Proof that the Rogue is considered a Warrior/Mage hybrid, at least in my opinion

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

1. Rogues are skilled with close-quarters combat like Warriors, except with daggers. Meanwhile, they are also skilled with long-range combat like Mages, except with bows.

2. Rogues combine the Warriors' combat capabilities and physical prowess, with the Mages' non-combat passivity and strategic intelligence.

3. Equipment-wise, Rogues are heavier than Mages, but more lightweight than Warriors.

I know because I've played a lot of RPGs, most especially games like Dot Hack and Dragon Age: Origins.

Any good counter-arguments?

EternalNothingness:

Any good counter-arguments?

I'm going to address #1.

Saying "using close combat" or "long range" is very general. To say that 2 characters use close combat moves says nearly nothing about them.

Yes, those similarities exist but you can hardly think of daggers and an axe as being remotely similar in practice.

...all those can basically be said as "They're exactly the same but totally different".

I don't get it. You realize that the definition of rogue has changed substantially over the years right? Here is where it more or less originated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

Choice quote:

The abilities of the thief class were drawn from various archetypes from history and myth, but clear debts from modern fantasy literature can be traced to characters such as J.R.R. Tolkien's Bilbo Baggins, Fritz Leiber's The Gray Mouser, and Jack Vance's Cugel the Clever.

Yes, one of the biggest inspirations for the original rogue was Bilbo Baggins.

Simply put, Rogues are incredibly versatile people and it's impossible to specifiy exactly what they can and cannot do. In most table-top systems Rogues are capable of doing just about anything besides casting divine spells if they put their minds to it. They don't even need to be sneaky or use daggers if they don't want to. It's not the fighting style that makes the rogue, it's a state of mind.

...
What?

EternalNothingness:
1. Rogues are skilled with close-quarters combat like Warriors, except with daggers. Meanwhile, they are also skilled with long-range combat like Mages, except with bows.

2. Rogues combine the Warriors' combat capabilities and physical prowess, with the Mages' non-combat passivity and strategic intelligence.

3. Equipment-wise, Rogues are heavier than Mages, but more lightweight than Warriors.

I know because I've played a lot of RPGs, most especially games like Dot Hack and Dragon Age: Origins.

Any good counter-arguments?

1.
Rogues have different types of melee combat, and different types of ranged combat than mages and warriors do.

2.
They have the warriors physical prowess? No they don't, nor do they have the mages intelligence. They have speed and stealth.

3.
In between doesn't mean it's comparable to both.

Like TheNamelessGuy said, "all those can basically be said as "They're exactly the same but totally different"."

Matthew94:

EternalNothingness:

Any good counter-arguments?

I'm going to address #1.

Saying "using close combat" or "long range" is very general. To say that 2 characters use close combat moves says nearly nothing about them.

Yes, those similarities exist but you can hardly think of daggers and an axe as being remotely similar.

That may be. However, what both a two-handed weapon like an ax and dual-wielded daggers have in common, is that they have higher attack power, but a strong lack of defense. As for the bow, it's a long-range weapon similar to magic.

That means that, if anything, I might as well go far as to say the shield is somewhat the equivalent of healing and defense magic, because both are mostly defensive. Sure, the former decreases damage, while the latter heals it. However, because healing and defense magic can be limited, that means that it's mostly reserved for heavily damaged characters, just like defending.

So long story short, the order goes like this:

Warrior: Defense and Close-Quarters

Rogue: Close-Quarters and Long-Range

Mage: Long-Range and Defense

And yes, I'd create contradictory information from my first post, if only because I've made another discovery.

EternalNothingness:

Matthew94:

EternalNothingness:

Any good counter-arguments?

I'm going to address #1.

Saying "using close combat" or "long range" is very general. To say that 2 characters use close combat moves says nearly nothing about them.

Yes, those similarities exist but you can hardly think of daggers and an axe as being remotely similar.

That may be. However, what both a two-handed weapon like an ax and dual-wielded daggers have in common, is that they have higher attack power, but a strong lack of defense. As for the bow, it's a long-range weapon similar to magic.

That means that, if anything, I might as well go far as to say the shield is somewhat the equivalent of healing and defense magic, because both are mostly defensive. Sure, the former decreases damage, while the latter heals it. However, because healing and defense magic can be limited, that means that it's mostly reserved for heavily damaged characters, just like defending.

So long story short, the order goes like this:

Warrior: Defense and Close-Quarters

Rogue: Close-Quarters and Long-Range

Mage: Long-Range and Defense

And yes, I'd create contradictory information from my first post, if only because I've made another discovery.

You aren't taking other stats into account, what about speed and stealth for instance?

A warrior is meant to run full tilt into combat, it would be silly to assume the same for a rogue. A rogue is more likely to do hit and run attacks or attack with a bow from afar then change location, a mage would not treat long range combat in the same way. They all have very different playstyles.

I would've said that this is more of a common thing with RPGs with only 3 base classes of Mage, Fighter, Rogue. Better RPGs (yes I went there) such as the Advanced Dungeon and Dragon games, Mass Effect to an extent and if my memory serves KOTOR have more classes, and whilst some classes are arguably combinations of the 3 main ones (I'm looking at you Mass Effect), but I would definitely argue the case for the Ranger and Cleric classes.

Clerics don't sit comfortably in the Mage/Fighter subclass as clerics usually heal/buff and dish out a fair amount of damage and their power really is meant to come from belief as opposed to the Mage who is meant to blow your enemies into a fine dust whilst trying not to get hit themselves as they are weak and don't traditionally wear armour.

Rangers (to me anyway) don't feel like a fighter/rogue class either, despite the fact the Ranger is a relatively sneaky type its more from the idea that he stalks his prey as to launch a good ambush, as opposed to just hit and run (though certain rangers are a good for that) but rangers lack the good trap disabling and lock picking skills that rogue classes would have, instead being better at hitting things with a sword (or other melee weapon) and tracking

But I wouldn't say that the Rogue is a Fighter-Mage they'are the thieves and assassins sneaking into locked, trapped rooms and stealing all the shiny things, fighting only as a last resort as opposed to Fighters who thump things and Mages blow them to kingdom come.

The differences between the classes are philosophical. It's about how they deal with things and problem-solving. A rogue may use melee weapons like a fighter, but he's not going to do direct confrontation. He's only going to engage when conditions are ideal(flanking.) Also, if he uses ranged attacks, it's for a different reason than the mage. The rogue uses range to avoid direct confrontation. The mage uses range because it's the intellectual thing to do (The mage doesn't use armor/weapons because his whole philosophy is that if he plans well he won't need them.)

The point is that:
When a fighter sees a problem he says "Leeeroy Jeeeeenkins!!!" and charges in. (Direct approach)
When a rogue sees a problem he says "Crap, what's the best way to get around this?" and looks for a safe solution. (Versatile approach)
When a mage sees a problem he says "Interesting. glad I brought that stupid Barbarian along to take aggro. Now what flavor of horrible death should I inflict on this monster?." (Intellectual approach)

Okay, so thanks for the counter-arguments. And no, it's not sarcasm, it's just that I suck at making constructive arguments.

Ah another silly thread by EN.

How about no. There's (usually) very little stopping a warrior from using bows, light armor, or daggers.

Also, how 'bout a mage who wears heavy armor and swings hammers and pointy things around?

Or a rogue who wears heavy armor and switches fluidly from bow to sword 'n board to magic as the situation calls for it?

Or a rogue who eschews any ranged ability whatsoever for concentration on stealth and indirect damage?

The main roles of each class essentially boil down to (in my eyes)

Fighter = Force (Primarily an attacking class with good offence/defence)
Wizard = Support (Can attack from afar, has a huge focus on buffing the party)
Rogue = Subterfuge (Sneak attacks, picking locks, generally being sneaky)

Three pretty distinct character archetypes there. It's more a triangle with these classes at each point, rather than a straight line with the Rogue in the middle.

Not all close combat is the same.

Rogues simply can't take hits as well as a warrior type, they're just not built for it (if the game has any semblance of balance, anyway).

Rogues are typically skill monkeys, doing a lot of different things that the other classes simply don't focus on.

You may very well try and tank as a rogue, but I can guarantee that, while you may 'dodge' 90% of attacks that come your way, your HP won't be able to take that 10% and survive.

And as for the mage part...

Using a bow isn't the same as casting spells, thinking otherwise is ridiculous. In D&D, a skilled rogue can pretend to know enough about magic to be able to use scrolls and wands, but that's where their magical talent ends.

Rogues play smart, not with brute strength.

I think you are combining rogue and ranger. A ranger uses bows and wears leathery armour statwise somewhere in between a mage's clothes and warriors platebody.

The warrior uses close combat melee, ranger uses long range bows, and mage uses both long range magic/ and short range area of effect spells, but generally with some extra penalty like a limited manapool to balance their power.

A rogue is something entirely different, while the others would all be classes you would see charging into battles with huge armies, the rogue is the guy sneaking past everyone to steal the crown jewels and poo in the King's bed while he's off fighting.

Take Lord of the Rings as the classic example. Aragorn is the Warrior:

Legolas the Ranger


And Gandalf the Mage:

And the Rogue? That would be Bilbo Baggins


He's not a fighter, he's not here to charge into the horde of baddies weapon first. He's just here for the treasure, and comes equipped with whatever there is to help him get that. Rogues operate on a different level of combat to the rest of the classes. They avoid their enemies with stealth and only strike when they have the unfair advantage. Their most important attribute is their stealth, if they can't hide and deceive an enemy then they are toast.

Now in many games you will have rogue classes fighting amongst a team with warriors, rangers, mages, etc., but even though they use melee weapons like a warrior, or sometimes a bow like a ranger, the important unique characteristic of them is their stealth. That dagger is useless unless they can stealth their way behind a unit. When an enemy wants to hit a warrior he counters it with strong armour, when they want to hit a mage or ranger they counter it by staying out of reach, a rogue has neither advantage, so they counter damage by not being hit, by never being seen, staying off the enemies radar and only then are they safe.

In short:
A warrior has lots of armour and does lots of damage, but must be in close range. A ranger does medium, consistent damage, but at long distance, out of everyone else's range, and a mage is medium/short range, large damage in short bursts, with little armour. A rogue is a stealth opportunist. Low health, close range; vulnerable, but staying hidden until they can attack unexpectedly for massive damage. They are a high risk/high reward character, and suitably separate from the others to be considered some sort of hybrid in my opinion.

Also, mages are not necessarily limited to ranged attacks. In some games they have touch and/or point blank attacks. So mages can have a mix of range/melee attacks, too. On the same note, rogues don't have a mix of ranged and melee in all games. In Everquest, rogues didn't have ranged attacks any more than warriors did. That is, both classes used melee attacks for combat and only used ranged attacks to start a fight. Furthermore, in some games, such as Dragon Age: Origins, warriors can use range attacks, as well (I know my warrior certainly used them a lot in that game). Given this variety, I don't think it can be said that rogues, as a general rule, are ranged/melee fighters while the other two are only one or the other. Depending on the game a number of possible combat roles exist for these classes.

So, no. I don't see rogues as being a mage/warrior hybrid. This becomes even more pronounced when we consider that rogues usually have powers that neither mages or warriors have such as the ability to sneak, pick locks, pick pockets, and backstab. If they were a hybrid, they wouldn't have a bunch of abilities that weren't part of, or even related to, the classes they were created from.

Oh, and as a final note, finesse in combat is not always an exclusively roguish trait. In many pen and paper RPGs (that is, the place that CRPGs and console RPGs originated from) warriors can learn a lot of abilities of these sorts. Take a look at some of the feats in Pathfinder, or to a lesser extent, in third edition D&D. In Pathfinder, Warriors (or "fighters", as the case may be), can learn a whole line of Combat Expertise feats that give them bonuses to disarming opponents, feinting, and tripping. There are also Dodge feats (to increase one's mobility and evasion) as well as the Vital Strike line of feats to increase the attacker's precision when dealing damage. All of these can be taken by anyone who meets the prerequisites, but are specifically marked as feats that Fighters can take for their bonus feats.

Also, since Lord of the Rings keep popping up, it's worth noting that Gandalf the wizard usually fights with a sword and only uses magic ranged attacks a couple of times (against the Nazgūl and, in the Hobbit, when he lights pine cones on fire and throws them).

EternalNothingness:
I suck at making constructive arguments.

I'm going to quote this as it's the truth.

I mean, I remember making a thread calling you out on never listening to anyone and not "getting" how games work mid-late 2011 and you're still doing it now!

EN, shine on you crazy diamond! You truly are one of the gems of the escapist and we love you for it. :D

image

evilneko:
Ah another silly thread by EN.

image

May as well QFT this too.

1. Wizards are not a real thing that exist but bows are. So bows are not a special case of magic.

2. Wizards being "nukers" or "glass cannons" is just one very narrow interpretation of the concept.

3. I think that you are actually talking about Rangers, not Rogues.

Rogue? What is a rogue? Thief, Bard, or Assassin? These three are so diverse within their own sub classes that any such arguement is foolish. Trust me I mostly play as a Thief and if steel is drawn something has gone very wrong indeed. Thieves are all about skills and play style.

You are probably talking CRPGs though. Computers and most game devs can't deal with Thieves, so everything devolves into combat stats and grind, tearing the heart out of the Thief class.

EternalNothingness:
As for the bow, it's a long-range weapon similar to magic.

How is a bow in ANY WAY similar to magic? They can both be used from range. That's literally the only similarity. That's like saying an ant is similar to the sun, because they're both made up of atoms.

Warrior: Physical prowess, both melee and ranged, with the use of large weapons and large bows.

Rogue: stealth and precision

Mage: magical power, physically inept and weak.

Being able to be long range doesn't make you part wizard, unless you want to say fighter is also part wizard. So would cleric. That argument is bad and you should feel bad.

I've always considered the rogue to be the most technical of the three, since the other two really just boil down to "spam steel/fire until everything dies". The stealth of a rogue adds a whole new element. Of course I'm not including tabletop games in this where you have an unlimited number of approaches, just video games.

Oh look... Eternal Nothingness made another thread detailing truths which are not actually there...

The Rouge is a class meant for stealth purposes, billed around fast and percise attacks rather than powerful bruteforce attack. Its shining comes from attacking enemies without alerting everyone until the rouge is ready to reveal themselves. They are not always hybrid melee/ranged, they usually are more melee focused (unless they fold the ranger/archer type of class into the rouge class, like in Dragon Age.)

Really, Rouges are not the class you ise to attack enemies directly. They are the class you use for sneaking around and performing recon before your warriors and mages start messing shit up.

Assassins are specialized Rouges that focused on stealth and combat, and do their best with sneaking up on the poor suspecting squshy before taking their kidneys out. What the assassin loses for that imporved combat ability is the other half of the rouges purview, mainly theiving and trap disarming (course, this may not be true now...)

To say the rouge is simply a hybrid of the warrior and mage... is just rediculous.

EternalNothingness:
1. Rogues are skilled with close-quarters combat like Warriors, except with daggers. Meanwhile, they are also skilled with long-range combat like Mages, except with bows.

2. Rogues combine the Warriors' combat capabilities and physical prowess, with the Mages' non-combat passivity and strategic intelligence.

3. Equipment-wise, Rogues are heavier than Mages, but more lightweight than Warriors.

I know because I've played a lot of RPGs, most especially games like Dot Hack and Dragon Age: Origins.

Any good counter-arguments?

For someone to be classified as a mage, they have to be able to use magic. A better example of a warrior/mage hybrid would be a paladin.

EternalNothingness:
1. Rogues are skilled with close-quarters combat like Warriors, except with daggers. Meanwhile, they are also skilled with long-range combat like Mages, except with bows.

2. Rogues combine the Warriors' combat capabilities and physical prowess, with the Mages' non-combat passivity and strategic intelligence.

3. Equipment-wise, Rogues are heavier than Mages, but more lightweight than Warriors.

I know because I've played a lot of RPGs, most especially games like Dot Hack and Dragon Age: Origins.

Any good counter-arguments?

Rogue is a smokin' hot southern redhead. That makes her better than either warriors or mages.

No, they are not a mage/warrior hybrid, they are rogues...they are their own thing.

WanderingFool:
Oh look... Eternal Nothingness made another thread detailing truths which are not actually there...

The Rouge is a class meant for stealth purposes, billed around fast and percise attacks rather than powerful bruteforce attack. Its shining comes from attacking enemies without alerting everyone until the rouge is ready to reveal themselves. They are not always hybrid melee/ranged, they usually are more melee focused (unless they fold the ranger/archer type of class into the rouge class, like in Dragon Age.)

Really, Rouges are not the class you ise to attack enemies directly. They are the class you use for sneaking around and performing recon before your warriors and mages start messing shit up.

Assassins are specialized Rouges that focused on stealth and combat, and do their best with sneaking up on the poor suspecting squshy before taking their kidneys out. What the assassin loses for that imporved combat ability is the other half of the rouges purview, mainly theiving and trap disarming (course, this may not be true now...)

To say the rouge is simply a hybrid of the warrior and mage... is just rediculous.

Especially because it's spelled R-O-G-U-E. Unless you are in fact talking about sentient makeup.

On topic, everything this guy said was right. Rogues are the guys who ideally are never seen. They are ghosts. They can slip into a castle and steal the treasure without anyone ever knowing they were there, if they're good enough. Mages can't really do that (or perhaps don't is a better word) and warriors are, well, warriors. They can sneak, but their job is to break the enemy, smash them so hard their children will be born bruised.

EternalNothingness:
1. Rogues are skilled with close-quarters combat like Warriors, except with daggers. Meanwhile, they are also skilled with long-range combat like Mages, except with bows.

2. Rogues combine the Warriors' combat capabilities and physical prowess, with the Mages' non-combat passivity and strategic intelligence.

3. Equipment-wise, Rogues are heavier than Mages, but more lightweight than Warriors.

I know because I've played a lot of RPGs, most especially games like Dot Hack and Dragon Age: Origins.

Any good counter-arguments?

Hay guuuuys.
I think that Sniper are mages. I mean, just look at it, they both attack from a distance.

I don't remember the last time I've read something that was so wrong on so many different levels.

The thing that defines a class is not what they use, but how they use it and how they solve their problems. As some people already pointed out, the warrior just goes in and takes the damage with a smile.
The mage will try to attack from afar and nuke the hell out of the enemy. But their commune thing is that they both take the enemy heads on. A mage, even tho attacking from afar won't try to hide his presence. At least not to the same level as a rogue. Mages usually have enough firepower and defensive abilities to be able to kill the target before it comes close and deals some serious damage.

But the rogue will try to avoid combat completely. He will try to take out the target before the target even realizes what is going on. Whether he uses ranged or melee attacks doesn't matter.

Odinsson:

WanderingFool:
Oh look... Eternal Nothingness made another thread detailing truths which are not actually there...

The Rouge is a class meant for stealth purposes, billed around fast and percise attacks rather than powerful bruteforce attack. Its shining comes from attacking enemies without alerting everyone until the rouge is ready to reveal themselves. They are not always hybrid melee/ranged, they usually are more melee focused (unless they fold the ranger/archer type of class into the rouge class, like in Dragon Age.)

Really, Rouges are not the class you ise to attack enemies directly. They are the class you use for sneaking around and performing recon before your warriors and mages start messing shit up.

Assassins are specialized Rouges that focused on stealth and combat, and do their best with sneaking up on the poor suspecting squshy before taking their kidneys out. What the assassin loses for that imporved combat ability is the other half of the rouges purview, mainly theiving and trap disarming (course, this may not be true now...)

To say the rouge is simply a hybrid of the warrior and mage... is just rediculous.

Especially because it's spelled R-O-G-U-E. Unless you are in fact talking about sentient makeup.

I cant fucking spell...

BeeGeenie:

When a mage sees a problem he says "Interesting. glad I brought that stupid Barbarian along to take aggro. Now what flavor of horrible death should I inflict on this monster?." (Intellectual approach)

You and I have very different definitions of intellectual haha. But in reality I do agree with your post.

I love EN threads. Never check the author until I've read a few sentences so I never expect them until I'm already part way into it and I'm never disappointed.

OT: No they are different. I view mages as more mass damage and group damage, warriors as crowd control, and rogues as single target hit-and-run.

EN, I don't think you understand (or did any research whatsoever).

Fighters are more like the Heavy, their skill is taking damage and dealing damage, mages wear little-to-no armour and are more like a mix between the Sniper or the Demoman, staying out of the front lines and getting headshots with explosives, the rouge is an entirely different class, like the Spy, sneaking behind enemy lines to backstab that one heavy/sabotage enemy sentries/steal the enemy intelligence because Scout is busy/download the flutterstare virus 1.20% onto Scout's computer to get him to stop fapping so he will steal the enemy intelligence instead.

The whole argument is flawed since while many games are using the flawed 3 type formula, they forget the the initial build is warrior, mage, rogue and cleric, the 4 of which represent the 4 armor types of mage=cloth, rogue=light, cleric=medium, and warrior =heavy.

warrior represents combat through damage soak and force, where the use of a 2 handed weapon has previously been treated as a far greater strength then dual weilding<this has shifted as people demands caused dual weilding to rise more and more to the forefront until it rivaled or surpassed two handed combat>.

Rogues represents strategic warfare, as posted earlier they are more valuable as strike and retreat combatants, either finishing off wounded enemies or causing debilitating injuries that aid the rest of the teams ability to finish the job. The rogue should never become a focus or act as a warrior in combat.

Cleric represents a combination of such, combining the combat basis of the warrior and the powers of the mage but taking opposite sides of the branches.Instead of charging in and acting as a damage dealer, the cleric instead acts as a defender, protecting the mage with mace and shield. On the mage end, the cleric both heals and buffs allies, acting as a beacon of strength for the rest of the party. The only time this role at any time merges with the mage is against undead and demons or things considered evil depending on the realm of choice.

Mage represents power, mage is more then just throwing fire balls, they use both long range spells and debuffs to aid the party, all of greater power then the other classes are capable of, however unlike the warrior the mage is limited in ability by either a resource or cast limit depending on the realm.

Theres few connections between them that have any real meaning and they are all very airtight in their purpose.

image

No. A battle-mage is a warrior/mage hybrid.

Rogues are different from both classes. As for close quarters combat rogues are quick and extremely skilled, looking for weaknesses in an enemies defences to strike a quick killing blow. And that's really only if they are forced into combat, usually they will try and get the drop on their target by ambushing them from stealth first to give themselves an advantage. Warriors usually attack with brute strength, focusing on heavy blows to beat down their opponent.

As for ranged combat, shooting a bow is not the same as casting a spell. Just because they can be deadly at range doesn't mean they are like mages, and thinking otherwise is preposterous.

EternalNothingness:

2. Rogues combine the Warriors' combat capabilities and physical prowess, with the Mages' non-combat passivity and strategic intelligence.

Who said mages have to be passive? What sort of mages do you play, healers?

Black Mages are like heavy artillery, they deal decisive blows whilst hiding from direct combat behind tanks and infantry.

3. Equipment-wise, Rogues are heavier than Mages, but more lightweight than Warriors.

I don't know, that massive staff and bags of magic equipment are pretty heavy.

I know because I've played a lot of RPGs, most especially games like Dot Hack and Dragon Age: Origins.

therefore your opinion means nothing.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here