Rogue archetypal characters

[jaer]

People using the first approach probably would say "Jack Sparrow is no Rogue!" As hong points out, rogues are pure 100% ninja. Cap'n Jack doesn't skulk, sneak up, and stab you in the back like an assassin in combat.

But he would if he could. However, having no defenders to keep the enemy from focusing on him, he gets trapped in straight up, one-on-one(-on-one) fights and cannot sneak up or sneak away. He's too much of a target for EVERYone.

Just because he doesn't have the opportunity to do something does not mean he would not and could not do so. He is obviously skilled in thievery (he picks pockets and palms coins), he knows a little about picking locks (he tried to but has not picks with which to do so), he is so a keen liar, a great diplomat, and very athletic, thus showing a great array of skills which is still the halmark of the rogue.

I'd even say his shot on Barbosa in the first movie was a sneak attack, as it was a deftly aimed shot to a vital spot on someone who was not paying Jack any mind. I don't recall specifically, but the genre of fencing movies often has the 'hero' able to gracefully manuever his opponents into the position he wants them (as represented by the 4e rogue ability). I would think you can very easily model Jack Sparrow as a 4e rogue if there was no agility-based swashbuckler fighter strategy (at which point, he would be multiclass, because I don't see an non-rogue mix fitting his out-of-combat activities).



Another rogue example: the Prince from the Prince of Persia Sands of Time line of games, Two Thrones in particular.

He is obviously very athletic and strong judging from his climbing, running, and jumping abilities and how long he can hold himself up with just his arms. Very agile in his tumbling, balancing, and wall running, and fearless considering the places he ends up jumping from and to!

He is quite skilled with a dagger, though he can use one handed swords and maces. He sneak attacks opponents when he can creep up behind them or can get above them unnoticed (attacking while hanging from chains or jumping down from a balcony). He doesn't seem particularly strong in that it takes quite a few strikes to kill anything if he can't get the sneak attack off (at which point, it takes only a couple dagger stabs), but he uses the enviroment very well (jumping off of objects, enemies, or walls to attack). If he can catch his opponents off guard or off balance, particularly after using a strike that knocks his opponent prone, he can strike for addition damage (more sneak attacks if he manages Combat Advantage once combat starts).

He fights unarmored, his ability to parry or dodge an attack the only thing protecting him from his enemies' blades.

The Prince seems a pretty good archetype of a rogue striker to me. Decent in combat, but particularlly potent when he can get the drop on his enemy or somehow manage to force some advantage. He is athletic, quick, and daring. His own recklessness and drive to survive keeps getting him into and out of dangerous situations.

 

[Tehnai]

In the line of the Prince. Therefor, yay for ubisoft!

Altair

The guy can climb anything, runs around like mad, focuses on both acrobatics and stealth to survive superior force.

His best weapon would be a tiny concealed blade one can carefully insert in an unarmored vital spot (or used to counter attack against hordes of ennemies, if you have the game, try finishing it using no other weapons then the hidden blade XD)

He's a pretty decent Brawny rogue.

Also! Riddick!

The guy lives on sneak attack, stealth and on abusing his own darkvision. When he doesn't have suprise, he fights and does kick pretty major ass. He's mean, violent, brutal, etc. We can call him Brawny too without much second thought.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just because he doesn't have the opportunity to do something does not mean he would not and could not do so.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, DOESN'T. I mean, now we're arguing archetype fiddly bits, which is a certifiably insane debate to have, but I can do a little, my SAN score can take it.

He is obviously skilled in thievery (he picks pockets and palms coins), he knows a little about picking locks (he tried to but has not picks with which to do so), he is so a keen liar, a great diplomat, and very athletic, thus showing a great array of skills which is still the halmark of the rogue.

Remember, this is 4e. Everyone's pretty good at every skill, even if they're not specifically trained. And even if we assume he's trained in all of this, it doesn't mandate a rogue (and kind of contradicts it in places, like the Diplomacy example). Lying, athleticism, and picking pockets and locks is still something that every 4e character can do, and that other classes (warlocks? rangers? warlords?) or multiclasses could do.

I'd even say his shot on Barbosa in the first movie was a sneak attack, as it was a deftly aimed shot to a vital spot on someone who was not paying Jack any mind.

The movie doesn't make a real division between a "surprise attack" (combat advantage? just first in the iniatiave?) and a lethal vital shot from a skilled marksman and a high-damage attack roll or simply a dramatically appropriate flare.

In the game of "pin the archetype on the class," this is far too fiddly of a bit.

I don't recall specifically, but the genre of fencing movies often has the 'hero' able to gracefully manuever his opponents into the position he wants them (as represented by the 4e rogue ability). I would think you can very easily model Jack Sparrow as a 4e rogue if there was no agility-based swashbuckler fighter strategy (at which point, he would be multiclass, because I don't see an non-rogue mix fitting his out-of-combat activities).

We don't know how they're going to do out-of-combat abilities, and that's basically the one place where Jack is different than the vast majority of characters. If he has a class, it's a non-combat-specific class. If he has a role, it's a dramatic role, not a combat role. This, by 4e, makes him more of an NPC, and, indeed, I could see him in 3e as an Expert pretty easily (maybe with a dash of monk or barbarian thrown in), though even that wouldn't be very good. Swashbuckling adventure movies aren't the fantasy medieval tactical meat grinder that D&D is.

What Jack has is an archetype, and a genre, and the former depends on the latter to give it context. His genre is pretty different from D&D's baseline, so it's not very surprising that his archetype isn't immediately obviously parallel to a class.

Now, I think D&D will give nods to that genre, and so it will have a place for that archetype. It's just not going to be in the combat zone, which is the only place where "class" really matters. For swashbuckling pirate movies, the "combat zone" is pretty much the same for everyone who is a protagonist or antagonist, there's no real specialization. Everyone knows how to use a sword and a gun (and sometimes something more exotic), run around the battlefield, do neat stunts, and use the terrain to their advantage. Some people know magic, but it's dark voodoo and out-of-combat ritualistic stuff, not a combat niche. Everyone fights the same way.

I'd say the Jack Sparrow type in 4e might entirely have to do with skills, which is why even in 3e, I'd say he's more of an Expert and less of a Rogue.

Odly enough, I think Jack's archetype is best encapsulated in an ALIGNMENT, not in a class or even in his specific skills. That is, it's all about the role he plays, not the dice he rolls.

Or we could go play 7th Sea.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The Gray Mouser (of Leiber) also seems more of a Brawny Rogue, but I'm not really an expert on the books and my memory is failing. Any comments from those who have read the books more than I have?

Having read a lot of Lieber recently, there is no possible way to call the Mouser a "brawny" Rogue. There is absolutely nothing "brawny" or "thuggish" about him. He's a small, usually skinny (sometimes out-of-shape) individual, who, as far as I can recall, never uses his strength particularly, but instead is always characterised as using agility and precision. He also think his way out of situations with some regularity, something it seems 4E Rogues with their int-dumpstat won't be doing. He's also notable for his lack of sensible-ness/wisdom.

More recent archetypical rogues would include all of the Gentlemen Bastards from The Lies of Locke Lamora and Red Skies over Red Seas.

Locke Lamora himself is clearly oriented towards intelligence primarily, with elaborate plans, forgery, disguise and other trickery all being his forte. I guess that makes him a Charismatic Rogue. He's also pretty nimble, and decent in a fight, much as he denies it. He'd be easy to replicate in 3.5E, we'll see if his intelligence benefits him at all in 4E.

Jean Tannen, on the other hand, is very much a Brawny Rogue and would fit right in with almost everything described there.

 

[jaer]

Or we could go play 7th Sea.

Always been more of a Sid Meier's Pirates! fan myself. Had it back on my Commedor 64/128 and was very excited by the re-released a couple years back.

 

[Cadfan]

Actually, if you REALLY want to play the "lets turn this character from a movie into a D&D character," you should mentally do the following:

1) List the attributes of that character which define him. Not in game terms, in descriptive terms.

2) Subtract off the attributes that, for gamist reasons, he cannot have. For example, if the character in question is the stealthiest man alive, can pick locks like a pro, fights with a greatsword and chain mail armor, is the strongest man alive, a tactical genius, beloved by the Gods and able to call down their intervention on his foes, and in tune with the arcane mysteries of the universe, he's going to have to be pruned a bit.

3) Subtract off, or modify, the attributes that, for genre reasons, he cannot have. Doc Holiday might make a cool start to a character, but for genre reasons he probably cannot have a revolver- maybe he should be a swordsman/duelist type? Captain Jack Sparrow is a cool character, but he may need adjustment for a desert campaign- so you might change the piratical skills to desert raider skills?

4) Take what's remaining, sort out those attributes which are fundamentally roleplaying in nature, and set them aside. They can be applied to any character you choose.

5) Take what's remaining NOW, and try to find a best fit mechanically for your character.

6) When you find the best fit, see if you can make reasonably compromises on what doesn't quite fit in.

You can do this in any edition. Watch.

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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. 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.

 

[Cadfan]

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!"

Which steps bother you? The removal of material that violates game balance? The editing out of anachronisms like pistols?

Personally, I think that this process gets you down to the core of what really makes a character himself. You have no choice but to do this if your goal is to take anachronistic characters from present times like Indiana Jones and Sherlock Holmes and Batman, and place them in a context of a sword and sorcery campaign with an expectation of a rough power balance between the players.

 

[Dragonblade]

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. 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.

But at some point you have to compromise. D&D is a fantasy game, so Jack Sparrow's proficiency with a flintlock pistol is not something you could retain.

Also literary and movie characters have the ability to do everything the writer wants them to do. Can you make James Bond in Spycraft? I would say only if you allowed a PC to have 20 levels in every core class. He can do anything, and can do it as well as or better than any professional in the field.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I'd probably do Captain Jack as a Warlord.

Maybe with some Rogue and Ranger components as well.

Honestly, he's almost too charismatic to be a Rogue. Too good a leader. Not enough of a magnificent bastard.

You could make a similar case for Odysseus except he's too much of a bastard, and all of his men die so leader type? Maybe not so much.