Would hackers and trappers count as rogue subclasses if we were to expand beyond fantasy genre?
What other non-hybrid rogues aren't physically adept?
Is physical adeptness singular to rogues and warriors? If we're talking about the 4 base classes clerics, mages, rogues, warriors.
If not, is there anything that is singular to rogues and warriors and common to both?
I just want to know if being physically trained is singular to non-hybrid rogues and warriors?
Just to clarify, so the closest thing to a fundamental similarity among all warriors/rogues/rangers (not just a specific type like dexterity-oriented warrior) is physical training/adeptness? Even a pure utility thief that doesn't fight would need physical training right?
Are there any examples of pure rogue subclasses that don't need any physical training at all? All warrior subclasses probably need it as well as rangers.
Lol, thinking about it, it is kinda hard to compare between different genres. I mean, I usually think of the rogue/hunter class as the sniper. There are a lot of things to compare that one class from another genre can be similar to two different classes based on roles, combat style, utility skills, etc.
It might help if you made it clearer why you are asking this stuff.
Which games in particular do you have in mind?
Are you talking about 4e D&D i.e. the P&P TTRPG?
Are you talking more generally?
Or are you talking about computer games?
And why are you interested in asking these questions?
By no means all P&P TTRPGs use character classes.
Speaking generically, you could have a con-man class that didn't require (much) physical training.
The key thing about rogue and warrior subclasses in D&D-type games is that their abilities are wholly or primarily mundane in origin. Thus they require training, natural ability or both in mundane fields. The most prominent of these of course is physical.
However you could have an entirely social/cerebral class such as con-man, fraudster or even sage, and these would be a closer fit with the rogue than with the warrior, mage or cleric, arguably. These are not published classes that I'm referring to (or at least, if they are, I'm basing this on first principles, not on whatever may have been published for some game or other).
Yes, why would you say that trappers aren't physically adept? But anyone who specialises in either social interaction or some non-physical element of crime such as driving a getaway car or forgery, no, yes - not having magic.
Quote from: Ishida52134;614745Are there any examples of pure rogue subclasses that don't need any physical training at all? All warrior subclasses probably need it as well as rangers.
I see a Ranger as 2 parts Fighter, 1 part Rogue.
I see the Scout as 2 parts Rogue, 1 part Fighter.
Both of these require physical endurance as they are hunter/stalkers
As far as non-physical subclasses of Rogue.
The Bard: Skinny little twirp who plays a lute and woos women. He might fence a bit, ot use daggers, but no real phycicality needed, unless his instrument was the Tuba or Cello.
The Assassin: The assassin class is NOT akin to the sneaky ninja. The assassin is a quiet killer. Some examples of Assassins:
Oddjob from Goldfinger (the Chinaman with the blade in his hat) and Tom Cruise in The Collateral. None of these characters had the high stamina of a hunter or ranger.
Both bards and assassins are very roguish but neither of them require any sort of CON based physical skills.
Quote from: griffonwing;615871I see a Ranger as 2 parts Fighter, 1 part Rogue.
I see the Scout as 2 parts Rogue, 1 part Fighter.
Both of these require physical endurance as they are hunter/stalkers
As far as non-physical subclasses of Rogue.
The Bard: Skinny little twirp who plays a lute and woos women. He might fence a bit, ot use daggers, but no real phycicality needed, unless his instrument was the Tuba or Cello.
The Assassin: The assassin class is NOT akin to the sneaky ninja. The assassin is a quiet killer. Some examples of Assassins:
Oddjob from Goldfinger (the Chinaman with the blade in his hat) and Tom Cruise in The Collateral. None of these characters had the high stamina of a hunter or ranger.
Both bards and assassins are very roguish but neither of them require any sort of CON based physical skills.
alright thanks. If we were to try to find a fundamental similarity between all rogues warriors and rangers, the closest possible thing would be physical right?
Quote from: Ishida52134;616148alright thanks. If we were to try to find a fundamental similarity between all rogues warriors and rangers, the closest possible thing would be physical right?
Honestly, it would depend upon the game system.
3.5 (unsure abt 4e) would have
Fighters as STR/CON
Rangers as DEX/CON
Rogues as DEX/INT
Each class has a dump stat that low numbers can go into and not really affect class play.
HackMaster (new) would have
Fighters as STR/DEX/INT
Rangers as STR/DEX/INT
Rogues as STR/DEX/INT
In HM, all your damage is based on STR, your attack bonus is based on DEX and INT. Yes, even the fighter needs a good INT and DEX in order to know how to use his weapon. Your skills are based on how you roll your character, and bonus Building Points are given for high INT/WIS and CHA. So if you want to be great with skills, those need to be high as well.
Sometines, the great melee fighter is the Mage, with a high INT and decent DEX, he is deadly with a staff or dagger, for when the spells are gone.
--------------
So yeah. It all depends upon the game system as to what fundamental similarity there is between FGT/RNG/ROG. Some might have only two or three subsets. Fighter class, Mage class, Skill class. I dunno.