Quick question about fundamental similarities between rogue and warrior classes?

[12Physics34]

Would hackers and trappers count as rogue subclasses if we were to expand beyond fantasy genre?

What other non-hybrid rogues aren't physically adept?

Is physical adeptness singular to rogues and warriors? If we're talking about the 4 base classes clerics, mages, rogues, warriors.

If not, is there anything that is singular to rogues and warriors and common to both?

[Wilian]

In general, rogues and warriors perform entirely different roles in traditional sense.

Rogue things would be:

Scouting nearby enemies undetected, trap placing/removal, opening locked doors (Or alternatively locking them again if it helps the cause), conducting supportive damage and control with ranged or close combat after the battle have been engaged, thieving important items from those you don't want to kill (Keys, notes, evidence and such) or being smooth tongue whom can persuade almoust anyone due to his natural charisma.

There are many ways to play rogue and it is in general considered the "tactical" class that requires a bit more expertise to be able to be played correctly.

Warriors on the other hand in general is very physical class with more limited ways of approach and mechanics. They mostly tend to bash dependant on their weaponset and have limited CC offered to them via all sort of physical attacks such as knockdowns and severing things off. They care not so much about tactics as they do about smashing faces in.

In traditional sense warrior is not a tank class and while it can specialize into more protection for his own purposes, they rarely have abilities for threat control, only mob control.

All in all there is very little resemblance between the two classes when going beyond the narrow MMO driven holy trinity.

[12Physics34]

thanks for the comprehenesive explanation
But for the most part they really don't have any similarities?
Is non-magic a similarity that they share then that's also singular to them?

Or physically proficient too? There aren't any rogue subclasses that aren't physically proficient right? I wouldn't say physical damage because rogues can be pure thieves which don't fight at all.

[Ashnazg]

thanks for the comprehenesive explanation
But for the most part they really don't have any similarities?
Is non-magic a similarity that they share then that's also singular to them?

Or physically proficient too? There aren't any rogue subclasses that aren't physically proficient right? I wouldn't say physical damage because rogues can be pure thieves which don't fight at all.

I think, generally speaking, clerics were far more physically able and proficient than thieves. The original cleric was a chain-clad battle-priest type, rather than a cloth wearing priest type of WoW.

It also depends on what you mean by physical proficiency - rogues were never meant to be adept at fighting someone face to face (except for swashbucklers, kind of), more of a stab-n-run approach, or else archery. Rogues primary specialty would be charisma, con-man games, lock picking, stealth, etc.

Whereas warriors are all about physical approach - brash, brazen, in-your-face characters with developed physique and a singular solution to every problem that involves violence.

[Wilian]

thanks for the comprehenesive explanation
But for the most part they really don't have any similarities?
Is non-magic a similarity that they share then that's also singular to them?

Or physically proficient too? There aren't any rogue subclasses that aren't physically proficient right? I wouldn't say physical damage because rogues can be pure thieves which don't fight at all.

In general rogues don't use magic though it is not unheard of them dabbling with illusion school though, as it is most beneficial for them. Atleast I've always kept my rogues fairly pure.

As for the melee thing, that depends on specialization. Some might go down the swashbuckler route which in general works with dual wielding swords and is based on evasion and counterstrikes and it can be quite effective. The main gameplay though is standing in shadows and dealing critical blows when it's least expected or providing CC through all sorts of dirty tricks.

Warriors are the up in the face class so the only similiarity would be that rogues can engage in "normal combat" but I personally find it the least fun and effective way. Probably the easiest for beginner rogue players though.

[12Physics34]

I usually think of that kind of cleric more as a paladin kind of warrior.

1) Don't rogues generally have to physically trained to be agile and dexterous though?

2) Are there any rogue/warrior/ranger subclasses that don't necessarily have to be physically trained? If we extend this to other genres, would hackers count as a rogue subclass?

3) So there aren't any real similarities among rogues/warriors/rangers? Is non-magic and physical adeptness the closest things? I wouldn't say physical damage since rogues could be pure thieves that don't go into combat at all.

4) Would physics also be a common factor? I mean rogues/warriors/rangers generally obey the laws of physics while magic doesn't right? What would be the mage equivalent in a scifi genre?

[Cyclone Jack]

1) Don't rogues generally have to physically trained to be agile and dexterous though?
- They usually want a high Dexterity, yes, but that could be translated into being very good with their fingers. You need good dexterity to pick advanced locks and disarm various traps. The Swashbuckler on the other hand, would have physical training for dodging, tumbling, parrying, etc.

2) Are there any rogue/warrior/ranger subclasses that don't necessarily have to be physically trained? If we extend this to other genres, would hackers count as a rogue subclass?
- Rangers, at least when they were added in D&D, usually had some limited casting abilities.
- The Bard is generally considered to have its roots with the rogue class.
- The Bounty Hunter could get by w/o physical training, as they reply more on traps and cunning.
- A Rogue that focused on traps, locks, repair, etc could be considered a Mechanic, of sorts.
- Yes, I would consider hackers to be a rogue class.

3) So there aren't any real similarities among rogues/warriors/rangers? Is non-magic and physical adeptness the closest things? I wouldn't say physical damage since rogues could be pure thieves that don't go into combat at all.
- As stated above, some systems allow Rangers to have a limited amount of magical ability, usually clerical in nature (heals, slow poison, etc).
- Rogues are the most adaptable and, depending on the system, can sometimes use magical items such as scrolls, wands, etc, whereas warriors can not.

4) Would physics also be a common factor? I mean rogues/warriors/rangers generally obey the laws of physics while magic doesn't right? What would be the mage equivalent in a scifi genre?
- I always liked the TechnoMage that Babylon 5 used. They used highly advanced technology to mimic the use of magic.


I usually think of that kind of cleric more as a paladin kind of warrior.
- Well, when clerics were first put int D&D, they were basically holy warriors. Chainmail, shield, mace or hammer, and in the fray with the warrior, though they generally had less training with weapons (less proficiency) and thus usually did less damage that warriors. This allowed them to quickly and easily use their clerical spells in combat, to aid themselves and their fellow warriors, as many were touch spells. Clerics could also be of any alignment. When the paladin was added, they were the holy fighters in shining armor, more akin to the knights of the round table, where they needed to stay virtuous, and could only be lawful good. While they has some healing abilities, they had a much more limited arsenal nowhere near as good as clerics, but they were much more deadly in combat than the cleric (and had much better armor). To see the cleric slowly devolve from what it was to how it is used today makes kittens cry.

[12Physics34]

so there's really no fundamental similarity between rogues warriors and rangers?
Would non-magic/physical adeptness be the closest thing that we can come to? Since rogues don't generally use it as their primary form of combat.
Is there a definitive way to classify something as a ranger/rogue/warrior in a variety of genres?

[Shinzai]

...Oh my fucking god. Seriously? You created ANOTHER account to ask this stuff again? Just how many forums are you actually banned from across the internet atm?

[Kenai]

Since those archtypes vary greatly from game to game it might help to just have some general rules of thumb and examples without getting too specific. Both almost always use physical attacking for their primary sources of damage, but that's usually it.

Warriors:

Tend to use heavier armor and weapons than Rogues (Plate ect)
Will often use shields and/or two handed weapons
Almost never use "magic", although some of their abilities may have effects similar to magic depending on the system (shouts, rage ect)
Prefer to fight enemies head on in close combat, using their strength to see the fight through
Depending on the game system, will function as "tanks" to draw attention from more fragile party members

Some examples of Warriors include Fighters, Barbarians, Knights, Soldiers ect. They rarely had class exclusive abilities that you are likely to see in various forms across games since "Warrior" is such a generic term, but being able to "Provoke" and keep enemies on them is very common in games that use them as tanks. Having lots of weapon options is also common.



Rogues:

Tend to use lighter armor, usually leather
Will often use two one handed weapons (dual wield) or silent throwing weapons
May dabble in magic, but almost always use "tools" such as lockpicks and poison that require subtlety and quick hands
Prefer to ambush or flank enemies, using their quicker movements to pinpoint weaknesses and overwhelm
Depending on the gaming system, will infiltrate as spies, pick open chests or pockets, use stealth to keep hidden, or engage in dialogue/bartering to gain favor for themselves or their group

Some examples of Rogues include Thief, Assassin, Bard, Pirate ect. A classic Rogue ability is Backstab and tons of game systems with Rogues have it in some form.


Some classes "evolved" from these archtypes but are different enough so that you can't really include them anymore. Paladin is likely a cross between Warriors and Clerics but with more specific lore added so by the time the class fleshed out they were significantly different. Same with Rogues and Rangers or Monks.

[12Physics34]

thanks. last few questions:
1) So really the only fundamental similarity between those classes (monks rangers rogues warriors paladins) is that they primarily deal physical/non-magic damage? How come some argue that that isn't really a similarity since rogues can sometimes deal magic damage as well? And that non-physically trained classes such as bards and hackers can be rogue subclasses as well? Physics would include mages as well right?

2) What about biomechanics? But that wouldn't work if we expand these classes to scifi genre with machines and non-human races right?

3) Is there a definitive way to classify something as a ranger/rogue/warrior in a variety of genres/games?

[Zao]

1. That depends on the game system you're looking at. But without subclasses rogues, warriors do not know anything about magic. Therefore they do not deal magical damage (without help of magical items). Rogues can dabble in poisons and alchemical mixtures and keen instincts and senses to achieve similar effects to magic, but they are not bound by the same constraints and advantages magic has.
The stereotypical warrior does not even go that far. The fighter is just a very good fighter who through sheer body control can achieve wondrous results.

Rangers do deal mostly physical damage, but they're regarded as very nature-affine so that they can partly imbue their arrows (or melee weapons) with nature magic.

Monks do pretty much deal only physical damage, but they're usually boosted through mystical energy (and a high willpower)

Paladins are also enhanced by magic, of the divine nature usually, and can also call upon their chosen deity to dish out magical punishment.

2. What's biomechanics to you? Going by the definition that's it's a artificially improved biological system, it would not fall under magic. It's the same as wearing a magical item or drinking a potion that enhances your abilities.

3.
Ranger: Agility based ranged fighter (most of the time in touch with nature, but doesn't have to be)
Rogue: Agility based melee fighter, with various thieving skills
Warrior: Strength and Constitution based Fighter who's proficient in armed combat.

[12Physics34]

1. That depends on the game system you're looking at. But without subclasses rogues, warriors do not know anything about magic. Therefore they do not deal magical damage (without help of magical items). Rogues can dabble in poisons and alchemical mixtures and keen instincts and senses to achieve similar effects to magic, but they are not bound by the same constraints and advantages magic has.
The stereotypical warrior does not even go that far. The fighter is just a very good fighter who through sheer body control can achieve wondrous results.

Rangers do deal mostly physical damage, but they're regarded as very nature-affine so that they can partly imbue their arrows (or melee weapons) with nature magic.

Monks do pretty much deal only physical damage, but they're usually boosted through mystical energy (and a high willpower)

Paladins are also enhanced by magic, of the divine nature usually, and can also call upon their chosen deity to dish out magical punishment.

2. What's biomechanics to you? Going by the definition that's it's a artificially improved biological system, it would not fall under magic. It's the same as wearing a magical item or drinking a potion that enhances your abilities.

3.
Ranger: Agility based ranged fighter (most of the time in touch with nature, but doesn't have to be)
Rogue: Agility based melee fighter, with various thieving skills
Warrior: Strength and Constitution based Fighter who's proficient in armed combat.

thanks.
1) I mean like could hackers and trappers be subclasses of rogues too? So do all subclasses of rogues have to necessarily be physically trained? If that were the case, then, physical adeptness would still be the closest thing to a similarity among those classes right?

2) By biomechanics, I meant to suggest that as one of the similarities among rangers rogues warriors, but it wouldn't work if we expand it to other genres and include machines and such.

3) Is there a way to distinguish rangers/rogues/warriors from mages in other genres that do not necessarily have magic? Like the scifi genre? Or mass effect 3.

[Wilian]

thanks.
1) I mean like could hackers and trappers be subclasses of rogues too? So do all subclasses of rogues have to necessarily be physically trained? If that were the case, then, physical adeptness would still be the closest thing to a similarity among those classes right?

Hacking can directly be translated to lockpicking and I already mentioned trapping in my first post. And no, rogues do not have to be physical at all if they are given the proper chance to work things out with diplomacy/charisma (Which modern games do not allow properly, hence the damage-centerness of everything)

[12Physics34]

Would hacker be an example of a rogue that isn't physical then?
So there's no real fundamental similarity between rogues warriors rangers? But physical would come the closest right? Or non-magic? If we assume that there can be other things besides physical and magic like utility skills which really don't require either physical adeptness or magic right?

What do you think about the other questions

thanks.

[vizzle]

For anyone here who's seriously taking the time to consider this guy's question, please realize he has been doing this for the last year. Making threads at least once a month with the same questions. He will never be satisfied with whatever answer you give him.

[12Physics34]

Would hacker be an example of a rogue that isn't physical then?
So there's no real fundamental similarity between rogues warriors rangers? But physical would come the closest right? Or non-magic? If we assume that there can be other things besides physical and magic like utility skills which really don't require either physical adeptness or magic right?

What do you think about the other questions?


2) By biomechanics, I meant to suggest that as one of the similarities among rangers rogues warriors, but it wouldn't work if we expand it to other genres and include machines and such.

3) Is there a way to distinguish rangers/rogues/warriors from mages in other genres that do not necessarily have magic? Like the scifi genre? Or mass effect 3.

[Cludo]

Oh god, not again!

[Duruka]

Huh.

[vizzle]

I think we need a psychiatrist here, not a moderator.