no doubt) in Fourth Edition.

Ta-Da! I give you...Captain Jack Sparrow! Exact stats TBD.

 

[jaer]

Well, we kind of know they are, because they're designed around the Roles. Now, they'll be able to do other things, but I'd be pretty astonished if every 90% of the things a character can learn to do in the PHB didn't have a direct combat application.

The idea of a good social task resolution system is appealing, but what I think D&D really could use, that has been missing for 4 editions (probably) is an excellent way to unite archetypes under the "fantasy medieval roleplaying" roof, not just in combat, but in setting material, in DM plotting, in everything.

I thought they were balanced around roles, not actually designed around them. In this respect, a rogue is a striker in combat, and he fulfills that roll in combat, so your party is not down a striker if they have the skill monkey, too. And similarly, they designed classes to have more use out of combat so the fighter isn't simply relegated to carrying heavy items when the fight is over.

To me, that does not mean "We looked at the rogue class thoroughly from a combat stand point and ditched the cool stuff he did out of combat." Having some balance in combat based on role does not mean the classes are equal in that respect. A warlock might flat out do more damage than a rogue and be able to push people around a little better...but the rogue has more skills which he can use both in and out of combat.

One of the nice things about all rogues having Thievery as trained is you can have specific rogue powers that use the talent, and the rogue doesn't feel jipped because he needs to invest in that skill or the power is useless (House rules beware! If Tumble requires trained in Athletics and another ability that level requires trained in Thievery, if you house rule Thievery isn't automatic, players might not have any options this level).

There could be a pickpocket power that allows rogues to use their thievery skill in combat when most others cannot in order to boost a healing potion off his opponents belt. Perhaps in conjuction with an attack (as a distraction).

This takes the typical roguey thing that now others can do and once more gives back to the rogue a special way to do it so that he is still the Skill Master. There could be other powers as well that focus on a rogue's skills, giving him greater options for using some skills outside of combat. The rogue might not have that many more skills as other classes, but even one one of the first statements about 4e said something about rogues being able to do things with the basic skill set that other classes just cannot do, even if they have the skill.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And similarly, they designed classes to have more use out of combat so the fighter isn't simply relegated to carrying heavy items when the fight is over.

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.

To me, that does not mean "We looked at the rogue class thoroughly from a combat stand point and ditched the cool stuff he did out of combat." Having some balance in combat based on role does not mean the classes are equal in that respect. A warlock might flat out do more damage than a rogue and be able to push people around a little better...but the rogue has more skills which he can use both in and out of combat.

It would be strange if they went back to balancing in-combat abilities with out-of-combat restrictions, or vice-versa. I'd be very surprised if they went this route.

 

[jaer]

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.

I'll look to see where I saw it. Something about them wanting everyone to have more to do in combat and out.

It would be strange if they went back to balancing in-combat abilities with out-of-combat restrictions, or vice-versa. I'd be very surprised if they went this route.

We shall see eventually. Perhaps after this weekend.

 

[Cam Banks]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Indiana Jones yet...

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

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Evilhalfling]

I am more interested in what we should be able to do.

Dread Pirate Roberts
Essencials: Master swordsman, improved grapple. skills climb, bluff, jump/tumble, move silently.
Attributes high Int, Chr, Dex, Con, no dump stat.

Alias
Jennifer Gardner
Master of disguise, bluff, good with locks, traps, slieght of hand, and diplomacy.
(dex based) unarmed combat and long range weapons.

Arvin Sloan
Charismatic, intelligent, poor con & strength.
Epic Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Decifer Script, lots of int based skills. no fighting ability.

Song of Ice and Fire
Ayna Stark - sneak and stab, exclusively, good disguise skill
Littlefinger - Charismatic rogue.
Tyrion - int based rogue? he even uses suprise attacks whenever possible, and is regulary beaten in stand up fights.

Myth Adventures
Skeeve's chief attribute is lack of self confidence. Yet he inspires loyalty and devotion in people that get to know him. His first impression is uniformily bad, unless his reputation gets ahead of him, or he is very specifically attempting a bluff. I don't think his charisma is well represented by D&D.

I think we need at least four archtypes:
Assassin (stealth based, all attacks are from suprise)
Swashbuckler (dex based light armored fighter)
Con-man (Charisma based, avoids fights, good line of patter, and disguises)
- Int based rogue? (elaborate plans, good information, trickery and disguises) possible CHR subtype?
Thug (Strength based) slimy, double dealing, prone to physical violence, may be stupid. Rarely used as hero - Riddick in the first movie (only) may be an exception.


Con-man/swashbukler is a very common cross, probably THE Archtype hero-rogue, but the they are seen seperately as well.

 

[fafhrd]

If my rogue can't get immunity to iocaine powder, then 4th edition fails!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Con-man (Charisma based, avoids fights, good line of patter, and disguises)
- Int based rogue? (elaborate plans, good information, trickery and disguises) possible CHR subtype?

Flip it. I think the Con-man should be Int-based. Which might include the ability to use some typically-Cha-skills with Int instead (disguise, diplomacy, etc) because of clever wordplay and quick-on-your-feet thinking and the like.

But I agree, these archetypes are pretty strong 'roguish' archetypes.

 

[hong]

See, Cadfan, that's total facepalm material, because everything you're saying could be summed up in one sentence:

"Compromise EVERYTHING to get it to fit in with D&D's rules!"

Seriously, that's precisely what you're saying. If it doesn't fit with D&D's rules, you say, change it. Eventually you change it enough that it's not even remotely the same character any more.

This would be important, if closely detailed emulation of specific character attributes was a prime goal of D&D, as opposed to broadly capturing the spirit or theme of said characters.

You certainly can do what you say, but I'm deeply unconvinced it achieves anything other than annoying people who actually like the character in question, and enlarging the ego of the person doing it.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

 

[hong]

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.

What, people have forgotten the hubbub about "siloing" combat and noncombat abilities already?