Rogue archetypal characters

[mach1.9pants]

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.

Nah, that character is just Epic tier!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I disagree, I think you advocate bending, folding, spindling and mutilating what the character is "about" to make them fit into the rules, and this will result in what basically amounts to someone role-playing something which is totally unsupported by, and indeed, unsupportable by, the rules. Like Sherlock Holmes the Rogue (I mean WHAT?!).

The whole "expectation of a rough power balance" seems a bit dodgy to me, as well, because you're using it to excuse things which are really products of bad/incomplete rules (i.e. unarmoured fighters have to wear armour to compete), not genuine balance issues.

If you really want to "get to the core of character", you don't remotely need the process, too.

 

[I'm A Banana]

#1-#6

Not a bad little system, but I'd say instead of checking for balance, you should check for relative importance to you. What about this character do you want to MAKE SURE makes it into your final model. This is the most important part, and, of course, the most relative.

But in the end, you find that it's ultimately unsatisfying because you'll always have a lot of attached baggage until the 'right' rules come along. If I did Jack Sparrow in 3.5, a rogue would be a pretty snug fit, aside from the 'trapfinding' stuff, but the 3.5 rogue was a very flexible class that could adapt to a large number of campaigns.

I don't think he'll make as good of a 4e rogue, due to the narrower focus.

Not that the class is what's important in the concept, really. To me, the Jack Sparrow character is more reflected by having a high Int, a high Cha, a CN alignment, and a rockstar attitude. I could make him a Sorcerer or a Bard and I think he'd be reflected pretty well, though both of those would come with more baggage than an Expert or a Rogue (specifically, the spellcasting, which is perhaps too big of a genre-leap).

 

[jaer]

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.

Really? At which point did he inspire confidence as a leader? His original crew mutanied. His second crew left him for dead (oh yeah, they came back, but they didn't help save him) and then left him on the dock with Mr. Gibs. The only reason people every did anything for him was because they needed something from him or could get something out of it for themelves (okay, so Elizabeth and Will save him at then end of the first movie with little more than loyalty for him cause he did manage to help them despite doing it for his own reasons; only time) - the monkey was the only one who actually wanted to save him for the purpose of saving him from Davy Jone's locker.

He double talked everything...when did anyone ever actually do anything he planned for them to? Barbosa didn't listen to his plan...Norington didn't listen to his plan...Elizabeth never listen to his plans. Things turned out the way he planned, but not beause he commanded it or even because he was such a great manipulator as to trick people into doing what he wants.

The real problem that always results from trying to put a character into a D&D class is that no one seems to agree what aspects align with what class. I agree that Jack was charismatic, but I would have to say he was poor leader at best, and definitly not an inspiring one. Sure they fired the cannons when he said to, but they also did it when Will or Elizabath said to as well...being the one in charge does not a Warlock make in my opinion.

 

[DJCupboard]

I vote MacGyver as an artful dodger with a lot of brawny cross over powers.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

The real problem that always results from trying to put a character into a D&D class is that no one seems to agree what aspects align with what class. I agree that Jack was charismatic, but I would have to say he was poor leader at best, and definitly not an inspiring one. Sure they fired the cannons when he said to, but they also did it when Will or Elizabath said to as well...being the one in charge does not a Warlock make in my opinion.

When wasn't Jack inspiring? He's a fair hand with a sword and has some definite pluck, but it's his legend that's his real weapon.

Everyone around Jack is better at what they do if they're his friend and worse if they're his enemies. He's some sort of piratical aristocracy for the love of pete - a literal pirate warlord.

You can't have a crew mutiny on ya unless yer leading em in the first place.



But I agree different audiences mean different focuses on the character.

Though now I'm wondering if what we're missing on Jack is some sort of Paragon Path.

A Cursed Wanderer Path you qualify for from both Rogue and Warlord, perhaps?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A Cursed Wanderer Path you qualify for from both Rogue and Warlord, perhaps?

Dear Wotc,

Please don't make X levels in Y class be a qualification for Paragon Paths, if they need qualifications at all. Which I sincerely hope they don't. This goes double for Epic Destinies. Please let the player decide what's appropriate for themselves.

Yours sincerely

Ruin

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

The core of what really makes a character is going to vary from person to person. I mean, Jack Sparrow isn't much different from, say, Dionysus or Loki or Coyote if you want to reach back to near-prehistoric times. They're basically the same character, all that's changed is the genre around them. And yet a rockstar pirate scumbag is a more resonant character today than any of our olde-tyme religions.

If all you want to do is emulate "trickster" in D&D, it's not especially difficult, in any edition (thief/rogue? Go! You might even choose bard or wizard/mage/sorcerer/illusionist, depending).

The thing is, that's not always especially satisfying. Sometimes, you WANT various genre tropes because they make the archetype a little more specific. Heck, that's half the reason for a class-based system to begin with: archetypes group related abilities and give you a sensible role on which to hang.

If you want to make Jack Sparrow be true to Jack Sparrow and not have all the extra baggage that other classes carry with them, you might want your own "Pirate" class.

I have this inkling in the back of my head that, at some point, 4e will have a base "Pirate" class. My guess is that it will come with all of the genre tropes attached, and not have significant extra baggage.

He might even be a Striker, so he'll have some real similarities to the rogue and the ranger already. Maybe even share some abilities.

But in a narrow design system, which 4e appears to be, a new class for each archetype works better than trying to shoehorn the archetype into an existing class.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Actually in 3.5e I bet you could make a good trickster using a Beguiler

 

[I'm A Banana]

Bingo bango bongo, a Beguiler would be perfect.

I'm not sure the Rogue will be such a good choice for a Trickster figure in 4e, anymore. The class, as far as it looks now, seems to be about running around and stabbing things. It's a ninja, an assassin, a wily opportunistic dirty fighter, less "street rat," more "scorpion in your boot," less "thief," more "murderer."

In fact, I think that might be some of what sticks in my craw about the 4e class design. It's not a major issue, and it might not even be noticable when the game comes out in full, but it's there...

The idea is that the class is designed around a combat archetype. In fact, almost a minis/wargame/videogame archetype. It definately has existed since 1e, and it definately needs the majority of the game's attention, and has a good place. But D&D was built on tropes from myth, legend, and fantasy stories. That's it's major appeal to me. The combat is important, but it's not the reason I play it. I play it to be like the characters I see in movies and on TV and read about in books and learn about in old stories. That usually involves combat, and I'm happy to see it, but it's not ABOUT combat.

It's about being the Long Lost King and discovering my Throne.

It's about being the Clever Mundane who manages to survive epic threats.

It's about being Saint George and saving the town from the dragon.

It's about being the Assassin-for-Hire and reconciling my murder with my morality.

It is, also, about being the Adventurer who is interested in treasure and dungeons.

4e has been, so far, looking very much to be ABOUT combat. Which is okay, and necessary, but it runs the risk of not giving us clever and usable mechanics for these archetypes OUTSIDE of combat, which, really, is where most of them shine. In storylines and in skill selection and in context in the world, rather than beating things up and taking their stuff. Which is a great and valid archetype, just not the ONLY archetype.

4e might be running the risk of being too narrow in this regard.