Hogscape
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by Hogscape on Jul 21, 2009 1:44:01 GMT -5
I noticed a few comments on Troll Walla about Rogues having too many of the Wizard's benefits in the latest editions of the game; potentially unbalancing the game or at least causing (some) players to ask 'why bother with wizards when rogues are so much more flexible?'
I'm not in a position to comment because I'm not familiar enough with 7e (haven't played it for yonks) and don't yet have 7.5e (but will in the next couple of months).
I'd really like to read the opinions of those who have noticed this or those that think it's not an issue. Cheers!
;D
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Jul 21, 2009 6:09:10 GMT -5
I know I'm the wrong person to answer this, but whatever. ;D
I'd imagine that the "Roguery" Talent would go some way to make the Rogue viable...except that anyone could choose that Talent. Giving the Rogue that Talent was an attempt, but, not very well thought out it seems. I mean...I guess the Talent is supposed to work a lil differently that 'regular' Talents, since the rules state that it "may be used in place of any Intelligence, Luck, or Charisma SR." Still, doesn't seem like much and could still be very easily emulated by any other character type.
My own experience (not in 7.x, though) is that folks have no incintive to be a rogue, not because they could be a wizard, but rather, that they could be a warrior or a wizard. It goes both ways.
The only time I myself have seen the rogue a viable alternative and actually even interesting at all is in your M6E. With the simple skill system and rogues gaining a bonus to skill points, it gives the the sort of 'jack-of-all-trades-ness' they should have always had. In Dark Isles too. Even the tiny leg-up they get with the +2 to their beginning Talent means something since the numbers are so small in 4th ed./Dark Isles.
I gotta stop telling you how good your stuff is. Sooner or later you're gonna start believin' it. ;D
But seriously, what I really mean is, as you've done, so should any decent GM. What would really make the rogue type interesting would be the realm of someone's good house rules. That my 2 cents for the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Aramis of Erak on Jul 21, 2009 13:14:23 GMT -5
Roguery as specified in the Rogue Type is broader than any of the broad talents. It is also worded as "... a special Roguery Talent" implying it unique to rogues.
Wording is unchanged in 7.5.
Therefore, it looks like Roguery is implied to be Rogue Only. Probably should get that to the errata list.
|
|
|
Post by hrrrothgarrr on Jul 22, 2009 11:30:06 GMT -5
If Rougery is a Rouges only Talent, and I think it is, then rouges become viable. Without it they are second class Warriors who can cast one First Level Spell. Remember the only way Rouges can learn more than that ONE starting spellis to buy them or find someone willing to teach them. Nothing says the GM has to make that easy.
Rougery really is the Talent that makes Rouges an interesting and viable type. The ability to use the Rougery Talent score for any INT, LK or CHA based SR can be quite potent. Especially as the Talent is based initially on the highest of these three attributes. A look ath the Kindred Attribute Modifiers charts shows that there is the potential in some Kin for truly wide disparity between the highest and lowest of these three attributes. A Mountain Troll is x6 for CHA and only x1 for INT and LK. A Balrukh is X5 CHA, x0.5 LK and x1 INT For the Common Kindred the disparity is less, but still enough to be worth noting. Most non-humans have a bonus multiplier for at least one of these attributes.
In my game world the Wizards' Guild(s) will only teach spells to Wizards. This is how they keep magic a monopoly and provides the basis for a Rouge Wizard class existing. Wizards who are caught teaching spells to Rouges can potentially be stripped of Guild membership (but usually are fined or sent on a quest instead). Some spells can be purchased from the various Merchants, Assassins, Thieves Guilds and from some of the Temples. So it is not impossible, just difficult, to find a teacher who is willing to teach new spells to rouges.
Also worth remembering is that Rouges do not gain the Wizard's benefits from Staffs, foci, etc, nor can they cast spells for reduced costs at higher levels the way Wizards can.
|
|
|
Post by Porkbelly on Jul 24, 2009 6:12:05 GMT -5
But seriously, what I really mean is, as you've done, so should any decent GM. What would really make the rogue type interesting would be the realm of someone's good house rules. That my 2 cents for the moment. I always had trouble trying to explain the concept of the Rogue type to players. Often the initial comparison is made with the D&D thief but clearly that is not the intention in T&T. I agree with Machfront it lies in the realm of GM house-rules to make the Rogue more interesting. Instead of a Roguery talent, mine was just to give all Rogues the innate ability to roll an extra die, drop lowest - on any roll. That's my idea of the Rogue - they are truly the cool dudes of fiction that should get much more play. Gray Mouser, Slippery Jim, the Man with No Name, Elvis... not wizards, not warriors, just naturally cool rollers through sheer moxie.
|
|
Hogscape
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by Hogscape on Jul 24, 2009 6:53:18 GMT -5
The comments on the Troll Walla are actually suggesting that it's the wizard type that is becoming redundant in the face of the lack of the restrictions facing the rogue under 7e/7.5e - Ken's response is 'just live with it'. That's fair enough because many players mod their T&T game (myself included). I was just curious to read whether anyone here had experienced similar issues but it seems the reverse is true?
|
|
|
Post by Porkbelly on Jul 24, 2009 8:06:04 GMT -5
That is interesting... Trollhalla has all the experienced players so I'm curious about the reasons for that opinion. I always figured Rogues needed more Chutzpah to be compelling - or even understood.
Looking at the 7.5 ed it seems pretty clear that Rogues can't reduce spell cost, or cast spells at higher levels. And getting hold of spells is tough (or should be). Wizards at higher levels can be seriously dangerous. Is there something I'm missing?
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Jul 24, 2009 8:49:59 GMT -5
For real. I don't get it either.
How in the world are they a more compelling choice or "more flexible" when compared to a Wizard? When you factor in those things covered by Porkbelly, if I wanted to be a spell-caster, I'd look at to the wizard type. I guess, if I couldn't really make up my mind I'd choose a btb Rogue.
What's weird is that the rogue intent and place has actually become more confusing. First, T&T had "level titles", just as old-school D&D did, and the rogues level titles certainly alluded to what we think of when we think "rogue". Then, it was suggested that they were simply "rogue wizards". But now... now with the Roguery Talent...
|
|
|
Post by Porkbelly on Jul 24, 2009 9:12:19 GMT -5
There were level titles for Rogues in early T&T? Such as? When did the "rogue wizard" allusion come into play?
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Jul 25, 2009 5:49:50 GMT -5
Yep. There were level titles for all the types. Well, the three types, as Warrior-Wizards didn't exist until 5th ed. Heck, in 4th edition wizards aren't called wizards. They're Magic-users. Adventure points were still only called Experience Points.
The level titles don't go all the way "up". That is, the levels continue, but the titles 'stop'. They are: Warrior 1- recruit 2- fighter 3- warrior 4- veteran 5- expert 6- professional 7- champion 8- hero
Magic-user 1- apprentice 2- neophyte 3- hedge-wizard 4- shaman 5- conjuror 6- enchanter 7- magician 8- warlock/witch 9- thaumaturge 10- sorcerer 11- wizard 12- necromancer
Rogue 1- drunk-roller 2- cut-purse 3- opportunist 4- con-artist 5- silver-tongued devil 6- gold-tongued devil 7- master rogue
The "rogue wizard" stuff seems to have started with 5th ed.
Also, changing character types was allowed (though "frowned upon"). Warriors could not become magic-users, but magic-users and rogues could change to whatever type they wished, but they'd lose all experience in the previous type, so it made little sense to bother with changing. However, at level 7 the rogue had to change to either warrior or magic-user. By the book at least.
|
|
Hogscape
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by Hogscape on Jul 25, 2009 10:22:18 GMT -5
'had to choose between warrior or wizard' but there are no indications of what might be meant by that.
The walla seems to suggest that rogues used to be restricted to casting TTYF at level 1 (because it's a level 1 spell) while wizards could go to town as long as they had the ST points. However (I'm not sure) that is not an issue in 7e or 7.5e which prompted one poster to say 'hey, what's the deal?'
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Jul 25, 2009 13:40:45 GMT -5
'had to choose between warrior or wizard' but there are no indications of what might be meant by that. Not sure I follow you there. As far as I know, a rogue going from 7th to 8th level would, upon turning 8th level had to be either an 5th level warrior or an 3rd level wizard, or they could continue to advance as a "wizard-warrior" (that's what it says), if they keep STR greater than IQ and have the requisite IQ and DEX for any spells. Once becoming either a wizard or a warrior, all rogue abilities (using bigger and better weapons, or spell-casting) were lost and the rogue was a warrior like any other or a wizard like any other (unless, of course, if he could 'advance' to being a W-W). The walla seems to suggest that rogues used to be restricted to casting TTYF at level 1 (because it's a level 1 spell) while wizards could go to town as long as they had the ST points. However (I'm not sure) that is not an issue in 7e or 7.5e which prompted one poster to say 'hey, what's the deal?' Not quite sure what they mean. In 5th ed., the rogue could cast spells at a higher level of power, it's just that they always had to pay the full ST cost, same in 7.x. The rogue in 7.5 is never able to cast spells at less the spells starting cost as a wizard can. So even though the rogue is level 10, if he casts TTYF at level 1, he's still paying the WIZ cost he was paying when he himself was level one. Just like 5th ed. Plus, not being able to learn spells above level seven (and I'd rule not cast above level 7th power), not able to use staffs/foci, and not able to create new spells at all are all setbacks. If someone considers it messed up that a rogue can indeed cast a TTYF at fifth level of power just like a wizard (and he could. The cost would be the same, unless the wizard had a staff of course), without considering all the other negatives to not being a full-time wizard, then those folks must only think of wizards as "TTYF Machines". Pity if that's the case.
|
|
|
Post by Aramis of Erak on Jul 25, 2009 14:52:51 GMT -5
Sorry, Machfront, not Just like 5th. In 7.X (I checked both 7.0 and 7.5), a wizard may power up his spells, but a rogue isn't a wizard. So said rogue can't whomp off a TTYF-5 for IQx5 damage.
from 7.5: Just as Wizards may cast spells for less WIZ points as they increase in character level (see 36), so too can Wizards cast their spells at a higher level of efficacy – but at a greater cost in kremm.
Now, I've always restricted rogues to not pushing spells, but allowed teaching them up-powered versions. Not in the rules that way (in 5.x, they can push; in 7.x teaching is only at base level)
|
|
|
Post by mahrundl on Jul 25, 2009 18:44:55 GMT -5
There was recent discussion on Rogues casting spells at higher than base level over at Trollhalla. From recollection, the general feeling seemed to be that a Rogue should need to be taught each different casting level as, in effect, a separate spell. Your Rogue could conceivably be able to cast TTYF at levels 1 and 3, but not at level 2. Obviously, this is only for 7th edition, since 5th allows Rogues to cast at higher levels.
Which sounds pretty much like what Aramis just said...
|
|
|
Post by Aramis of Erak on Jul 25, 2009 19:26:47 GMT -5
There was recent discussion on Rogues casting spells at higher than base level over at Trollhalla. From recollection, the general feeling seemed to be that a Rogue should need to be taught each different casting level as, in effect, a separate spell. Your Rogue could conceivably be able to cast TTYF at levels 1 and 3, but not at level 2. Obviously, this is only for 7th edition, since 5th allows Rogues to cast at higher levels. Which sounds pretty much like what Aramis just said... Yeah, it sure does... I've not been able to justify the $25 for trollhalla... yet. nice to know, however, I'm not "way off base"...
|
|