The World of Layonara
NWN Discussions and Suggestions => Development Related Topics (DRT) => Topic started by: darkstorme on June 27, 2006, 01:09:33 pm
-
Given that this was becoming an OT focus in General Discussion, I thought I'd make a post thread about it here, where it might do more good. I'm also copying the pertinent comments here:
Niles09 -- Layo has a BIG lack of traps and locks. Layo generally fullfill(sic) what I expect of a dnd universe, or roleplaying universe, except the sentence: "deep dungeons filled with monsters and deadly traps." ...
SquareKnot -- If all the rogue skills aren't useful until you either go on a quest or become 15th level and travel with a large, high level group to a formidible dungeon, then there is a balancing issue here. There is a shortage of opportunities for rogues to use their skills. Can you imagine telling a mage "You can only use magic from 3 schools unless on a quest or when you hit high level?" ... The only thing that makes a rogue special is the skills. [In rebuttal to one of Dorgonath's comments.]
Stephen Zuckerman -- In the Crypts, Rogues are useless. The whole undead not having vital areas thing. There are no traps, no locks, and nothing to Sneak Attack. They're about as useful as a Brownie Fighter with a focus in Archery. ... Seeing a small XP reward for disarming a trap would be nice, too. What good is "practice" if you're not learning anything? You get XP for killing something. You get gold for killing something. How different is that from recovering a trap and getting a little bit of XP, plus the trap?
I've included all that I feel to be reasonably pertiment and non-spurious from the original thread. A number of Niles09's posts, while well-meaning, seemed to ignore Dorganath's responses. I also feel, however, that Squareknot's analogy (http://www.layonaraonline.com/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=27110&start=63) between wizards and rogues is apt, but not in the way that it was taken. It was apparently taken as meaning that rogues ought to be as powerful as wizards - and on an open field, this just isn't true. However, what SquareKnot was implying, from my perspective, was "how would you like half of what makes your character class what it is to be made useless until you're 12th level, when you'll finally have some use for it? Even if a Rogue isn't a thief, they serve as scouts, clearing the way for the rest of the party. With that in mind, even simple areas like the Hlint crypts ought to have traps that seriously threaten those that step on them unawares, in such a way that they'd want a rogue along - in the same way that you'd want a spellcaster along for a major battle. In reality, there ought to be more traps than creatures in most crypts. Which is cheaper to put in for your basic evil wizard/tyrant/lich? Some sort of monster that requires upkeep, or a trap that will sit where it is until some hapless adventurer steps on the pressure plate/breaks the line of light/opens the door? Finally, SZ's other point, that of an XP reward for traps, would be fairly easy to retroactively implement (bit by bit, though, most likely, if they're not dyamically placed traps), but should be (obviously) significantly less than would be given for a monster of equal threat level, for the simple fact that the trap isn't trying to hit you as you disarm it. However, if the traps are sufficiently deadly to make a fighter pause, they'd probably kill a Rogue, so the risk of Spectacular Failure provides sufficient risk to justify reward on a successful disarm. Something like: // in the "On Disarm" event of the XP-granting traps void main() { object oPC = GetLastDisarmed(); if (GetIsPC(oPC) { int XPGranted = FloatToInt(GetTrapDisarmDC(this) * c / GetCharacterLevel(oPC)); // where c is some balancing constant GiveXPToCreature(oPC, XPGranted); } }
Anyway, that's my two copper pieces. Anyone else? Rebuttals? Praise? Adulation?
-
Just a random thought...
Traps everywhere would result in that fighters would have no chance at all going anywhere without a rogue, but only being a minor annoyance for clerics/bards/wizards/sorcers as they have a nifty spell called "Find Traps" that gives a nice bonus to "Disable Traps"-skill. :)
-
They needn't be everywhere, nor impossible to detect for anyone with a half-decent WIS or Search skill... but they should still actually put the fear of [insert deity of choice here] into fighters.
-
I did most certainly not ignore Dorganath, he kept mentoined there was four traps in Hlint, and I said thats just not enough, and when you moves outside Hlint it becomes worse. In respone to Halas I have indeed explored many dungeons and I have yet to experience a truly dnd dungeon. Secondly as I already mentoined traps doesnt have to be advanced mechanisms, the ratboy could easily make some snares, generally the red light goblins and the kobolds in their respective caves could do the same.
In response to Weeblie, it doesnt have to be uber deadly traps. Just something that would take some hit points. Sure it would make it more diffucult for the fighter, but when have an rogue been able to single through the same dungeons as an equally level fighter?
-
*sighs* I never said there were four traps. I said there were several places in Hlint alone, and NOT within the crypts or sewers, that have multiple traps and locks, including chests with treasure, upon which rogues may apply their trades. Let me repeat: They are NOT in caves, dungeons, crypts or sewers in or near Hlint.
Whether you feel that is "enough" or not...*shrugs* we're not going to litter the town with traps.
Similar situations exist in other towns and cities...again, not necessarily in dungeons or crypts or whatever.
I'm now officially done with saying any more on this.
-
No, he said there are four examples of traps OR locks in the Hlint area.
I actually plan to go looking for these things.
But aside from that... Let's have some more tangle traps. Put 'em right in the boss chamber... Storan's, anyone? That can have a devastating effect on a battle. Or a few more spike traps of equal DC to the dungeon. That one down in the sewers (that isn't set to reset, btw) can take a nice chunk of HP from a low-level character and totally change the outcome of the boss battle.
Besides, with the changing state of the world, you'd think more people would lock up their valuables.
I'd much prefer to see, for example, lootable houses (for those whose alignment doesn't quiver in rage at the thought) as added content, rather than, say, persuade options added to conversation trees.
-
My apologies, Niles. What I meant was that you kept away at the same point. This is greater clarification, which is good.
And I would argue that traps, on the whole, should take more hit points than they do currently - otherwise, a fighter, with HP to spare, won't even hesitate before walking into an obviously-trapped door. And I absolutely agree with your suggestions on where they could be planted in the Hlint vicinity, as well. Nice, indoor areas, where traps make sense. The crypts, perhaps less - but then we deal with the problem SZ outlined - that of the Rogue's utter uselessness down in the boneyard.
While I'm not aiming for utter dependance on rogues, at the moment, they are dispensible until high level dungeons, at least, when a) they needn't be, and b) the situation really would CALL for traps. Places like the Haven mines.. they have an Ogre Mage down there. He'd surely supervise the construction/planting of deadfalls and dart traps as part of the fortifications as the ogres dug in.
Edit -- wow, the comments are just flying in!
Tangle traps are good, especially in areas where the boss would set them up, to inconvenience those who break into his inner sanctum - but for the areas where no one is INTENDED to get in (an area, say, where the boss doesn't care whether he fights the adventurers or not), the traps should scare an adventurer's insurance guild, plain and simple. *grins*
And further consideration still....
As Dorganath suggests, littering towns with traps is ridiculous. The situation in BG and BGII was insane - normal households do not have sophisticated acid traps waiting, just in case a raving lunatic breaks into the house with the intention of taking the silver. Similarly, lootable houses ought to have a chance of homemakers being home.. in which case, if the hapless thief is spotted, he can be apprehended... there are many possibilities here. (And this is not intended as a way of heaping work on the developers - if anyone here has a definite idea, I expect to see a solid outline of how it could be easily implemented! *grins*)
-
Until the recent update from Bioware, it was not possible to "respawn" a trap without it triggering every time you step over it....which most people agree is a bad thing.
This is not something we've taken advantage of yet, but it is something we are aware of and at some point will move toward where it seems appropriate.
-
One interesting idea for future design is to make a long way and a short way through dungeons/mines/crypts. The short way would be trapped and the long way would be free of traps.
For example, towards the bottom of Haven mines there is a long snaking passage that must be run through to get deeper. A shortcut in this case with a trap would make it useful to bring a rogue along. Alternatively, the long way may involve no danger (no XP) or lots of danger (chance at death).
Even in straight hallways, there could be traps ina pattern that could be walked around (if spotted or memorized). For example, trap on left edge, then right, left, right, etc. with room to get past in a snaking pattern. You could go through safely but it would be slower than having a rogue clear the way. Perhaps there is a dangerous situation at the far end that having a safe path for retreat would be beneficial.
Another thing is to make doors unbashable but have them not reset when unlocked. Again in Haven mines there are several doors which are simply bashed down by the first that enter the area. They don't respawn. A rogue would have to be brought along the first time after server reset to unlock it. Fighters/miners would then have to decide if they risk going down to find them locked or bring a rogue along just in case. Once open then they'd stay open.
These ideas I put forth for future consideration. The class is fine now if you travel in a party, in my opinion.
-
On the issue of tanks just walking through traps, would it be possible to put in traps with more secondary effects so that it is a little more inconvenient to just walk through it? For instance, negative energy traps that drain a level or two. Sure, you can walk through it, but it will also mean a potion of restoration. Or maybe poison/disease traps would work too.
On the issue of mages having spells with similar effects, I'll say this. I played a wizard through many trapped & locked areas meant for rogues on another server by using find traps, knock, and my familiar to "tank" traps for me. It was totally cheap. I was actually a happy when I can to a dungeon that had been specifically designed for rogues. By this, I mean:
1) Knock spells only worked on about 40% of the locks there
2) The strongest traps reset themselves, so that only a successful disarm trap roll allowed you to remove it and pass through unscathed. ("Fluffkins, thank you for your sacrifice..." *strolls through*zap*dead*)
Just some things to think about.
-
Heh, in my own experience, the Knock spell is more and less useless here on Layo. Nearly all locked doors I've seen are un-knockable. :)
-
sorry but I do not recall myself saying the houses should be trapped. About the house in Hlint to loot, I havent touched it since a GM said it was banable just like a player house. Im talking about the caves around Hlint. Goblins, kobolds and all those sneaky creatures are experts in rude combat.
If you want put up teh amount of traps, fine, but dont ask for more rouges then, cause as it is now, the advantages of the other classes are far far greater.
-
But we are back to square number one again, now...
The advantages of the other classes might be greater, but a rogue is a must-have on DM quests.
My character has died 5 times on quests and 3 of them was due to traps (epic traps hurts badly!). A party without a rogue (or anyone else who can disable traps) in a dungeon full with them... Well... Heh... You can easily imagine what happens!
Rogue might not be the best class in "everyday life". But, they do really shine when you stand in the dungeons with the ultra high DC lock or 100+ damage traps. And, no, these dungeons aren't exclusively on DM quests. I know at least 3 mid-level places that you absolutely have to have a rogue to visit.
I think PenNPopper's idea of having a "long but safe route" and a "short but trapped one" is a very good idea. It would need a rebuild of the areas though, so I think that idea would better be saved for NWN2.
Edit: Oh, heh... Rogues might be weak at low levels, yes... But, that's why most people multiclass them! Fighter/Rogue anyone? The best of two worlds... ;)
-
Niles09 - 6/27/2006 2:48 PM
sorry but I do not recall myself saying the houses should be trapped. About the house in Hlint to loot, I havent touched it since a GM said it was banable just like a player house. Im talking about the caves around Hlint. Goblins, kobolds and all those sneaky creatures are experts in rude combat.
If you want put up teh amount of traps, fine, but dont ask for more rouges then, cause as it is now, the advantages of the other classes are far far greater.
i don't know what DM told you that, but Leanthar has said time and again that they are there to be lootable (granted the rewards in thoses chests is a little subpar but it's something)
-
Thanks, darkstorme. Your interpretation of my original analogy is exactly right. Thanks for putting it so much better than I did.
And I also have to say that I really like Pen N Popper's idea about the either/or routes in dungeons. You can either plough through a horde of ogres OR disarm a trap and go around. It doesn't lock your party into a "must have a rogue" situation, but it does create a "sure be nice to have a rogue right about now" situation.
Good ideas all around, really. This is turning out to be a fairly productive thread.
-
Weeblie - 6/27/2006 6:17 PM
Edit: Oh, heh... Rogues might be weak at low levels, yes... But, that's why most people multiclass them! Fighter/Rogue anyone? The best of two worlds... ;)
So you're saying "Oh, sure, Rogues are weak, but that's why you shouldn't single-class them! We're not about to change anything for those icky icky single-class rogues."
I'm not being antagonistic here, it's just that more and more, I feel almost punished for having chosed to level my character as a Rogue/Duelist. The bugs with the Duelist class have been stated to "not be worth the Team's time," according to more-or-less reliable hearsay, and, well, we all know how weak low-to-mid-level Rogues are. It's like being a Diviner. Not so useful, mechanically.
I know that Layonara was designed to be for GMed quests, but there are a lot of players who have a hard time getting to them consistently. I'm one of those. I've signed up for probably twice as many quests as I've ended up able to attend... And because of that, my character has progressed, mechanically, very very slowly. I just want to get to Duelist before the character wipe. That's all, but... I can't see that happening if my only real options are partying up with a lower-level group and going somewhere I could solo with Pyyran, or partying up with a much higher-level group and muling XP while trying desperately to be useful without getting slaughtered. As for equal-level groups... The characters at the same level as Pyyran seem to be in the same boat, with nowhere to vent thier frustrations outside of DM quests.
Are there just character types that are unfeasible on Layonara?
-
Stephen_Zuckerman - 6/27/2006 5:35 PM ...according to more-or-less reliable hearsay....
Just not sure how to respond to that.... *shakes head*
Oh...and no one is "punishing" you for choosing the Deulist class...
*sighs and walks off*
-
Stephen_Zuckerman - 6/28/2006 12:35 AM
Weeblie - 6/27/2006 6:17 PM
Edit: Oh, heh... Rogues might be weak at low levels, yes... But, that's why most people multiclass them! Fighter/Rogue anyone? The best of two worlds... ;)
So you're saying "Oh, sure, Rogues are weak, but that's why you shouldn't single-class them! We're not about to change anything for those icky icky single-class rogues."
Am I? Heh... :)
I thought I was only saying exactly what I said: What other people do right now to counter the bad sides with rogues is to multiclass.
A suggestion of what one can do to quickly "fix" it. Nothing about "you shouldn't make a pure rogue" or that "nothing will be changed" (it's not my decision whether things will change or not). I'm actually planning to make a pure rogue myself one day (as soon as I can find the time and interest to write down the submission) just because there are so few of them.
In my opinion, rogues aren't weak. They are like bards. Their strength differs from the others classes.
-
Dorg: Didn't say people were "punishing me" for it, just that it felt like it. We all know how unreliable feelings are.
Weebs: I was mainly making a tounge-in-cheek response to what I assumed to be an equally tounge-in-cheek comment about never single-classing rogues.
Still, the question really does stand as to whether some character types just aren't feasible to play in Layonara. I mean, if the general consensus is that there's no place for a swashbucklery Rogue, then I'd like to know now, so I can invest more time in a class that I can take at least to the culmination of my plans for the character.
-
I love the word 'swashbucklery'. Is it an adjective? Is it a noun? *laughs*
Regardless, Kell's pure Rogue (or one day, maybe, Rogue/Shadowdancer) because that's the way his backstory laid him out to be. He's not got any inborn gift for magic, he doesn't have his mother's voice, he doesn't trust gods... he's a rogue. It's just a pity that he's so useless in parties until those high-level dungeons come about. With suitable preparation, he can hold his own - sniping to add damage to allies' attacks, tossing explosives and choking powder to disable enemies when the party is retreating, setting traps, and whatnot, but it would be nice to serve as a scout and not as damage enhancement for once.
After all, Kell's character calls for him to be vaguely stealth-obsessed... and he's had precious little opportunity to show that. The ideal situation (which, due to a lack of time-overlap with GM-run quests, has not yet occurred) would be one in which, with enemies all in close proximity, Kell had to sneak ahead of the party to disable the traps that would make them easy pickings for the waiting adversary.
Regardless, the two-route technique is nice. Also, something like the Chesspiece Puzzle from the OC would be nice to see from time to time - something that can be avoided using intellect - or a Rogue can take it apart.
-
Swashbucklery (adv.) - Like a swashbuckler
Swashbucklery (n.) - Things percieved to be done primarily by Swashbucklers.
Anyway, I also agree with the two-route thing. It's what I do with my players in PnP.
-
Weeblie - 6/27/2006 3:07 PM
In my opinion, rogues aren't weak. They are like bards. Their strength differs from the others classes.
There you go, thats exactly how this started out. We cant use our strenghts that really differs from other classes. Not in the ordinary dungeon.
-
Niles09 - 6/28/2006 11:28 AM
Weeblie - 6/27/2006 3:07 PM
In my opinion, rogues aren't weak. They are like bards. Their strength differs from the others classes.
There you go, thats exactly how this started out. We cant use our strenghts that really differs from other classes. Not in the ordinary dungeon.
Skills are important, but well... Insane amount of damage can be used everywhere... Just put a bow in the hands of a rogue... Ugh!
-
Niles09 - 6/28/2006 11:28 AM
Weeblie - 6/27/2006 3:07 PM In my opinion, rogues aren't weak. They are like bards. Their strength differs from the others classes.
There you go, thats exactly how this started out. We cant use our strenghts that really differs from other classes. Not in the ordinary dungeon.
Niles09, Jacchri travels with a rogue quite a lot and let me tell you without her, Abi, we would many times be way worst off. To summarise, rogues scout, remove traps, sneak attack from the flanks, open doors. Now there are many places, which I wont mention here, where you cant go without a rogue. In any fight a rogue has huge value and could deal the killing blow saving a group. Exploring new areas without a rogue, who are the best scouts, is very dangerous and could well lead to deaths.
So I really dont understand where you coming from saying rogues cant use their strenghts. Rogues will not do well alone, that is a fact, but in a group whether on a quest or not, they will shine.
Rogues have a certain job to do and they are good in it. Similiar other classes have jobs to do and they are good in it.
-
Aregwen this whole topic is about there is no traps or locks. Not for us that aint lvl 15 or so.
What you say sounds just as it should be, but some of us just dont have the level.
-
The main reason rouges multiclass with fighter is to get some extra feats. Fighter 5 / Rouge 15 is an common mix. A plain Rouge wouldn't be much less weaker.. But in mosts opinion the choise between 8d6 sneak attack with 3 extra feats is better then plain rouge 10d6 sneak attack.
And Weebli is soooo right about Rouges with a bow.
Put those extra feats in Mastering a bow and you will have an archer dealing 40-50 HP in damage every arrow he shoot. This is an advantage that many seems to forget how extremly deadly rouges are with ranged weapons.
I Would say that the Arcane Archer gets his butt kicked from an rouge archer... ( sorry Jacc :P )
The rouge Class is not weaker then the others.. its just how you built the character. I bet I could build an rouge that kicks butts with most fighters ;)
-
Niles09 - 6/28/2006 1:08 PM Aregwen this whole topic is about there is no traps or locks. Not for us that aint lvl 15 or so. What you say sounds just as it should be, but some of us just dont have the level.
And I am saying what Dorganath has said many times, there are allready plenty traps and locks for all levels of rogues. You just need to find them. Perhaps we could even add more, but trust me there are plenty allready. But point taken that you want more, but before we add more, go find those there allready and count them and respond here and tell me how many you could find. But please dont disclose locations.
@Frelinder, you are 100% correct from a damage point of view regarding rogue archer vs arcane archer. But then arcane archer will hit way more often than a rogue archer. And arcane archers have other skills which I just enjoy. But that goes back to building a character that you would like to RP. There are so many alternatives it is just scary. :P
-
Right I will (away from PC until friday though), but I will still say, neither red light cave, Sielwood cave, Haven mines, the lizardmen place, have traps vs Krandor crypts and Storans which have a few. Traps should be something that is on the adventure, not something rouges look around to find, so they can dissable some traps all alone and with any reason but to dissable them.
What you said before about Abi, that would be so nice if we could have that at the lower levels. Haven mines for one, they would be so much more interesting with traps. And as said before and ogre mage surely could get a few simple traps made.
-
Yes Aragwen.. I just took you as an example to show one of the big advantages rouges have.. Hope you didn't mind ;) I'm getting tired of hearing all this complains on a class that is clearly underestimated. Rouges are DEADLY!
Example.
Build an Halfling rouge. he has + AB in ranged weapons. by the time he hit lvl 20 he can have 34 in DEX. I promise he would hit often enough with that modifier. take the feat Weapon finess and he can also be verry deadly in mele.
With the AC from the dex (+12) and the Tumble (+5) Mithrill clothing.. hehe :) and maybe a small shield he would be well protected.
Add all the skills rouges have and you got an character that would do most people envy
Now enough about rouges being weak and are only good for dissable traps in quests....
-
Frelinder we're not talking lvl 20 here, up there everything sounds gloriues sure, we're talking lvl 10 and not builds. I would like to see a 10th lvl rouge be as deadly as a 10th lvl fighter in Haven. All the fun in the rouges lies in its skills. Sneak attack in just another way of adding damage with a weapon and so not one of the things that truly makes the rouge different.
-
:) I dont mind.
And you correct one could build a very deadly rogue, likewise you could build a deadly cleric, sorcerer, fighter and every other class.
But then again you could have a very weak character as well with a great background and personallity which will be equally as fun to play.
-
Yes.. I bet i also could built the worst weakest character one ever seen.. and he/she would probably be quite fun to play hehe :)
And just because you built an strong rouge, cleric, fighter or whatever doesn't take out that he could have an great background and personality and vice versa ofcourse.. :)
but the issue here was that people thinks that rouges are weak.. and they are simply not!
And for the trap discussion I think Pen N Poppers idea sounds great for NWN2 :)
//Edit: And by the way.. Thanks Aragwen for the quest you did for Boon, Voon and the others that were there on Dragon isle some time ago.. I had a blast and i know everyone who was there thought it was great! :) Those spontanious quests are the best...
-
aragwen - 6/28/2006 1:45 AM :) I dont mind.
And you correct one could build a very deadly rogue, likewise you could build a deadly cleric, sorcerer, fighter and every other class.
But then again you could have a very weak character as well with a great background and personallity which will be equally as fun to play.
Oh yes, I do indeed like to RP Zan and have quite a fun time doing that. Though that doesnt mean that other parts of the game can be fun too.
-
I don't think anyone suggests that the Rogue class is weak - merely that it gets the short end of the stick when it comes to early levelling opportunities - I know that the handbook suggests that a concerted player can reach level 7 in a week. I put in (on average) 6 hours a week, and it's been 3 months... and Kell's still level 6. He is still at the point where he has to pester a fighter (or anyone who can temporarily distract the enemy) to come with him to mine for copper. Certainly, sneak-attack is crippling, but it'd be nice to see a Rogue get credit for what they're supposed to do - sneak past the enemy unseen and get what they're after, then slip out, perhaps killing one or two adversaries on the way.
(This is why I support Pen N Popper's idea - a trapped hallway for those whose expertise runs in that direction, with, say, one or two enemies, or a heavily guarded corridor for parties whose strength lies in.. well, strength - SZ's idea - implement the XP reward for disarming a trap, scaling by level/disarm DC - and, to a limited extent, Niles09's idea. I don't agree with salting EVERYWHERE with traps, but certainly, if there were ever a place to put low-level dungeon traps, it'd be the Red Light Caverns. Goblins are notorious for using traps, as the cowardly little beasts are disinclined to face enemies directly on the battlefield.)
-
Niles09 - 6/28/2006 7:45 AM
Frelinder we're not talking lvl 20 here, up there everything sounds gloriues sure, we're talking lvl 10 and not builds. I would like to see a 10th lvl rouge be as deadly as a 10th lvl fighter in Haven. All the fun in the rouges lies in its skills. Sneak attack in just another way of adding damage with a weapon and so not one of the things that truly makes the rouge different.
"Deadly" is a highly relative term. Let's look at a fighter and a rogue at level 10:
HUMAN FIGHTER
BAB: 10
Attacks/round: 2
Base damage (med weap.): 1d10
AB Modifiers: STR 20 (+5), +1 Weapon, +1 Weapon Finesse = +7
Damage Modifiers: STR 20 (+5), +1 Weapon, +2 Weapon Spec, +1d4 minor elemental = +8 +1d4
AC: Base 10, Iron half-plate (+8), Iron Tower Shield (+4) = 22
HALFLING ROGUE (w/ shortbow)
BAB: 7
Attacks/round: 2 (3 w/ rapid shot)
Base damage (shortbow): 1d6
AB Modifiers: DEX 20 (+5), +1 Weapon, +1 Weapon Finesse, +2 racial bonus = +9 (+7 w/ rapid shot)
Damage Modifiers: +1 Weapon, +1d4 arrow, +1d4 minor elemental, +5d6 sneak = +1 +2d4 +5d6
AC: Base 10, DEX 20 (+5), Tumble 13 (+2), +1 Leather (+3), +1 Racial = 21
====
Okay.. the fighter is getting 2 attacks per round at AB +17/+12, ignoring criticals, each attack is doing 1d10 + 8 + 1d4 damage, for 10-22 per hit, averaging 16.
The rogue archer is getting 3 sneak attacks per round with Rapid Shot, at AB +14/+9/+14 (and ignores target's positive DEX and Dodge AC modifiers). Again ignoring criticals, the rogue is doing 1d6 + 1 + 2d4 + 5d6 damage , for 9-45 per hit, averaging 27.
Clearly, in general, the rogue is more "deadly" than the fighter -- he's going to hit slightly more often, and for significantly more damage. Heck, from a defensive standpoint, the rogue's AC, despite no heavy armor or shield, is only 1 less than the fighter. But the deadliness comes at a cost -- the rogue must be able to sneak attack, which takes away most of his/her damage against certain creatures and requires some kind of "tank" to occupy the enemy the rest of the time.
Of course, there are other trade-offs. The fighter is going to have considerably higher HP, both from base HD and CON bonuses, and will have additional feats to improve either his/her offensive or defensive caapabilities (improved critical, for example, which isn't available to a rogue until level 12 [11 really, but no feat slot until 12]). The rogue is going to have much better skills, however, and with Evasion (and Improved Evasion if taken at level 10), will avoid a lot of magical damage the fighter just has to stand there and take. Plus, the rogue's ability to use magical items (if skill points are so invested), gives them alternate means of offense or defense beyond their normal class abilities.
I really don't think one is more or less balanced than the other. Clearly a rogue cannot solo, even if a fighter can. (Though with such a low will save, a fighter can be put in seriously mortal danger by just one "daze" spell -- that's a level 0 spell!) But in a party, the rogue is far deadlier than the fighter in most circumstances. And this dispartity increases at higher levels.
Edit: Corrected halfiling stats to add +1 racial AC bonus
-
The argument I put forth in support of more traps/locks/puzzles is, in part, because the current environment limits what a Rogue can be. I never said the class was underpowered - I know for a fact that a party is pleased to have a Rogue for the sheer amount of hurt they can inflict. But while Kell (my character) does not shy from combat, his background sets him up to be stealth-centric, a scout, adept at stealing/unsetting traps without killing. With the base NWN setup, this is a crippling backstory, since the only way to gain XP in a reliable way is to kill things. RP and Quest XP is a start (if Quests overlapped the time I have available to play), but it'd be nice to get some XP for what Rogues were originally intended for.
I don't mean that a Rogue should be able to solo Firesteep - or anywhere, for that matter - but that there should be a point to proceeding along a corridor Stealthed ahead of the party aside from posturing. Many times, the party I've been with has charged ahead past their "scout" - and who can blame them? Stealth makes a character slow (at least until they introduce "running stealth"), and, generally, advance information does not significantly change the battle strategy (the exception to this is in a dungeon of a sufficiently higher-level than the party, in which case, advance information can mean "oh carp. Let's run!")
It would be a delight bordering on manic glee to send Kell ahead, have him come across some lovely, deadly traps that would have decimated the party, and have them unstrung/disassembled when the party arrived, paving the way for the spellhurlers and swordswingers to take apart the more mobile parts of the dungeon. I understand that this may be the case in higher-level dungeons - but I certainly haven't seen it yet.
(As an addendum, thank you everyone who doesn't convert my class of choice into facial makeup.)
-
Niles09 - 6/28/2006 6:30 AM Right I will (away from PC until friday though), but I will still say, neither red light cave, Sielwood cave, Haven mines, the lizardmen place, have traps vs Krandor crypts and Storans which have a few. Traps should be something that is on the adventure, not something rouges look around to find, so they can dissable some traps all alone and with any reason but to dissable them.
I told myself I was not going to comment further, but I'm finding it very, very difficult. *sighs*
We all know that there are no traps in those places. There are also no traps in the High Forest, in the Fort Hope Outskirts, and countless other places around Layonara. And the reason is quite simple....
We can't build Layonara just for rogues. All the places you listed are visited HEAVILY due to low-level quests and CNR primarily. And let me repeat something I said above:
Until the recent Bioware update, it was not feasible to respawn traps without making them infinitely retriggerable. In case you do not fully realize what I am saying here, it means that even if we had traps in these heavily-visited areas, the first person to disarm or trigger them would effectively remove them, and you likely would not see them anyway.
Lastly...the notion that traps should be "part of the adventure" and the notion that rogues can "dissable some traps all alone and with any reason but to dissable them" seem to me to be saying two different things.
If you want to just disable traps for the sake of disabling them, then there are places to do that right now....and there's a small token of treasure waiting for your troubles. If you want traps to be part of the adventure, well, they're there too, but remember that the adventure is for everyone. Traps most likely will not be in the heavily-visited areas simply because we want everyone to be able to have fun, with or without a rogue.
And hopefully to put this particular complaint to rest, as we move forward and as we transition to NWN2, we will be taking a look at EVERYTHING. And I'll say this: we have a system for respawning traps almost ready to go. Your complaint and request have been noted, and with all such requests it will be considered, but you must have patience and you must understand that we cannot simply just indulge the whims of every player, class or whatever. We have to approach things from a world perspective and establish things that work as a whole.
-
The funny part is... the fighters at my lvl usually deal the same amount of damage as this rouge you show. That is my in game experience. Secondly how do you think a rouge would be able to solo any place? Sure the first attack would be deadly, but after that the rest of whatever monsters is there would make short work of the rouge.
Besides as I said before, sneak attack is not what makes rouge special its just a damage modifier.
Anyway Im totally with darkstorm's sugestion.
-
Dorganath - 6/28/2006 3:05 AM Niles09 - 6/28/2006 6:30 AM Right I will (away from PC until friday though), but I will still say, neither red light cave, Sielwood cave, Haven mines, the lizardmen place, have traps vs Krandor crypts and Storans which have a few. Traps should be something that is on the adventure, not something rouges look around to find, so they can dissable some traps all alone and with any reason but to dissable them.
I told myself I was not going to comment further, but I'm finding it very, very difficult. *sighs*
We all know that there are no traps in those places. There are also no traps in the High Forest, in the Fort Hope Outskirts, and countless other places around Layonara. And the reason is quite simple....
We can't build Layonara just for rogues. All the places you listed are visited HEAVILY due to low-level quests and CNR primarily. And let me repeat something I said above:
Until the recent Bioware update, it was not feasible to respawn traps without making them infinitely retriggerable. In case you do not fully realize what I am saying here, it means that even if we had traps in these heavily-visited areas, the first person to disarm or trigger them would effectively remove them, and you likely would not see them anyway.
Lastly...the notion that traps should be "part of the adventure" and the notion that rogues can "dissable some traps all alone and with any reason but to dissable them" seem to me to be saying two different things.
If you want to just disable traps for the sake of disabling them, then there are places to do that right now....and there's a small token of treasure waiting for your troubles. If you want traps to be part of the adventure, well, they're there too, but remember that the adventure is for everyone. Traps most likely will not be in the heavily-visited areas simply because we want everyone to be able to have fun, with or without a rogue.
And hopefully to put this particular complaint to rest, as we move forward and as we transition to NWN2, we will be taking a look at EVERYTHING. And I'll say this: we have a system for respawning traps almost ready to go. Your complaint and request have been noted, and with all such requests it will be considered, but you must have patience and you must understand that we cannot simply just indulge the whims of every player, class or whatever. We have to approach things from a world perspective and establish things that work as a whole.
Right then. Didnt know exactly what you meant about the bioware update before... Anyway my suggestion with traps was simply: not to make deadly traps in well traveled areas, but just some that would take a few hit points, as Ive stated before fighters have lots of hit points, so if they dont have a rouge they would be a bit weaker sure, but if a rouge dont have a fighter he is usually dead. About the transition to NWN2 I think you should take a look at the possibilities darkstorm sugested. I will leave it at that then.
-
Well, the Bioware update was something people have been clamouring for since 1.65. And Niles, as well-meaning as I'm sure it is, putting traps that take a few hitpoints in well-travelled areas would be highly detrimental to, say, mages. Low hitpoints, low reflex save... fighters would shrug it off, but you'd be screwing over another class, and that's simply not fair.
While there were solutions to the "infinitely respawning/triggering trap" problem before (usually scripting), I can understand that this would be non-scaling or cause server lag, and thus be discounted. I appreciate that respawning traps are being engineered now. My argument, as before, has little to do with disabling traps for their own sake, but disabling traps to - as the chicken did - get to the other side.
(And as clarification, Dorganath, I really am not trying to be a fly in the development team's collective ointment, and I do appreciate you taking the time to post to this thread.)
-
Well, two give my two cents in this, playing a lvl 20 mage.
Daeron can with the use of find traps disable most traps that are not considered epic. And well to be fair all the important ones are with de certain DC that even if you have a high enough diable trap skill you will have to be a rogue to disable them.
Next to this there is the open lock skill, a skill which is very rare in Layo. Also something a rogue could deal with in minutes, while a whole party of mages, sorcerors, paladins and clerics would simply not be able to get past the door.
When you get to area's with that really high DC's it is usually the rogues disabling the traps with the aid of wizards using magic to improve their abilities.
If a party decides to go for some dungeoncrawling it is just stupid to not have a rogue along. I'll admit that this doesn't have to be a pure class rogue, but they're needed nevertheless.
And to be fair, the rogues's skill goes beyond just searching for and disabling traps. They're valuable scouts and next to this they can be pretty effective in battle if they're used correctly.
-
Again, this doesn't address the problem that we low-level rogues perceive. We know that there is ample opportunity in high-level dungeons for rogues to shine. It just takes a long time to finally wind up somewhere where we're valuable as more than damage enhancement - and this can hamper RP as well as Character Development.
-
There are lots of things in NWN that limit your RP in terms of whats acctually possible IG.
Wizards can't scry, you can't play a sailor (that acctually sails anywhere), there arent commoners and nobles walking around town for rogues to pickpocket or for bards to finagle out of their money.
these are just a few examples beause I think they will be enough to communicate the point.
There are lots of characters that have very successfully RPed any and all of the above examples and more, -despite- the fact that they can never do them in the game mechanics outside a GMed quest.
Don't let what you can physically do in the game mechanics touch your RP. Just know that you have to work at RPing something that isn't technically possible a bit harder.
ex. I remember a character that constantly hung about in the trees in hlint or on the roof's of buildings and would jump between them (because he was a crazy tiefling.. or monkeyling or something.) None of this is possible in NWN, yet he did it anyway and it was very colorful RP.
----
I will support the assertion that there ARE INDEED more traps and locks in the game outside of GMed quests than seems to be the widely held perception at this time.
Send me a tell IG (since this is obviously an ooc query, your character most likely isn't intentionally trying to seek out the dungeon filled with the most deadly traps with intention to make a beeline for it.. er, but if your character is, feel free to ask my characters IC hehe) and I'll clue you in to some west server dungeons with traps. Some of which REQUIRE a rogue. And... I'm not going to say storan's because everyone already knows that one.
----
Oh and building a good dungeon with traps and such takes time. It hasn't been that long since 1.67 came out and made it fesible (I personally thought most of the respawnable trap systems previously weren't really worth using.) I AM building at least one dungeon that will involve your every fantasy that spawned this thread. However, it is on hold at the moment as my time is occupied with another project this summer along with RL.
As for trap/lock xp: I doubt we will implement this. It surely has no place in NWN as traps and locks are currently implemented.
#1 criteria for gaining xp - how much of a "challenge" something was.
Well, whats a challenge? A challenge is measured by the chance of failure AND the consequences of failure. In NWN traps and locks there is absolutely no consequence for failing to disarm them.
I personally would like to rewrite the whole trap system (including take 20s and theives tools, introducing a consequence for failure) but I haven't and likely won't have time to write it before NWN2 even less get it in Layo before then.
-
darkstorme - 6/28/2006 10:38 AM
Again, this doesn't address the problem that we low-level rogues perceive. We know that there is ample opportunity in high-level dungeons for rogues to shine. It just takes a long time to finally wind up somewhere where we're valuable as more than damage enhancement - and this can hamper RP as well as Character Development.
Should there be more chances for Rogues to use their skills? In theory, yes, however in the case of NWN (and by extension, Layonara), this becomes more exaggerated not only by the limits of the class progressions, but by the mechanics of the game engine -- the ability to reset traps and locks, for example.
Besides, even at low levels, there's a Rogue class skill that can be used, although I don't see it used often -- SET Trap. Combined with a typical Rogue's stealth capabilities, Set Trap can help the party ambush the critters, rather than vice-versa. Of course, you'd either have to clean up your unsprung traps or there'd be some nasty surprises waiting for the next group, but then that plays into your desire for more traps for Rogues to deal with anyway. :)
-
Faldred - 6/29/2006 4:35 AM
darkstorme - 6/28/2006 10:38 AM
Again, this doesn't address the problem that we low-level rogues perceive. We know that there is ample opportunity in high-level dungeons for rogues to shine. It just takes a long time to finally wind up somewhere where we're valuable as more than damage enhancement - and this can hamper RP as well as Character Development.
Should there be more chances for Rogues to use their skills? In theory, yes, however in the case of NWN (and by extension, Layonara), this becomes more exaggerated not only by the limits of the class progressions, but by the mechanics of the game engine -- the ability to reset traps and locks, for example.
Besides, even at low levels, there's a Rogue class skill that can be used, although I don't see it used often -- SET Trap. Combined with a typical Rogue's stealth capabilities, Set Trap can help the party ambush the critters, rather than vice-versa. Of course, you'd either have to clean up your unsprung traps or there'd be some nasty surprises waiting for the next group, but then that plays into your desire for more traps for Rogues to deal with anyway. :)
the main reasons set trap is hardly used is actually 2 fold, first off, with the exception of a few places there are few strong traps aquiring to use, and the trap crafting currently requires a slightly rediculous amount of ingots (which most rogues can't mine due to lack of STR and weapon feat)
the other reason most don't use it is because using the set traps skill takes the character out of hiding after the trap is set, and one of the last places the rogue wants to be is at the front of the group with all the baddies targeting him when they start their rush
-
Thunder Pants - 6/29/2006 10:44 AM
the other reason most don't use it is because using the set traps skill takes the character out of hiding after the trap is set, and one of the last places the rogue wants to be is at the front of the group with all the baddies targeting him when they start their rush
No one said life is without risk. 8)
Seriously, though, is it realistic to sneak right into the midst of a group, set a trap, and then slip away without them noticing? A more realistic tactic would be you scout... see baddies up ahead... backtrack... lay your trap(s)... and then go back (or send someone a little more durable to go back) to draw the critters into the ambush.
As for trap crafting, that goes into CNR discussion -- if the availabilty of traps is really what's keeping people from using them, rather than playing style, then changes can be requested to make traps easier to obtain -- either via stores, CNR recipe changes, or drop frequency changes.
Also, the availability issue should encourage Rogues to try recovering, rather than disarming traps when found, which would mean that they would want to go on trips to the few places where traps are available, just to fill up on inventory, making finding a Rogue to do, say Storan's, much easier for everyone else.
-
Talan Va'lash - In NWN traps and locks there is absolutely no consequence for failing to disarm them.
There is, in fact, a consequence to failure in disarming a trap. Locks, no, but I didn't recommend an XP reward be attached to lock successes. If a disarm (or Recover) attempt on a trap misses the DC by more than 10, it's a Spectacular Failure, and the trap triggers immediately. (I'm looking into making it happen with a 5-point miss, to make it a bit more of a dicey proposition, but the threat remains.) This is part of the DnD 3.0 ruleset - think of it as the Rogue's hand slipping, and falling across the tripwire he was about to loose the tension from.
Granted, as I said in an earlier post, this does not equate with the threat inherent to facing down an orc. But if it's a sufficiently deadly trap, the rogue is still putting his life (or health) on the line in the disarm attempt - and the experience thus gained is surely greater than that acquired through baking bread or fishing with rod and tackle. In my equation at the beginning of this thread, I would expect c to be low - no more than 2, certainly - and probably the term could be removed altogether. The key is that even were a novice thief to spend all his time disarming traps a mentor set as practice, this would leave him better able to find things in the field. So, respectfully, there IS suitable "challenge" in disarming traps to make it worthy of an XP reward. I've implemented this system retroactively in my in-progress module (currently at 112 areas), and I feel it will make the much-overlooked Rogue slightly more popular, as well as making more sense.
Your RP comment is appreciated, but misplaced. I was not saying that my character could not sneak around all he wanted. I was saying that game mechanics force my character to take a role on the frontlines of combat, flanking and using sneak attack extensively. An alternate, trapped route would negate the need for substantial combat participation, and my character would not have to be involved in things that he would be uncomfortable doing. (Direct combat. He has no objection to meteing out justice to those that deserve it, but striking from darkness against one adversary at a time is different than doing fighter support.) So while Kell can be as stealthy as he likes, he would not be much appreciated on quests if he didn't wade in with the rest.
Now, granted, you can't be a sailor who sails, or a scrying wizard (though I've seen limited implementations of both - the latter, far more successfully), but these are not intrinsic to the character class (again, the latter is more intrinsic than the former). There is no Seafaring skill (despite its prescence in the PHB), nor any of the "expert" skills that would lend themselves to seafaring, so it would be a custom class, surely. Similarly, the lack of scrying is what takes all the teeth out of being a Diviner in NWN. But the Rogue class is built with the ability to disarm traps (as are all the classes, if they're willing to invest some points in cross-classing), because traps are an established part of dungeon-delving (particularly by whip-bearing archaeologists). I would argue that the comparison of a lack of opportunity to use a skill with the lack of opportunity to use a nonexistent skill or spell is fractious, at best. All can be equally RPed, this is true, but when dungeon-delving in a party, individuals will look askance at the rogue who sneaks ahead and claims to have cleared the path of nonexistent traps or deadfalls.
In addition (not to belabour the point), the argument was not that there do not exist dungeons that require a Rogue's assistance - merely that for the first 10 levels of a Rogue's life, there are precious few that the Rogue is likely to survive, particularly given our sparse HD. Too many times I've gone into fairly mundane dungeons with a party, quite successfully... and my character and a mage short on spells would be the ones to face the Soul Mother, because one successful hit was enough to finish us, and respawns/lures occured such that our characters were IoI, rather than the fighters/barbarians/anyone who can take a hit and roll with it. Now, if the threat were primarily traps, and then the Rogue could safely hang back and pick ranged targets while the fighter and spell-hurling types deal with all that is big and goes "Thwack*crunch*" in the night, then a Rogue could feel truly useful, rather than particularly vulnerable. Regardless, it's the low-level types that suffer - as has been abundantly (and unarguably) made clear, high-level Rogues are in hog's heaven. *grins*
Faldred - setting traps is one of my favourite techniques when mining for copper - that way, if I must be disturbed, I get to watch some hapless critter get zapped while I put away my pick. ;) Edit: posts come in surges, it seems. Laying traps in ambush is definitely the way to go. As you aptly pointed out, it'd be unrealistic to set a trap in the midst of a group of enemies.
-
Why did interest die in this topic? I rather like the idea of having a few more traps around Layo.
-
I'm pretty sure when Dorg said 'Wait until NWN 2, we're working on it.', is when everyone backed away on the subject.
-
Heh....well that's kinda two answers there.
First, respawning traps takes a slightly different system than what is used for the doors and chests that was added a few months ago. So on that one, it's planned, so just hang tight.
On "wait until NWN2"....we actually do not know if the functions that support respawning traps will be in for the initial release of NWN2. We also cannot really even speculate on what we can/can't do until the game is released.
-
Cool... *Grins.* Every time I wonder about an idea, I hear "it's in the works," and a little while later, BAM, it's ingame.
You guys rock.