Rogues vs. Pures (Development Fantasy)

[DaCapn]

So, we complain that squares in general have it harder than pures. I can't comment on warriors, I know nothing about them. But I'll comment on rogues. I'm drawing comparisons that don't take societies into account (since both have access to them and their complimentarity with certain professions is its own debate), and I'm looking at the professions in terms of self-sufficiency (read as: self-spelling only).

To contrast pures and rogues:
- Attack-wise rogues are left in the open in offensive in hard RT for (usually) 5+ seconds. Pures are in offensive for <1 second for 3 seconds of soft RT, then stance-down into guarded.
- Dealing with crowds: Rogues must make a significant commitment to a training path by (1) taking on 410, sacrificing redux, and staying in a weak armor (2) training in MOC which only allows more open strikes (unaimed, takes more RT, isn't always effective, requires cooldown); the rogue has no other means to escape the 1-on-1 model. The pure's crowd-control paradigm is the same as their 1-on-1 and requires no alteration of training path (3 seconds soft RT, offensive stance for <1 second).
- Often, rogues depend upon pure spellups (I know I pretty much do). Often, pures rely on rogues to pick boxes for cheaper than the town locksmith.
- Rogues have debilitating cmans, pures have debilitating spells. In most cases, the "being left in the open" comment repeats here.
- As a result of these things, pures have more hunting options (undead and swarms can be handled self-sufficiently).

Just in my personal experience with also playing wizards, I uphunt my wizards self-sufficiently by about 8 levels with no extra caution at all (no extra caution + no caution = no caution). With my rogues, I hunt like-level cautiously unless I have a full wizard spell-up. I don't want zero caution with rogues, I just want less danger and more self-sufficiency.

I don't only like to preach to the choir, so I want to hear the opposite side if there's pures out there who can contribute some counter-examples. I also try to not bitch unless I propose some solutions, so here's what I would do (if I had the power) to bring rogues up to par. I'd also like to hear some opinions from rogues as to what they would do to balance things out without making things absurd.

Areas that need work
----------------------

Crowd Control
(I feel like we need massive help with fighting multiple opponents)
- For one, a new cman/guild skill : Combat Maneuvering
Using this maneuver, you navigate in combat placing adversaries in front of one another. The effect would be that all but one enemy in the room would have a percentage to "Fail to find an opening to strike." It would make use of TARGET (this would be the enemy which is immune, since your non-directed attacks go to the creature you specify with TARGET anyway) and would be a duration-based refreshable maneuver.
(Realism-wise, this is a standard maneuver taught in real life for fighting multiple opponents. Game-wise, It's not the same as reducing the DS penalty of multiple opponents as with MOC. It's using your enemies as human shields to give them a penalty to attack you.)

Hiding
(It can be altered a bit for armor purposes)
- Make hiding in heavier armors more difficult
- Allow over-training in armor to offset the penalties
- Reduce rogue armor training costs to 3/0 (warriors are 2/0 and rogues have 5/0 like the non-paladis semis)
(Some of the other "realistic" hiding changes have the chance to cripple it beyond usability. I think this is the only one worth looking at and requires compromise.)

Prone-ing Cmans
(Some need to be more effective in general)
- Reduce the RT of sweep! (3 seconds?)
- Make some more likely to cause injury or stun or something.
- Make some offensive cmans that don't adhere to the 1-on-1 model.
(If I'm spending 5 seconds I'd usually rather be exposed for 1 more second and leg them. More certain knockdown, induces stun, creates injury, results in damage).

More frivolous but cool changes
---------------------------------

Adjustments to magic
- Reduce spell research to 0/32
- Remove minor spiritual from rogue-trainable circles
- Cut 403 & 404 from MnE circle and make 407/408 more effective (Look! New spell slot options!)
- Create a new spell circle with Rogue-ish utility spells (mostly/all self-cast, some random suggestions, not particularly well thought-out, just a thought-provoking primer.)
1 Lockpick enhancement
2 Disarm enhancement
3 Pickpocket enhancement
4 Hiding enhancement
5 Stamina enhancement
6 Ambush enhancement
7 ?
8 Dodge enhancement
9 ?
10 Poison weapon
15 ?
20 Invisibility

[thefarmer]

Just because one profession or class can do something, doesn't mean everyone should.

[CrystalTears]

Just because one profession or class can do something, doesn't mean everyone should.
QFT

[Durgrimst]

If you have ever seen a high level rogue archer snipe, then you know that Rogues don't need much help.

[gunmetal]

Not to knock your concerns, OP, but I kind of like the danger element. :) It's part of why I play rogue/thief/sniper classes in pretty much every game that's got 'em -- they're versatile and deadly, but at a cost.

Even though my leetle rogue is tiny now, I know that even when she's big, she will still get the shit kicked out of her if she's swarmed or if I'm dumb enough to keep her in the open. Shit like that is what keeps hunting fun for me. And even if it weren't, it seems like a pretty fair trade-off for how much she can do, even if she's not doing it "as good" as another class.

I dunno. It's just like... if you wanna tank, play a warrior. You wanna spellhog, go sorc or wiz. A stronger advantage on combat/magic fronts for rogues will inevitably make warriors and mages wonder what advantages their particular class has over ours, and that'll just be watching imbalance complaints come full-circle.

or maybe i'm just a dumb newbie who should shut up and lurk moar.

[DaCapn]

If you have ever seen a high level rogue archer snipe, then you know that Rogues don't need much help.

Correction: Then you know high level rogue archers don't need help.


Just because one profession or class can do something, doesn't mean everyone should.

I agree. I don't want rogues to do what pures do, I'm suggesting that they're able to come closer to their capabilities at combat. I get the feeling that people feel like squares have to be totally realistic because they're like something in real life. Where as pures are allowed to be more remarkably powerful because they're not like anything in real life. The result is that they're absurdly more playable. I'm trying to discuss things that would give rogues more options.

But all in all, thanks for the one-line non-constructive non-specific posts to the thoughtful primer.

[DaCapn]

Not to knock your concerns, OP, but I kind of like the danger element. :) It's part of why I play rogue/thief/sniper classes in pretty much every game that's got 'em -- they're versatile and deadly, but at a cost.

I feel like the non-combat utility and depth between rogues and pures is pretty good. There's picking on one side, enchanting and embedding and alchemy on the other. All-in all I feel like the non-combat side of GS has a lot of depth to it for all and is really good.

Combat-wise, I wouldn't consider my rogues particularly versatile at all. I have a sword and board halfling ambusher in the 50's and a gnome TWC ambusher in the 30's. The restrictions that you have to put on hunting spots is kind of annoying. My TWC ambusher would do okay with some minor swarming as long as they don't have chain/plate armor because open swings would be too weak to manage threats. My sword and board can do things like-level that spawn slow enough. Also, I can do warcamps with mixed success if I have a full spellup and have intense, unwavering focus, and have perfect execution and timing. And he can pick locks.

Though, I hear the solution to all of my problems is to just have a high level ranged sniper.

[thefarmer]

But all in all, thanks for the one-line non-constructive non-specific posts to the thoughtful primer.


I can't help that your QQ about rogues deserves a one line answer.

Maybe Neff can pop in with a 5 chapter response.

[DaCapn]

I can't help that your QQ about rogues deserves a one line answer.

I just want to be perfectly clear about your one-liner then: You think that with regards to pure/rogue balance, they're exactly as you would like and if given the opportunity to suggest a change to the rogue profession you would simply say "don't bother, I like it as it is?"


Maybe Neff can pop in with a 5 chapter response.

I'd read every word of it and respond to his points. I'm just that thorough.

[thefarmer]

I just want to be perfectly clear about your one-liner then: You think that with regards to pure/rogue balance, they're exactly as you would like and if given the opportunity to suggest a change to the rogue profession you would simply say "don't bother, I like it as it is?

Pure/rogue balance is fine.

The first part is correct, the second part isn't what you're doing, nor what I said. You're making suggestions for rogues coming from the standpoint that rogues need help when compared to pures as well as based on your own experiences. Having played a rogue and a ranger for a number of years, I disagree.



Combat-wise, I wouldn't consider my rogues particularly versatile at all.

Rogues aren't versatile? Really? I bet if you took a poll that opinion would be in the minority.

I think the problem is that partially you've had bad training or advice when playing your rogue, and that you want a rogue to have the abilities that a pure does, without any of the pure limitations ( rogue spell list), you want to still be the masters of hide/ambush and have it viable 100% of the time, yet you still want to be able to be better than a warrior for dealing with swarms (your new cman).



There's a reason GS (and most rpgs) have you pick different professions. Each has a limitation. A square won't be able to combat everything as effectively as a pure, and vice versa. The way you overcome those limitations within the system makes the game more fun.

I will note that making suggestions on improving the profession is fine and should be encouraged, but there's a difference between saying "I'd like this to expand rogue skills but still stay 'rogue-like'" and "I think rogues are broken when compared to pures", which is what you've essentially done.

[DaCapn]

I will note that making suggestions on improving the profession is fine and should be encouraged, but there's a difference between saying "I'd like this to expand rogue skills but still stay 'rogue-like'" and "I think rogues are broken when compared to pures", which is what you've essentially done.

Yes, I was certainly coming from a "comparing the two standpoint." What I don't like is that with a wizard I can go wherever I want and hunt whatever I like one way or another because I have a spell to deal with basically any situation and have the ability to respond much quicker. My wizards get hit harder with maneuvers than my rogues but there's a race to get your debilitating maneuver/spell off first with everyone (to avoid getting nailed with your weakness).

I really just want to see some more options and I'm suggesting some ideas that I think would open up a lot of hunting grounds which are otherwise totally dismissed. I also was hoping to hear what people thought about rogue development whether or not they had a stance on how they size up to pures.

I do pretty well but I get tired of my choice of hunting area being so much more limited.

[thefarmer]

I have yet to have been unable to hunt an area as a rogue. Excluding like, say magru where you need a blunt.

What areas are you talking about?

[DaCapn]

What areas are you talking about?

Certainly some areas it's possible to plant your flag and say you've hunted them but as far as returning because it's viable, I think there's few options. Admittedly, I haven't hunted my main outside Icemule in 20 levels.

I can't hunt my main in areas where creatures immune to crits (golems and the like) or creatures which don't sustain injuries (some undead, glacei, cold guardians) since he's a halfling and can't reach vital areas otherwise, or creatures which don't have limbs (ice elementals). Also no trolls because they don't stay prone long enough. I may have mixed up which category some fall into because I just get used to scratching them off the list.

Swams are obviously a challenge and I can only really do it if I have the freedom to move around a lot to separate them and if they're not very perceptive so I can hide. Though, I did deal with this for around 5-6 levels on the frozen tundra dirtkicking and open head ambushing creatures to be able to hide and do anything. (EDIT: It just means I probably get marred up every hunt and I have to be absurdly careful and have a full wizard spellup. It has been slow-going in warcamps).

Basically what I consider to be routinely huntable are living quadrupeds and woundable things which spawn sparsely. And non-sustainably, some undead (wight and seeker style undead) if I bless-beg long enough.

Basically that would leave uphunting 3 levels to Stone Giants in the Stronghold (but then I'm also in with Illoke who are 7 and 12 levels over my head) or the Blighted Forest. One option on either side of the game is a narrow selection.

[gunmetal]

Swams are obviously a challenge and I can only really do it if I have the freedom to move around a lot to separate them and if they're not very perceptive so I can hide. Though, I did deal with this for around 5-6 levels on the frozen tundra dirtkicking and open head ambushing creatures to be able to hide and do anything. (EDIT: It just means I probably get marred up every hunt and I have to be absurdly careful and have a full wizard spellup. It has been slow-going in warcamps).

This is where I think I'm having a hard time seeing eye-to-eye with you, I think. Numbers/abilities/etc aside, plunging into a swarm of angry creatures and coming out in one piece sounds very warrior to me.

That's tanking. Rogues aren't built for tanking, nor should they be.

Out of curiosity -- and this isn't an attack or insinuation, just a question -- why don't you want to get a spell-up before hunting swarmy critters or above your level? Is it just a self-sufficiency thing? Or were you hoping for something more "roguish" than just popping points into MnE?

[CaptContagious]

I can see where he is comming from. Im looking at it like this. rogue vs sorcerer (since I play both). Adventure guild is a prime example of how the limitations are applyed. With my sorcerer, I have never turned down a task because of the creature. Living or dead I dont need a bless. Swarm or singluarly my chances of being hit are small because I dont have to leave guarded. Manuever based attackes are a problem if: A) the creature lives that long. B) I dont stun it, remove its leg, or send it running.
With my rogue pretty much if there is lets say... more then one Arch Wight in a room, i walk away because the chance in me getting my ass boil just greatly improved. So screw it. I am not going to take a task to kill ghost wolves because the place is very active and if I make 1 slip up and get caught in the open in offensive, I just tossed a deed down the drain. I could cman cutthroat the wight... but that involves leaping from hiding holding only a dagger and being in offensive for some hard RT.
To me it boils down to this. If the situation is just right, a rogue fucking owns. Most pures dont give a shit about the situation and still fucking own.
which = no balance.

[DaCapn]

This is where I think I'm having a hard time seeing eye-to-eye with you, I think. Numbers/abilities/etc aside, plunging into a swarm of angry creatures and coming out in one piece sounds very warrior to me.

Here's a very realistic warcamp scenario: I'm in a room with 2 creatures, I dirtkick one from defensive (-30 AS, -60 Percep, -35% EBP) so I can half ignore him. Then I hide and ambush the other for the leg (hopefully legging it but probably just injuring it). During this whole process, another creature comes in. If he gets a decent maneuver off (driving me to my knees and adding RT, leaving me in offensive longer), or god forbid a wizard comes in and uses call wind (prone, inflict RT, and create vortexes), I can only really depend upon luck. I have one finger on my stand macro and the other on stance defensive macro and I'm hitting them both feverishly because during that additional RT the dirtkicked creature will get the chance to attack again and it's quite likely that another creature will enter the room. Total progress: One incapacitated creature.

In a swarming area, the swarm always finds you (often while you're in RT in a room that was not previously swarming). Also, incapacitated creatures (which I sometimes have to leave behind when the swarm does find me) seem to add to the warcamp walking RT and the multi-opponent DS penalty.


Out of curiosity -- and this isn't an attack or insinuation, just a question -- why don't you want to get a spell-up before hunting swarmy critters or above your level? Is it just a self-sufficiency thing? Or were you hoping for something more "roguish" than just popping points into MnE?

Rogue self-spellup is more like a point explosion than it is a pop. 406 only nets you +10DS and +10TD (pretty worthless to go there just for DS). But really, my non-spellup discussion was saying that as a square, you depend upon pures for spells to go hunting (warcamp without spellup? Never). As a pure you depend on nothing from squares to go hunting. A lot of people have multiple accounts and use their pures to spell up their squares. If you're doing that (which I have nothing against), you have a somewhat distorted view as to what your character is intrinsically capable of.

[TheWitch]

For perspective on this, I play two sorcerers, one capped and one level 34 and a rogue, level 37.

One thing you're overlooking in your thinking is mana dependency. Mana constraints are a very real issue for pures - always. Even at cap, and with society beneifits, if a pure runs out of mana - hunt over. Obviously, this doesn't take into account mutant training paths or magical items. But those have potentially high opportunity costs - not unlike the cost of spells for a rogue. In early levels, ie below 25 but possibly till 50 or so, it can be seriously difficult for a pure to hunt to fried without exhausting their mana.

My rogue, on the other hand, can hunt and hunt and hunt and hunt. Until I get sick of it or do something stupid and she's too injured. Hide/amb head/loot, rinse repeat. My rogue is a locksmith build, so she's not a relatively strong hunter and CMANs just confuse me so she only knows the guild versions. She is not in a society, and I only have one account so the sorcerers are not spelling her up.

The reality is, rogues (mine included) are not built for crowds. Therefore, I avoid them when hunting her. This is also true for my sorcerers, however, to a greater extent than you might think. More so with my level 34, but even at cap - a griffin comes in with a 20 second shriek followed by a nice flap for offensive on the ground, followed by the entire construct (which I can't even fight) popluation of market road - the witch is just as dead as any rogue.

You seem to want to downplay this, but the rogue/warrior guilds are a huge advantage combat wise that pures simply don't have. Yes, pures have alchemy - and what they make the majority of the time is largely useless to them. The only CMAN's my rogue uses are sweep and subdue, since she learned them for no TP's through the guild. And those TP's bought her 4 spells, which eventually will be 10.

And speaking of alchemy, this has made magic even more accessable to everyone in the game. Yes, some of it requires MIU. But it does NOT require the spell begging you disdain and the stuff can be had for a pittance. Ewave crystals, spells in a bottle - just to name two that you might find useful.

You're right, my sorcerers don't "depend" on squares for anything. And I do agree with you, rogues could use some work - stun mans and grouping mechanics being the first things I would like to see retooled.

But as was said, just because one class can do something doesn't mean everyone else should be able to do it too. To expect rogues to be masters of crowd control just isn't realisic - that's not how they're designed.

Edited to add: You play a gnome and a what, another lawn ornament of some kind? You do realize, your choice of race is making things even more difficult than they need to be, right?

[nub]

Here is my one-liner...


Pure/rogue balance is fine.

No it's not.

[BigWorm]

The thing that pisses me off about being a rogue is that almost all my skills are based on speed and agility, but in a group I almost always feel like the slowest motherfucker in it, which doesn't seem right to me.

[nub]

The thing that pisses me off about being a rogue is that almost all my skills are based on speed and agility, but in a group I almost always feel like the slowest motherfucker in it, which doesn't seem right to me.

Maybe they should change all of our attacks to soft RT =)

[CrystalTears]

The thing that pisses me off about being a rogue is that almost all my skills are based on speed and agility, but in a group I almost always feel like the slowest motherfucker in it, which doesn't seem right to me.
Whoa. I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt this way.

[DaCapn]

One thing you're overlooking in your thinking is mana dependency. Mana constraints are a very real issue for pures - always. Even at cap, and with society beneifits, if a pure runs out of mana - hunt over. Obviously, this doesn't take into account mutant training paths or magical items. But those have potentially high opportunity costs - not unlike the cost of spells for a rogue. In early levels, ie below 25 but possibly till 50 or so, it can be seriously difficult for a pure to hunt to fried without exhausting their mana.

Granted with wizards I have mana leech, but I was always under the impression that a lot of sorcerer combat spells were cheap in mana. I don't seem to have a problem holding enough mana even if I restrict myself to just 908 and 410. People do complain about holding enough mana as pures at low levels which is a more legitimate issue (though even then I didn't have a problem, I was using bolt spells since level 1). Not to mention the fact that... stamina runs out too.


But as was said, just because one class can do something doesn't mean everyone else should be able to do it too. To expect rogues to be masters of crowd control just isn't realisic - that's not how they're designed.

I'm not asking for them to be masters of crowd control. My proposition was for a single maneuver and an open-ended "something more." That would hardly make them masters, and certainly wouldn't come anywhere near a pure's abilities in this capacity. About realistic: First, it's a fantasy game. I start the day by helping a wizard open boxes to treasure that he took off of a ghost. The need to be realistic doesn't follow the general trend here. There needs to be a mechanical advantage/realism balance. You can't have some things totally unbound by realism and other things totally constrained by them and keep things on an even keel.


Edited to add: You play a gnome and a what, another lawn ornament of some kind? You do realize, your choice of race is making things even more difficult than they need to be, right?

Being a halfling does make it harder but that isn't the whole of it. Halfling rogue seems kind of classic to me. If that's a combination that's supposed to specifically not work well, I don't know what to say.

[TheWitch]

Granted with wizards I have mana leech, but I was always under the impression that a lot of sorcerer combat spells were cheap in mana. I don't seem to have a problem holding enough mana even if I restrict myself to just 908 and 410. People do complain about holding enough mana as pures at low levels which is a more legitimate issue (though even then I didn't have a problem, I was using bolt spells since level 1). Not to mention the fact that... stamina runs out too.

Low level sorcerer spells are cheap, 2 and 5 mana, but we do something in sorcery that's called plinking. That means casting 702/705 2, 3, 5 times before the thing actually dies. My lev. 34 sorcerer has 118 mana and an average warding rate of 20% hunting pretty much like level. That burns mana pretty fast. The wizard I played till level 6 because I got too damn bored didn't have as extreme mana issues, but wizards also work on the AS/DS system with the majority of their attack spells, whereas the other three pures until higher levels are getting warded - a lot. Lost mana.

There have been whole threads dedciated, in all four pure class topics on the officials, to helping people get around the mana constraints. If you don't believe it's an issue, then good for you. The players of most pure pures would likely beg to differ.

Stamina runs out, but I'm here to tell you, you can still swing your sword without CMAN's. I do it all the freakin time. Casting without mana, not so much.



My proposition was for a single maneuver and an open-ended "something more." That would hardly make them masters, and certainly wouldn't come anywhere near a pure's abilities in this capacity. About realistic: First, it's a fantasy game. I start the day by helping a wizard open boxes to treasure that he took off of a ghost. The need to be realistic doesn't follow the general trend here. There needs to be a mechanical advantage/realism balance. You can't have some things totally unbound by realism and other things totally constrained by them and keep things on an even keel.

I didn't mean "reality" as in RL, I meant reality as far as game design as they've defined it in GS, as in your expectations might be a little high for what is even reasonable. I only skim the rogue boards on the officials, but that might be a better place for CMAN ideas if you haven't posted them there already.


Being a halfling does make it harder but that isn't the whole of it. Halfling rogue seems kind of classic to me. If that's a combination that's supposed to specifically not work well, I don't know what to say.

I realize that's not the whole of it, and I don't think I said it doesn't work. As to being a classic, beats me. Not in the way a giantman warrior and DE sorcerer are classic, I wouldn't think, no.

I'm saying it's going to make things more difficult than if you choose say, a human or a halfbreed or a giant or a sylph. To top it off, the little fellow swings a two handed weapon? Both the halfling rogues I knew were snipers.

Now, don't take offense at this, but you seem to want things to be easier for you. Most people who play the smaller races in a somewhat mutant build (THW on a rogue), from my experience, want the extra challenge. The extra challenge of this combination doesn't seem to be making you happy.

If you fixskilled the halfling into a sniper archer, for instance, a lot of the issues you're having would be less troublesome.

If this build is RP based and you don't want to change it, that's cool too. Just a suggestion.

[DaCapn]

There have been whole threads dedciated, in all four pure class topics on the officials, to helping people get around the mana constraints. If you don't believe it's an issue, then good for you. The players of most pure pures would likely beg to differ.
I admit to not knowing about sorcerors and if people say that there's a lot of mana strain, okay. I'm just saying that I don't have any trouble with my mana as a wizard (hunting with 908 and 906, average 2x 410 or 912 per hunt). When hunting from belled to fried, I don't always make it and have to go back out at muddled when I recover mana (but I certainly make it to fried that time). If you have to take a little longer and go rest up, that sounds like we've found a point of balance. Belled to fried as a rogue... As my best guess: That can be about 30 minutes with my level 55 rogue. 15-20 with my other in the 30's.


Stamina runs out, but I'm here to tell you, you can still swing your sword without CMAN's. I do it all the freakin time. Casting without mana, not so much.

Rogues don't depend upon cmans as much as pures depend upon mana but if I'm careless with my stamina (say I refresh surge or smastery before the cool-down period wears off), I do have to wait for it to recover. Most of the time, I open with a cman then follow up with an attack. I don't think you start to depend upon cmans until later. I could have gotten away with no offensive cmans up until like 45. I require dirtkick and sweep and am dying to finish hamstring ASAP. (EDIT: When I say "require" I mean that it is a "serious need" not a "want")

I'm saying it's going to make things more difficult than if you choose say, a human or a halfbreed or a giant or a sylph. To top it off, the little fellow swings a two handed weapon? Both the halfling rogues I knew were snipers.


Now, don't take offense at this, but you seem to want things to be easier for you. Most people who play the smaller races in a somewhat mutant build (THW on a rogue), from my experience, want the extra challenge. The extra challenge of this combination doesn't seem to be making you happy.

If you fixskilled the halfling into a sniper archer, for instance, a lot of the issues you're having would be less troublesome.

Actually, halflings are really good with the heaviest weapons because they have the highest possible AGIDEX. And the rogue I'm mostly discussing now is pretty cookie cutter. Sword and board 2x+ picker. My other is a pretty straight forward TWC build too.

And if I have to choose an archer to be effective, that goes back to the versatility. And honestly, I am thinking about going archer with this guy if it brings me some more enjoyment. If the solution to this is that I'm using a good build but it is incompatible with that race, I consider that to be NOT versatile. Versatility is a web of options, not a flow chart.

[thefarmer]

Versatility is a web of options, not a flow chart.

Yes, versatility can mean a web of options. However I think you're missing a key point about what the word means.

Versatility in GS (and most RPGs) means you have the ability to do a large number of things but with varying degrees of success. Rogues, rank right up there in being able to do several things successfully. No profession should be able to do everything great. Like I've stated before, just because one profession can do something well, doesn't mean every other profession should to.

The way you handle the limitations within your profession and chosen path are what make playing them (and the game) fun. If all professions had the same abilities/strengths/weaknesses, why bother choosing one over the other?

[TheWitch]

Look, every single build is going to have weaknesses, that's the way the game is. Until 704 got it's weight reduction feature, I was totally and completely encumbered to the point I was getting my ass handed to me regularily for that reason alone. Until I started depending on wizards for strength.

Natch. Not just squares depend on pures, other pures depend on other pures. That really isn't such a horrible thing, is it, in a multi-player game?

Versatility is good, I agree, and I think it absolutely exists in the game.

Up to a certain point.

Which goes back to my point: some things will be easier and more feasible than others - but they can all be done if you want to deal with the extra difficulty. And that's not just true for squares. My DE sorcerer is not likely to make a particularily good maul user, for instance, but I could probably make an archer out of her if I wasn't such a nincompoop about scripting. Yes, I still type virtually everything.

Your build is working, it's just a relatively more difficult one, perhaps more difficult than you are comfortable/happy playing. I'm certainly no authority on builds, but some things just make more sense than others, like a small race using a bow and arrows versus a shield and sword. Whatever dex/agi is giving you is probably offset by the weight of the weapon and shield. Again, I'm no expert, that's just a guess.

Generally speaking, the "pures have it so easy" approach isn't really effective - because the same could be said about semis when you think about it. Pre level 50, IMO, squares sail through. I can agree end game is harder on squares than pures and semis, yes.

You have a couple solid ideas for what could help the situation, I assume that's what you would like to see happen. As opposed to somehow nerfing/weakening pures and semi's, right?

[DaCapn]

The way you handle the limitations within your profession and chosen path are what make playing them (and the game) fun. If all professions had the same abilities/strengths/weaknesses, why bother choosing one over the other?

I understand that there's the underlying weakness/strengths of different professions. Pures have harder times with maneuvers than squares do and that's not something that can particularly trained off. In contrast, squares have a harder time warding CS based spells. I like the notion of these somewhat intrinsic vulnerabilities. The fact that a pure, following any mildly reasonable training plan is open to just about any hunting area, whereas a rogue must revolve his/her training plan around specific KINDS of areas is what I find annoying. Swarms is just my most obvious point. In the course of almost any training plan, a pure gets crowd-control spells (hell, even severely mutant builds like warmages get fast enough swings to work a crowd). But a rogue has to revolve their entire build around getting 410 (so as a square they're pushed to get lots of spells).

You have a lot of options with pures for crowd control with many different builds. With rogues, you have a single option for crowd control with a couple of builds. Which one seems versatile?

[DaCapn]

Natch. Not just squares depend on pures, other pures depend on other pures. That really isn't such a horrible thing, is it, in a multi-player game?
My point here was that there wasn't reciprocation. Rogues are a fifth wheel for a caster when it comes to combat. A pure can debilitate masses (as opposed to the rogue) and can debilitate singe targets just as well. Also, a pure can do both faster. Whenever you post on here somewhere about a rogue, it just seems to be assumed that you have a spellup like "get some 506 imbeds and 410 imbeds, make sure you have 509." Have you ever heard someone say to a pure before they go into combat "make sure to bring a rogue with you?" I guess there's some locked entrances in some places in the game but everyone trains in climbing and there's 407 anyway. I'm not asking for there to be dependence of pures on squares, I'd just like less dependence of squares upon pures.

Pures with pures is a different matter because it excludes squares. And in my wizard experience, I don't depend upon other pures. Again, with different professions, this may vary.

[thefarmer]

But a rogue has to revolve their entire build around getting 410 (so as a square they're pushed to get lots of spells).

You have a lot of options with pures for crowd control with many different builds. With rogues, you have a single option for crowd control with a couple of builds. Which one seems versatile?

Armor training deals with crowd control (Defense/Ability to take hits)

Physical Fitness deals with crowd control (Stamina/Ability to take hits/HP regen)

MOC deals with crowd control (defense).

Selfcast ewave deals with crowd control (defense/offense).

MIU training and embeds can deal with crowd control (haste/ewave/quake/brimstone).

Mstrike can deal with crowd control (attacking multiple targets).

Getting outside spells (AS/DS)

Scroll reading for self-cast spells can deal with crowd control (AS/DS)

There are multiple ways to deal with a crowd that are ALL extremely viable and accomplished with a bit of dedication.

The fact that a rogue can't deal with a mob of creatures like a pure (or warrior) doesn't mean a rogue lacks versatility. Instead of casting a room-clearing spell, a rogue uses other tactics that are complimentary to the hide/stalk/ambush that is their specialty.

[LeDru]

Hmm, well as someone who's played rogues for years, I've never found any particular imbalance with them. It's called learn2hunt. Every class and area is different and requires a different approach. Currently with a 63 train sword/board ambusher, I don't have a problem with swarms, good hide and one shot one kill cleans them out pretty quickly. (course if it's 7 or 8 critters, i'm not going there either cause that's just dumb) Anyway, I don't really see a problem with rogues, they're ROGUES and supposed to be good at lots of stuff not GREAT at a little. Just MHO.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Casters are always going to be "faster" mana dependant hunters (some casters more than others). They also have to always stay in the open and are a lot more vulnerable to every CMAN and maneuver attack.

The important thing as an ambusher is to take advantage of your stealthy status (you can avoid most manuever attacks just by having enough hiding ranks to avoid a search by the critter), and to mock your pure hunting partners every time they are hit by a CMAN or maneuver.

[DaCapn]

Casters are always going to be "faster" mana dependant hunters (some casters more than others). They also have to always stay in the open and are a lot more vulnerable to every CMAN and maneuver attack.

The important thing as an ambusher is to take advantage of your stealthy status (you can avoid most manuever attacks just by having enough hiding ranks to avoid a search by the critter), and to mock your pure hunting partners every time they are hit by a CMAN or maneuver.

I don't know, I'm thinking the rogue gets laughed at for hiding with two seconds of hard RT (if they have smastery up) to avoid getting hit with cmans when a pure would just level the room from guarded stance with 3 seconds of soft RT the instant they enter the room.

[ZeP]

At the end of the day I think the fact that pures can't take hits for shit really brings an end to the whole argument. Cmans, stacking RT, and effects that force you to offensive just cannot be overcome by a pure, except by casting first. They are all in leather or scale too.

I think most are in agreement that hiding needs changes.. there is an active thread about it..

Crowd control.. a rogue really isn't going to be able to crowd control without magical items, but how else can you see it happening? I thought silentstrike with a claidhmore would work.. but you can't aim the shot and might end up lopping off 4 limbs on 4 swings. However 410, 709, 909, and 912 are imbeddable by half the population and I'd imagine alchemy brings more ammo.

You don't have to beg for full spellups, you can pay silvers for the aforementioned items and buy in bulk.

[waywardgs]

410/mstrike works just fine for crowd control. May not kill everything, but it'll lay things down and stun, which will at least buy time to poke eyes out as needed.

If your training path is locked into a pure hide/ambush archetype, with no other skills... well, that's your own fault. Versatility ftw.

[Lucos]

If your training path is locked into a pure hide/ambush archetype, with no other skills... well, that's your own fault. Versatility ftw.

Always been pure hide/ambush with OHE and shield...never had a problem other than that debacle of a tweak to fire mages and weapon fire many years ago. Of course I am not one to think a rogue should be working large crowds until post cap. Until then, learn your hunting area and the critters and hunt smart. Now though, a room with 10 critters is usually not an issue. I just pick off the ones I want and ignore the rest.

[DaCapn]

Like I said, I'm still put out that the real solution presented to dealing with these problems is magic. I think it's clear what people think and I think it's clear what I think. I like discussing it but I don't like being too exhaustively repetitive.

So, does anyone think that cman is a good idea? Does anyone have anything they would do if given the chance to develop rogues (for whatever reason)? I feel like that would be a more constructive conversation.

[Lucos]

Smoke bombs and the ability to ambush from hiding with multi-strike. Fill the room with smoke, then run through it slicing and dicing with kill-shots or leg-shots. Anything that survives is either stunned or prone.

[waywardgs]

Smoke bombs and the ability to ambush from hiding with multi-strike. Fill the room with smoke, then run through it slicing and dicing with kill-shots or leg-shots. Anything that survives is either stunned or prone.

That would be very cool.

[TheWitch]

I don't know, I'm thinking the rogue gets laughed at for hiding with two seconds of hard RT (if they have smastery up) to avoid getting hit with cmans when a pure would just level the room from guarded stance with 3 seconds of soft RT the instant they enter the room.

Dude, you are seriously stubborn.

First of all, let me assure you I was not laughing at my stealth build friends I hunt with while I was laying on the ground getting my head bashed in and they were behind a rock somewhere, sniping the critters. 2 seconds? Pshaw, who even notices.

The pure has to stand toe to toe, and if they want to hide, they too can train in hiding. You thinking the pure's crowd control is infallable is laughable too, BTW.

You can hide, that's the forte of the rogue. And if you want to level the room with 410, you too can train in magic and learn spell 410. Or train up some MIU and grab up a few of the hojillion ewave crystals laying around. Or have your wizard make you some ewave imbeds. Or use trap components. ETC ETC ETC.

THAT, my friend, is versatility. All of those options are available. That you don't want to use them, that's your problem, not the games.

You don't want to use magic. I have a newsflash for you: If pures want to be less squishy to CMAN's, guess what they need to train? Physical skills. If they want to wear better armor to be able to take more hits, they train physical skills. Oh, yea, and get their spell's blocked by armor hindrance. Scale? HA, as if.

Rogues want to use magic, they can use magic. There is an opportunity cost. Just like every other friggen skill in the game.

You want the advantages of magic, but you don't want to use magic.

Do you see the disconnect there?

[Stanley Burrell]

I liked stackable opals and WoF + not-ghey ambush. Then you could actually play GemStone if you weren't suped up on crack/hypomania.

Mystical tomes of ancient arcane lore should be unearthed so that the game could be made less broken.

No one should run a script just to rub rods and put on enhancives, read scrolls, run a second an third account just to make a glowing aura of feces surround you. What was the purpose of all this? Game balance my ass. Sorcies complained about an accessory utensil.

At least they know, economically, not to nerf Paladins. SIMU would've raked in bigger bucks making Empaths be the ones forced into MA'ing for viability instead of just the Warrior class and to a much lesser extent, Rogues.

They already know this product to be digital heroin. If this is Whatley's baby, it's been drinking thalidomide. I'd allow both squares the option to convert to Savants along the logic that's been going around for the last however many years it's been.

Also, screw having to use ten jillion CMANs and constant re-upping bullshit while hunting. Pressing less buttons ftw. Let's pay money to risk being scorned for using a third party add-on and/or not giggling in delight for 80 hours hammering the same Artisan Guild command because we suck so bad at paying less than $100/month.

[DaCapn]

Dude, you are seriously stubborn.

Well I am, but I'm really just expressing my opinion here. You shouldn't expect me to agree with you and I don't expect you to agree with me. If you expect me to become convinced that you're right, then you're just as stubborn, so who cares?


The pure has to stand toe to toe, and if they want to hide, they too can train in hiding. You thinking the pure's crowd control is infallable is laughable too, BTW.

I'm discussing the ratio of their capabilities to do so. I know it's not infallible.


First of all, let me assure you I was not laughing at my stealth build friends I hunt with while I was laying on the ground getting my head bashed in and they were behind a rock somewhere, sniping the critters. 2 seconds? Pshaw, who even notices.

My comparison here was that it took 3 seconds of soft RT for a pure to level a room and get advantage over the opponents (and in the process avoiding danger) where as the rogue was taking two seconds of hard RT to avoid the danger and gaining no advantage. But in either case, rogue or pure, it's a matter of getting your macro off before the danger comes.


You can hide, that's the forte of the rogue. And if you want to level the room with 410, you too can train in magic and learn spell 410. Or train up some MIU and grab up a few of the hojillion ewave crystals laying around. Or have your wizard make you some ewave imbeds. Or use trap components. ETC ETC ETC.

The options presented to me are still just to take up archery or get ewave. Or, depend upon pures. Actually, using spheres was the first rogue-based suggestion but it does still require juggling consumable resources.

I just remembered an old point also about the mana point that was brought up earlier: I use wands in those scenarios where I don't want to wait for my mana to regen.


You want the advantages of magic, but you don't want to use magic.
It's not that I don't want to use magic, it's that I don't want to be required to . I don't want to be squeezed into a training plan box. I feel like you can get more versatility for a wide range of pure training plans than you can with a rogue one. You seem to be suggesting that rogues have a lot of versatility in the possible training plans (which is true) but the versatility of any given training plan, I think, is less than a pure's. See what was suggested above: "take on a sniper build","train in ewave." If you do either of those two things, you are forced down some limiting roads in your training plan. Where as I can choose between a wide variety of ways to train my wizard and still get pretty much the same range of versatility in each (as a further note, training them as a good combatant also trains them as good enchanters).

The loss of redux is still a huge sacrifice if training in spell ranks for a rogue because you also have to go into lighter armor and your attacks still leave you in the open in offensive in hard RT. At my level (though redux is still an estimated quantity), I would lose almost all of my redux and be in an AsG that's 5 lower. The pure doesn't feel nearly as large of a hit here because their RT is soft, shorter, and they're allowed to stance down to guarded in less than a second (if they're casting a bolt spell in the first place). I guess then I could be a sniper, then, right? But then I'm stuck again in a required training plan.

I agree with you guys that all professions need to make sacrifices for things. I'm just questioning the balance of them and where exactly those sacrifices are made. I want other training plans for rogues to be able to get the same versatility but by different means and with different benefits and costs (sacrifices!). The cman I suggested is a form of crowd control but it does not incapacitate the victims as ewave would, it has completely different benefits and completely different downsides. The cman is totally thwarted if one of the opponents that you've boxed out of the melee casts ewave.

[thefarmer]

The options presented to me are still just to take up archery or get ewave. Or, depend upon pures. Actually, using spheres was the first rogue-based suggestion but it does still require juggling consumable resources.

As I stated earlier.


Armor training deals with crowd control (Defense/Ability to take hits)

Physical Fitness deals with crowd control (Stamina/Ability to take hits/HP regen)

MOC deals with crowd control (defense).

Selfcast ewave deals with crowd control (defense/offense).

MIU training and embeds can deal with crowd control (haste/ewave/quake/brimstone).

Mstrike can deal with crowd control (attacking multiple targets).

Getting outside spells (AS/DS)

Scroll reading for self-cast spells can deal with crowd control (AS/DS)

[DaCapn]

Armor training deals with crowd control (Defense/Ability to take hits)

Physical Fitness deals with crowd control (Stamina/Ability to take hits/HP regen)

MOC deals with crowd control (defense).

Selfcast ewave deals with crowd control (defense/offense).

MIU training and embeds can deal with crowd control (haste/ewave/quake/brimstone).

Mstrike can deal with crowd control (attacking multiple targets).

Getting outside spells (AS/DS)

Scroll reading for self-cast spells can deal with crowd control (AS/DS)

There are multiple ways to deal with a crowd that are ALL extremely viable and accomplished with a bit of dedication.

The fact that a rogue can't deal with a mob of creatures like a pure (or warrior) doesn't mean a rogue lacks versatility. Instead of casting a room-clearing spell, a rogue uses other tactics that are complimentary to the hide/stalk/ambush that is their specialty.

Here's a difference with crowd control which I've been bringing up (as when TheWitch mentioned hiding). Say you take AU/PF training high, that's not crowd control, that's damage control. You're making the crowds advantage over you less harmful rather than actually gaining an advantage over a crowd. As an analogy (which always has limited applicability): You're getting mugged by a group of people. Damage control: You curl up in a ball covering your face and balls and stomach. Crowd control: You pick up a nearby lead pipe and swing it around you so they can't get near you.

Rogues have more innate damage control, pures have more innate crowd control. I think crowd control is absurdly better.

The notion of relying on a wizard's spellup for a rogue to go hunting pretty much speaks for itself.

Mstrike can be good I guess with really heavy weapons or when armor of your opponent is not heavy. I've got a TWC rogue with mstrike and he can do well against unarmored creatues (but that's 2 attacks per monster). That's a lot more conditional the pure methods. I had a recent occurance of open ambushing for the legs to knock down a giant 10 levels below me. These were targeted attacks and it took 4-5 swipes to knock it down. Extra untargeted attacks can be just additional "plinking." Since you can't work a wound and can't get any of the benefits of your hiding or ambushing.

And it looks like I'm going to be ditching my redux and armor training (that which a rogue is designed to better than a pure) in favor of taking up pure skills to be able to be more effective. Just from a philisophical standpoint, I find it strange that that your rogue is more all around effective if you train against their native skills into a more mutant build.

Do you guys think that a request for rogues to have more innate options available to them for a "traditional" training path is a bad idea or do you just think that my opinion that pures have them and rogues don't is bogus?

[thefarmer]

Do you guys think that a request for rogues to have more innate options available to them for a "traditional" training path is a bad idea or do you just think that my opinion that pures have them and rogues don't is bogus?

Here's the difference.

You're coming from the standpoint that rogues need "massive help in crowd control" based on the fact that pure can do it better.

I'm coming from the standpoint that a rogue shouldn't be able to deal with a crowd as effectively as a pure, the same way I don't expect a pure to be able to hide/stalk/ambush l eye as well as a rogue.

You think that pures have more 'inate options available in a traditional training plan' than rogues.

I think rogues have just as much, if not more. If you have any doubt about this there are numerous rogue builds out there that do well (magical and non magical with everything from twc/2hd/hurl/etc) from rathunter to OTF.


EDIT: I addressed the crowd control/CMAN issue, since that's what was discussesed the most. You didn't go into to much depth on the armor changes.

I will agree though, that I'd like to see Cmans hurt creatures as much as creature Cmans hurt players.

[thefarmer]

I can't hunt my main in areas where creatures immune to crits (golems and the like) or creatures which don't sustain injuries (some undead, glacei, cold guardians) since he's a halfling and can't reach vital areas otherwise, or creatures which don't have limbs (ice elementals). Also no trolls because they don't stay prone long enough. I may have mixed up which category some fall into because I just get used to scratching them off the list.

Swams are obviously a challenge and I can only really do it if I have the freedom to move around a lot to separate them and if they're not very perceptive so I can hide. Though, I did deal with this for around 5-6 levels on the frozen tundra dirtkicking and open head ambushing creatures to be able to hide and do anything. (EDIT: It just means I probably get marred up every hunt and I have to be absurdly careful and have a full wizard spellup. It has been slow-going in warcamps).

Basically what I consider to be routinely huntable are living quadrupeds and woundable things which spawn sparsely. And non-sustainably, some undead (wight and seeker style undead) if I bless-beg long enough.


Going further, I think that simply because you don't have the patience (or the reach as a halfling) to hunt something, you feel the problem lies with the profession, rather than the player.

[DaCapn]

Going further, I think that simply because you don't have the patience (or the reach as a halfling) to hunt something, you feel the problem lies with the profession, rather than the player.

I've been playing this rogue as my main for years, the character will always remain as such, and rogue is my favorite profession. You quoted me stating that I hunted an area for 5-6 levels that swarms, contains highly perceptive creatures, contains one that's immune to criticals/injuries (also one undead), and the area produces no loot. I ditched CoL for Sunfist and am working through it.

I haven't finished lock mastery yet but I'd like to think I'm patient enough.

[thefarmer]

I've been playing this rogue as my main for years, the character will always remain as such, and rogue is my favorite profession. You quoted me stating that I hunted an area for 5-6 levels that swarms, contains highly perceptive creatures, contains one that's immune to criticals/injuries (also one undead), and the area produces no loot. I ditched CoL for Sunfist and am working through it.

I haven't finished lock mastery yet but I'd like to think I'm patient enough.

To be accurate, I quoted you as saying "I can't hunt my main..." and "no trolls.. ", hence the patience comment. You also didn't mention loot the first time.

My point is that just because you can't/won't hunt something doesn't mean that rogues (as a whole) need to be changed because of it. I'm sure there are plenty of rogues (like mine) that have hunted those types.

Not hunting them because they're poor is a separate and understandable issue.

As for lmastery, my hats off, I never could stand guildwork as a warrior or rogue.

[CrystalTears]

I'm pretty sure all professions have to pick and choose what to hunt according to what works best for them. There are some creatures that I tried to hunt with my rogue and was just a waste of time, while they were great hunting fodder for my empath. That's not a failure on any profession's part, just knowing how to play them.

[TheWitch]

Your build works. It's a difficult build, relatively speaking, based on a combination of the profession and the race. If you want to fight crowds, with this build, you're not going to have fun.

I'm not telling you to become an archer, I'm suggesting that's a possible solution within the existing framework of the game. Nor am I telling you to use magic, I'm suggesting that for now, the effect you seek (crowd control) is available to you through the use of magic.

The idea of a CMAN that would help for crowd control is a fine one.
You've been playing this game long enough to know, that even if someone decides that yes, they agree with you, and start writing code TODAY, you will not see that CMAN until this time next year - and that's pretty aggressive.

So, in the meantime, you might want to consider some other options.

[TheWitch]

I'm pretty sure all professions have to pick and choose what to hunt according to what works best for them. There are some creatures that I tried to hunt with my rogue and was just a waste of time, while they were great hunting fodder for my empath. That's not a failure on any profession's part, just knowing how to play them.

For sure.

I avoided hunting:
Any critter with heavy armor, which gives a negative CvA, which equals a higher warding rate, which equals running out of mana even faster.

Any critter with a killer maneuver attack: arch wights, roa'ters, centaurs, gargoyles, etc. I've never even been to the bowels, I simply don't see the fun of getting fallen on by 300 pounds of living rock.

Any area that required a lot of physical skill to get in and out of, unless I could get there by the Voln tapestry (Darkstone comes to mind). I avoided the Keen like the plague, because of maneuver attacks AND constant physical checks.

The Rift entirely. Vvrael are immune to magic and getting in and out is a pain in the ass because I have to spell up and wait for mana. I can't speak for the other three classes, but a socerer cannot safely hunt without every defensive spell they know cast on them.

In addition to vvrael soul golems are entirely magic immune (for a sorcerer). Lesser constructs and greater constructs need their aura brought down to be fightable by a pure.

A different player, who enjoys the challenge of these things that I find to be a pain in the ass, will hunt them. I just don't feel like complaining that the problem is with the profession: the problem is clearly me.

[Allereli]

The Rift entirely. Vvrael are immune to magic and getting in and out is a pain in the ass because I have to spell up and wait for mana. I can't speak for the other three classes, but a socerer cannot safely hunt without every defensive spell they know cast on them.

It's not that hard to avoid the vvrael. And why would you hunt without at least spelling up with what a sorcerer knows? The Rift is self-cast only, can't tank. Yes the getting in can take a few minutes, but in the grand scope of GS, what's a few more minutes of waiting around? Get up, stretch your legs, do some pushups. There are ways to time it with wracking, mana bread and the sphere to not have to wait that long.

Or you can go with a square and have them open the door for you.

[TheWitch]

It's not that hard to avoid the vvrael. And why would you hunt without at least spelling up with what a sorcerer knows? The Rift is self-cast only, can't tank. Yes the getting in can take a few minutes, but in the grand scope of GS, what's a few more minutes of waiting around? Get up, stretch your legs, do some pushups. There are ways to time it with wracking, mana bread and the sphere to not have to wait that long.

Or you can go with a square and have them open the door for you.

That's kind of the point. A lot of sorcerers like hunting the rift, and it's totally doable, you're right.

I just have always chosen not to, because I'm lazy. Which is not a problem with the sorcerer profession, it's a problem with me. PEBCAC. :)

[zhelas]

For sure.

I avoided hunting:
Any critter with heavy armor, which gives a negative CvA, which equals a higher warding rate, which equals running out of mana even faster.

Any critter with a killer maneuver attack: arch wights, roa'ters, centaurs, gargoyles, etc. I've never even been to the bowels, I simply don't see the fun of getting fallen on by 300 pounds of living rock.

...................

A different player, who enjoys the challenge of these things that I find to be a pain in the ass, will hunt them. I just don't feel like complaining that the problem is with the profession: the problem is clearly me.

Bingo we have a winner. I hated the Bowels and the Rift but my sorcerer didn't want to go to OTF. This was a personal choice. So Zhelas became one of the most stubborn sorcerers to hunt the Bowels. Trust me I got tired of dying from the Cheap F'ing boulder attacks. After dying 5 to 10 times in a couple of hrs I would get pissed and walk away. But it makes Nelemar look like a piece of cake now.

As for crowd control. It works and it doesn't. Sure the next room may be filled with 7 or so creatures and I could walk in and ewave or quake. But those spells are level driven. And I may not be able to get that spell off before some cheap maneuver slaughters me. The 3 second Rt between spells is enough time for a Maneuver to take me out.

MOC really is necessary I wish it wasn't so darn expensive. I could ease some of my suffering by getting those physical skills but I end up sacrificing the power from magic. But FoF against pures can equal death for them.

I always peer into rooms before entering. I avoid swarms if I can and yet I hunted the Bowels. Go figure.

Peace

[DaCapn]

As for crowd control. It works and it doesn't. Sure the next room may be filled with 7 or so creatures and I could walk in and ewave or quake. But those spells are level driven. And I may not be able to get that spell off before some cheap maneuver slaughters me. The 3 second Rt between spells is enough time for a Maneuver to take me out.

That 3 second RT is soft. You have the option of casting and then leaving the room.


MOC really is necessary I wish it wasn't so darn expensive. I could ease some of my suffering by getting those physical skills but I end up sacrificing the power from magic. But FoF against pures can equal death for them.

FoF, as far as I know, only has an impact on DS, not maneuver attacks. I never had problems DS-wise with my wizards, maybe sorcerers are different. As far as getting hit with an all-out attack is concerned, I have pretty negligible troubles with my wizard because the biggest source of a wizard's DS has nothing to do with stance. Neglecting spells, at some kind of mid level your wizard's offensive/defensive DS will be something like 20/80. By comparison, a rogues might be 310/150, meaning the DS loss is about 2.5 times worse for a rogue. MOC isn't cheap for rogues either. It's cheaper but certainly not 2.5 times cheaper (10/3 for rogues and 15/10 for pures makes 1.5 times cheaper).

This is without even considering the FoF reduction of EBP which would work to similar ends.

[zhelas]

That 3 second RT is soft. You have the option of casting and then leaving the room.

And this is true. I have used the hit and run tactics before. Only out of the necessary needs for survival. However once entering the room, leaving it sometimes isn't a safe option.

I don't deny the hard roundtime from swinging a weapon stinks Both my 27th level warrior and rogue would agree they would love to attack and scoot to the next room. But that isn't the tactics I use for them, since they are not a pansy pure :P

[thefarmer]

That 3 second RT is soft. You have the option of casting and then leaving the room.

Do you think rogues should be able to attack in soft rt too?


MOC isn't cheap for rogues either. It's cheaper but certainly not 2.5 times cheaper (10/3 for rogues and 15/10 for pures makes 1.5 times cheaper).

MOC isn't cheap, but Dodge is and it directly affects your DS.

[DaCapn]

Do you think rogues should be able to attack in soft rt too?
No, I was just suggesting to take advantages of one of the innate tactical capabilities of a caster. Just note I've been mentioning innate this whole time (as you've previously pointed out as well). I'm suggesting to use a capability of the profession that's already in place, most suggestions to me require outside training.


MOC isn't cheap, but Dodge is and it directly affects your DS.
I don't feel like this point really addresses what I was discussing there. A rogue gets his DS from training in dodge, CM, weapon, shield, etc. A pure gets DS from their spells. A rogue loses more DS from multiple opponents than a pure does. My comment was responding to someone's concerns as a pure for being disadvantaged DS-wise against multiple opponents. I was simply showing that a rogue loses more DS. Those figures were considered for a rogue who is 2x in dodge, 1x shield, 1.75x CM. If you take it to 3x dodge it's 360/190. That actually makes the losses due to multiple opponents 2.8x worse than a pure's.

EDIT: Also, the cost of a tier-3 rank in dodge is almost equivalent to a tier-1 rank in MOC.

[TheWitch]

Honestly, don't you get tired of the "pures have this, that and the other" and "we rogues don't have this that and the other"?

They're different classes. Different is the key term here.

Just to clarify a couple things for you too: In general, pures have 3 sec. soft RT for casting, yes. Clerics and empaths, I believe, have at least one spell (mabye more, I don't play either) that has like 12 second RTs. Doesn't sound like much, but of the four classes those two have the fewest options for combat spells.

Channeling turns soft RT into hard RT. Stance dancing, or being in offensive at all times, is necessary for any pure using an AS/DS system spell, as in bolts, balls, cone, etc. It is also necessary for maximum effectiveness on several spells, notably 702 and 705. There are also several spells that for maximum effectiveness (read minimum plinkiness) require at least one hand open, if not two. Casting 718 from anything less than offensive, without a shit load of demonology, is suicide.

In order to use that selection of options that you seem to covet so much, all of these things come into play. Those are the caveated spells I could think of off the top of my head - I'm sure there are more.

Your firm conviction that pures just wander around slaughtering shit in guarded with 3 sec. soft RT is a little .... incomplete, shall we say. Yes, it can be done, but probably not to the extent you think it is.

[thefarmer]

No, I was just suggesting to take advantages of one of the innate tactical capabilities of a caster. Just note I've been mentioning innate this whole time (as you've previously pointed out as well). I'm suggesting to use a capability of the profession that's already in place, most suggestions to me require outside training.

Weren't you just suggesting new ideas for the rogue profession based on perceived limitations? Unless I missed something in the last few posts you made.


I don't feel like this point really addresses what I was discussing there. A rogue gets his DS from training in dodge, CM, weapon, shield, etc. A pure gets DS from their spells. A rogue loses more DS from multiple opponents than a pure does.

Yes, but to offset that stance pushdown, a rogue can train in MOC (to completely offset a set number of attacks) a lot cheaper than a pure can, a rogue can take a hit better than a pure can (redux) and a rogue can come back quicker than a pure can (stunmans/health regen/etc).

So while a pure won't loose as much DS, they're still in danger in mobs to FoF because while a 200 endroll won't be the end of a rogue, it could be a major/huntending injury to the pure.

[DaCapn]

Weren't you just suggesting new ideas for the rogue profession based on perceived limitations? Unless I missed something in the last few posts you made.
That's the gist of my reason for starting the thread; but as far as that specific point was concerned, someone said that they still have a problem if their ewave doesn't level the room. I was just pointing out that they could leave the room because they have soft RT.

So, I was really just making a tactical suggestion followed by a general observation (details below). I in no way implied that I'd like to see a corresponding change to rogues.

My observation was when I stated that my suggestion does not involve putting skill points into anything. As far as suggestions have gone towards me, it has typically involved putting points into training. This relates back to my opinion that for any single typical pure training plan (wizard at least), they have more innate options and tactical capabilities to handle more situations than any single typical rogue training plan. Instead a rogue has a set of training options that they can employ to gain tactical advantage, but these options come at the expense of something else. So a rogue makes their sacrifices more in their training plan whereas a wizard makes their sacrifices when they choose which tactic to employ that they already have. That is my opinion.

[zhelas]

My warrior and rogue are training in Miu and arcane. Not because they want to. They have so they can eventually overcome the lets screw with squares by implementing spell burst. Truth be told these are still valuable skills for these professions as you know and don't hurt your redux.

[DaCapn]

Honestly, don't you get tired of the "pures have this, that and the other" and "we rogues don't have this that and the other"?
I don't seem to be getting tired of discussing the merits and drawbacks of the professions and clarifying my opinion here, no. Maybe my original post set people on the wrong foot about my opinion or something. I didn't spend much time talking about philosophical standpoints like I am now because I was more interested in hearing development ideas and criticism of my development ideas (something which there has been very little of). But I'm perfectly willing to discuss what other people would like to discuss.


Your firm conviction that pures just wander around slaughtering shit in guarded with 3 sec. soft RT is a little .... incomplete, shall we say. Yes, it can be done, but probably not to the extent you think it is.

I understand that stance-dancing that casters have to do (I do it with my bolt wizard). I don't even really consider the soft RT stance-dance an actual stance-dance because dancing implies timing. In that case you can do it whenever you like and depend upon the fact that being exposed for 1/10 second doesn't really put you in danger.

And yes, I know that hard casting RTs do exist. I'm more unfamiliar with them though and didn't know about the 12 second spell.

That being said, I understand it based mostly on my own experience where I do pretty much that. I basically have one hand on directional macros and the other hand on the function keys hitting my 3 bolt spells of choice over and over. Every so often I hit the 410 macro. If I'm feeling a little wild, sometimes I hit the 912 macro, just for style points.

[TheWitch]

Your pure knowlegde being based pretty much upon playing a wizard is probably what's giving you this rose-colored glasses picture of pures.

Wizards are probably the easiest of the pure classes, simply for the hunting routine you detailed: you're using bolts, stance dancing, in soft RT. Using the AS/DS system hunting is much easier than using the CS system - especially at lower levels. The other three pure classes use primarily the CS system, and precious little alters the CS of the caster or the TD of the target.

The DS of a target, however, is easily messed with - as you've seen both hunting and being hunted. AS can be pretty easily enhanced, too.

That said, wizards are boring for that reason and mine never got past level 6. She was like playing a warrior with no weapon.

As to the "inate" abilities. Yes, pures have spells to choose from for various situations. But if you look at this big-picture, it's all still magic. We're pretty much locked into a magic route for maximum effectiveness.

There are mutant build pures that use weapons and magic, but their magic suffers significantly, and their weapon skills will NEVER be what a like level squares can be - because dodging, MOC, all of those things are hugely expensive to the point of being impossible till they're approaching or past cap.

The TP costs associated with a pure achieving anything remotely effective in physical combat far outweigh the TP costs of a rogue picking up a few spells or ranks in MIU to use the little bit of magic they might want. And the training limitations on squares will simply never be reached - their needs will be met before that's even an issue.

A pure trying to train physical skills, like weapons or CMAN's, not only pays a huge premium but those skills typically require much more than a few ranks, 1x in the case of weapons, and that's all we can train - 1x.

Just as an example, for my sorcerer to master disarm cost me in the range of 2000 TPs. That's one CMAN, and she couldn't use if offensively to any great effect, it gave her a margin of protection against getting disarmed.

10 spells to get you 410 will set you back 1,200. In doing that, you'll also have self lore, two defensive spells a handful of other spells. Forever. Alternatively, 20 ranks of MIU would set you back what, 200 TP's therebouts?

So yes, there is an opportunity cost, but it goes both ways. And for a square to go magic is a hell of a lot lower opportunity cost than for pures to go physical.

[DaCapn]

As to the "inate" abilities. Yes, pures have spells to choose from for various situations. But if you look at this big-picture, it's all still magic. We're pretty much locked into a magic route for maximum effectiveness.

I think spells give a lot more options than cmans do; if nothing else, consider the sheer volume of spells a pure has. I'd like to see some more rogue options (through cmans as I initially suggested).

Your comparison between disarm and ewave is pretty good. But on the other hand each rank of CMAN benefits you. It's 60 ranks and each rank is benefiting you to a certain degree. To get ewave you train through 402, 405, and 409. 402 is arguably helpful for archers (however it's such short duration and as an archer you really ought to be 4x total between perception and ambush, meaning you're only casting it for additional aiming bonus). For picking builds 407 and 408 are totally useless. For non-picking builds 403, 404, 407,and 408 add up to only marginally useful since you can probably only open things way below you. 405 and (especially) 409 Are totally useless. The TP cost is lower, but you end up getting a high percentage of useless spells, it forces you to work in a lower AsG, and kills your redux. By comparison, the training for disarm doesn't reduce the effectiveness of existing skills, it just takes up more TPs. I'm not sure which is greater in magnitude, but taking up ewave would take my (estimated) redux down to around 7% from 27% (something in there). In either case you're putting up with some shit.

Isn't it more worthwhile for you to go to 4 ranks anyway? You cut your TP cost by 30% with a (likely) marginal loss of your defense to disarm. I'd be curious to see comparisons of endrolls for different ranks in disarm. I doubt anyone has data like that but maybe if someone is going to fixskills to gain disarm, they could show it off. It would be interesting to know.

[thefarmer]

I think spells give a lot more options than cmans do; if nothing else, consider the sheer volume of spells a pure has. I'd like to see some more rogue options (through cmans as I initially suggested).

Your comparison between disarm and ewave is pretty good. But on the other hand each rank of CMAN benefits you. It's 60 ranks and each rank is benefiting you to a certain degree. To get ewave you train through 402, 405, and 409. 402 is arguably helpful for archers (however it's such short duration and as an archer you really ought to be 4x total between perception and ambush, meaning you're only casting it for additional aiming bonus). For picking builds 407 and 408 are totally useless. For non-picking builds 403, 404, 407,and 408 add up to only marginally useful since you can probably only open things way below you. 405 and (especially) 409 Are totally useless. The TP cost is lower, but you end up getting a high percentage of useless spells, it forces you to work in a lower AsG, and kills your redux. By comparison, the training for disarm doesn't reduce the effectiveness of existing skills, it just takes up more TPs. I'm not sure which is greater in magnitude, but taking up ewave would take my (estimated) redux down to around 7% from 27% (something in there). In either case you're putting up with some shit.

I was going to point out where you're wrong but I'll just repeat what I've (and a few others) have previously said.

Just because YOU think something sucks, or is useless, or isn't worth it, doesn't mean that the situation is the same for the entire rogue profession.

Because it's not.

I understand that you've had difficulty, and are looking for ways to fix them, but instead of looking to fix it as a player, you're looking to change game mechanics to make your life easier.

[thefarmer]

I think spells give a lot more options than cmans do; if nothing else, consider the sheer volume of spells a pure has.

I also wanted to point to this part, since I forgot it in the last and am to lazy to edit. Despite a pure having a large number of spells, it doesn't mean all are useful. And to prove it, I point to your own words...



I basically have one hand on directional macros and the other hand on the function keys hitting my 3 bolt spells of choice over and over. Every so often I hit the 410 macro. If I'm feeling a little wild, sometimes I hit the 912 macro, just for style points.

Doesn't seem like a lot of options to me...

[Durgrimst]

Da Capn, you just need to find a class that fits you better. Everyone has their niche. And from reading this I think you need to go the semi route. You can then specialize with either physical or magical, or a mixture. Everything can be effective, just have to find how you like to play. And I have a feeling that you would like rangers.

[zhelas]

Da Capn, you just need to find a class that fits you better. Everyone has their niche. And from reading this I think you need to go the semi route. You can then specialize with either physical or magical, or a mixture. Everything can be effective, just have to find how you like to play. And I have a feeling that you would like rangers.

Rangers are the true Bounty Hunters! The class is extremely well balanced. Though I do have fun playing my warrior and rogue.

[DaCapn]

I understand that you've had difficulty, and are looking for ways to fix them, but instead of looking to fix it as a player, you're looking to change game mechanics to make your life easier.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=38252

We can pretty much put to bed the idea that posting a dev idea on the PC boards will get anything done. I don't think that it will. The thread title even has the word fantasy in it.

Further people seem to think that I'm really upset or something. I've said it before, that rogue is my main character and will continue to be. I'm just having a good time discussing and debating some points about classes, as I said before:


I don't only like to preach to the choir, so I want to hear the opposite side if there's pures out there who can contribute some counter-examples.

I like reading people's posts that have well-stated arguments that differ from my own perspective and way of thinking. I would have liked to hear interesting development ideas that I hadn't thought of, instead I heard why people think that my standpoint on balance of professional power is invalid. Either way, I'm getting something out of the thread.


Doesn't seem like a lot of options to me...
That's not a discussion of what is available to my wizard, it was a discussion of what I typically use while hunting. In full my function macro set looks like this as a wizard (with the bolt spells actually launching a script that stance-dances):
stance def, stand, 919, 506, 410, 912, 505 cloud, 505 @, 904 @, 906 @, 908 @, 518
And I have 413/516 in control macro keys. So, I have options when I need them, I just don't typically need them.

[thefarmer]

I like reading people's posts that have well-stated arguments that differ from my own perspective and way of thinking. I would have liked to hear interesting development ideas that I hadn't thought of, instead I heard why people think that my standpoint on balance of professional power is invalid. Either way, I'm getting something out of the thread.

The reason you had myself and others arguing your balance standpoint and not rogue development is for a few reasons.

You have made your suggestions for rogue development based on a perceived lack of options for your rogue. You also seem to believe that pure vs rogue balance is in favor of pures. These were the reasons that you suggested the improvements to rogues, because of something wrong with the profession (or at least it seemed that way).

It's kind of hard to discuss possible outcomes/development if you don't agree with the reason for suggesting them.

[DaCapn]

It's kind of hard to discuss possible outcomes/development if you don't agree with the reason for suggesting them.

This is how I might do that:

"I don't think your opinions about pures and rogues as far as game balance are valid, and I don't think a notion like that should steer the development of rogues, but here are some of the directions I would like to see rogue development take..."

[thefarmer]

This is how I might do that:

"I don't think your opinions about pures and rogues as far as game balance are valid, and I don't think a notion like that should steer the development of rogues, but here are some of the directions I would like to see rogue development take..."

As this thread has illustrated pretty well, how you think and act isn't necessarily the same as the rest of us.

[zhelas]

Another thing. There have been many posts in the past on this forum where there have been heated discussions between pures and squares. Who is more powerful etc etc.

The title Rogues vs. Pures is a sure way to get steam under folks collars. (OH Hell! Here is another post on squares vs pures!)

Suggestion:
How about a Title as such. Improvements for Rogue crowd control.

In your post make note that you know that you can learn MIU, Arcane and Spells up to 410. Make note that you know that Warriors have MStrike and Berserk. And truthfully, leave pures out of the discussion. Post your ideas or ask for ideas out of the current box.

Sure you will get posts saying that Rogues are fine. And learn2play. But you skim over those.

This thread would have had a different tone.

Peace

[TheWitch]

That's not a discussion of what is available to my wizard, it was a discussion of what I typically use while hunting. In full my function macro set looks like this as a wizard (with the bolt spells actually launching a script that stance-dances): stance def, stand, 919, 506, 410, 912, 505 cloud, 505 @, 904 @, 906 @, 908 @, 518 And I have 413/516 in control macro keys. So, I have options when I need them, I just don't typically need them.

So what good are all these options, then, truthfully?

The wizard spell list is very repetative. Bolt with this, bolt with that. Yawn, you only actually NEED two or three of them - but you had to train the rest of the shit too, amirite? And when you get cone, and have the mana to use it, the rest of the list might as well not be there.

Try this. Try hunting your wizard with 409 and 415.

Clerics and empaths simply do not have the range of options you seem to think they do. They both have several attack spells, yes, with a lot of caveats on them. Bane/smite, the cheapest cleric spell, elimates live or undead targets, depending on how the cleric aligns.

Sorcerers have a butt load of spells, true true. But if you ask a sorcerer what they use, you'll get an abreviated list - just like your wizards list. Because a preponderance of them are: disablers only, DOT or utility. When hunting my capped sorcerer, I use: 719, 719 and 719. And 705, 702, 708, 711. I rarely/never use: 701, 703, 706, 709, 710, 713, 715, 716, 717, 718, 720. Yes, that's right, the spell everyone thinks is so fan-freakin-tastic, 720, I never use. I never used it to any great extent. Because it's not so fantastic. It's a nice dramatic way to end a CVC confrontation, but hunting, I can't stand it.

As to ideas for rogues? I don't think the profession's broken, nor do I think they need crowd control - that's not what they're about. The idea of rogue somehow controlling a crowd beyond magic or mstrike, what, is he running around three stooges eye poking everything really fast?? Your idea wasn't bad, but again, you'll be waiting a long freakin time for that if it ever happens at all.

I would love to see stalk/group mechs fixed. I would love to see stun mans fixed, and the stamina cost of subdue brought down to something useable. There are a couple cmans that rogues can't access that I think they should be able to train. And as was said, that doesn't even involve pures. And shouldn't.