I know this has been discussed before but I had put more thought into it and I have a more fully formed thought now... A Rogue class, which would use poison and ranged non-magic attacks. They would get a base move bonus of free move. Would equip 3 rogue weapons (daggers with poison that would do damage and/or prevent healing and bows with ranged attacks) 1 robe or other weak defensive clothing, 2 rogue items (cards like snares and traps (terrain attachments low range), boots plus the racial and class skills. Class skills could include a smoke screen (similar to smoke bomb), a terrain protection (tip toe works like hover), dodge and jump back like cards, a hard to target (cannot be targeted range 2 or more), backstabber (additional damage for attacks from the back) and add poison cards etc. Would need to think about more ideas for rogue items but things like Pickpocket and cowardly stab in addition to the aforementioned terrain attachments which could slow or damage and a halt attack or 3 Clearly it would be a HUGE undertaking but it think it would be LOTS of fun and really change the game.
Yes definitely .. A quasi-new class could be made through new items much more easily.. like "vampires" for priests .. that dont have spare slots for utility .. so, new weapons that have synergy
Well, nobody would be against 4th class .. but simply you wont get one .. not in the near future at least .. there were already some suggestions about it and devs said it's not an option for now.. What we might have better odds to get is an expansion ..
Movement is based on race not on class. And yes, the Rogue class with similar skills to what you posted was being considered and worked on a while ago. But it is a long way off as they are currently working on Kong / Steam versions and co-op mode.
What you describe is more of an assassin than a rogue (thief, before PC terminology kicked in). A Paladin would be easier to make, but an assassin would be much more fun. The #1 thieving ability to include is a (poor) chance to unlock the club item while not a member if an assassin is in the party. For club members, the assassin could be mafioso (or maybe the subclass, "Teamster"), with an equal chance for improving the club item rarity by making something nicer fall off the truck. I'm pretty sure the devs won't go for this. If they do, the class would need to be fairly weak in order to compensate for the loot increase. Otherwise, what is the point of having a Rogue/Thief/Assassin? Checking for traps on the chest?
How about having a Thief in the party creating a chance that the reward chest is upgraded to the next level or contains an extra item? She finds an extra plus good item hidden under a false bottom etc.
just because something is not likely or coming soon doesnt makes it less interesting. I think we are all aware that move is based on race, but this would be an addition to the #. The term rogue is the most general term of all you referred to. The lowly Bard often gets grouped in but theif, assassin, bard or any other class using cunning or deception to defeat opponents, falls under the umbrella of the Rogue. i think of a theif for lockpicking, purse snatching and detecting trap, for an assassin i think backstabbing, poisons and agility. the bard using music to inspire or confuse or charm (which is lame if you ask me). i dont think any alterations to loot should be made if a Rogue class is added, but i do think they could offer a counter balance to many of the strengths of the other classes.
I was referring to the D&D origins. The treasure stuff was facetious. Sorry. Rogue types in RPGs (since the 70s) tend to be utilitarian and good at stealth, but poor in open combat. That doesn't mean they have to be that way in CH, but I think it's what many would expect. On the other hand, in a game where wizards can wear metal armor and priests used edged weapons, I suppose variance is the norm.
Well i didnt play D&D until the 90s (during the AD&D era). I still have my 4th 2nd edition Players Handbook, DM Guide and Monstrous compendium. Forgive me for me being cranky about the treasure stuff i was just spitballing after some had made some suggestions and i wanted to get it out of my head before i forgot it, i wasnt expecting people to just say no wont happen AND you add to that how people are obsessed with ANYTHING that might mean more treasure and well i missed the joke. I also had Dragon Age in mind as much as D&D where the Rogue has the highest damage potential even if they are a bit tougher to play. i just figured a game where position matters so much having a nimble class that masters movement would be cool. perhaps not eve for this game but for a spin-off where there is more specialization like wizards could cast both elemental and arcane spells or something. but this is still a card game first and an RPG second so there is less need for rigidness of style.
Getting extra treasure seems too meta to me. In one case, rogues would be roughly balanced vs. other classes as far as MP fights go, in which case you'd have to be stupid not to run at least one. That's make for less interesting team composition. Or, they could be deliberately weakened to compensate for their bonus treasure-granting ability. But that would open the door to a lot of at least borderline exploit-y behavior. I imagine a lot of people would happily tank their Elo by running a rogue if it meant getting more treasure. Or people would swap in a rogue when they were due for a gold or purple chest. Since victory squares in CH often represent doors you have to open, mechanisms you have to operate, treasure piles you need to root through, etc., maybe a more thematic and balanced rogue-type ability would be a trait that let them count as two characters instead of one when occupying a victory square. Since presumably rogues would want to be constantly ducking and weaving, having to camp in a predictable place might make for an interesting tradeoff, at least in MP. I'll bet you that many cards like Simian Reflexes, Cowardly Attack, Poisoned Spear Stab, Pickpocket, Hurled Dagger, etc. that are currently opponent-only were originally designed for a prospective rogue class. Ditto some cards that you can get, like Dodge and Disorienting Block. My speculation is that playtesting showed that even if they are roughly balanced against other classes, rogues are really annoying to play against and make for draggier games. Think about it: their whole deal would be having little to no armor but lots of ways to evade attacks. Their own attacks would mostly be either small, hard-to-block attacks or big attacks that require careful positioning or some other preparation to get the full effect from. Once you can chase a rogue down and corner it, game over for the rogue. The devs are a lot better at this than I am, so maybe someday we'll see them as a fourth class, but I am having a hard time thinking of a way to implement rogues that wouldn't lead to more ragequits than control wizards do.
Interesting thread! my two cents: Rogue/Thief/Assassin (the name conflict is IMO relevant only if there would be more new classes following this one.) - Low in damage, high in manipulation, meaning it only has weak weapons but can deal sufficient damage by using multipliers or stealing opponents weapons. - As weak as/weaker than wizards, but would add a lot of dodge cards and change the way they work for them. Terrain manipulation: - Traps (visible/invisible terrain modifications which trigger immediately after someone steps on them), - Agility (ability to swim, climb,...) - Camouflage (if next to terrain that cannot be crossed, adds saving rolls for armor, dodge prevents damage,...) Hidden abilities: - Invisibility (caster is invisible for x turns, any actions other than movement cancels this effect) - Damage multiplier (double damage from backstab, double damage if invisible) - Espionage (finding invisible opponents, seeing opponents hand,...) Thieving: - Sabotage (changes the effects of a card of an adjacent enemy) - Pickpocket (steals a card of an adjacent enemy) - damage multipliers such as backstab can only work with native weapons, not stolen ones! - Conspirator (stealing a star from the opponent) - perhaps too OP? If yes, then only under certain conditions, eg. opponent has more stars than you More classes=more diversity=more fun
I like a lot of these ideas, but try to think from a card point of view. Sabotage would be cool but I can't see the mechanism for it. Otherwise I think you see the potential. Again I wouldn't expect this to happen in the next year or 2, or possibly not relevant until a Card Hunter 2.0 the search for more cards.
Hi doog, all Im writing this from a purely theoretical perspective, for the fun of it. Im well aware that a huge amount of balancing and testing would be required, but we are allowed to brainstorm and let the developers develop what they will. I imagined Sabotage as marking a card (you would need to know what the opponent has in hand) that would instead of anticipated effect have a different one, eg. ''Fumble Opponent'' would make the next weapon used by the opponents character turn into Fumble. To implement invisible/stealth moves, hiding of the actions of Rogues would be necesarry, for example; ''smallbill played a hidden move'' instead of ''smallbill played a trap'', thats how the opponent wouldnt know if the card played was a trap, a sabotage or something else. To paraphrase what I wrote above; Rogues could have three primary roles in a party: - Assassin: Stealth damage - Ranger: Finding other rogues/traps, seeing opponents hand, trapping - Thief: Item manipulation (stealing etc.) Class Skill slot could act as a subclass restriction, so Rogue would not be OP. For example, if invisibility on armor items would last 1-2 turns, a trait coming from a Class Skill would extend all invisibility cards for 4 turns, making it fit for an Assassin type of character. If your rogue was Thief oriented, the most important skills like Pickpocket would also be coming from a Class Skill slot. Thats how it would be impossible to have Prolonged Invisibility And Pickpocket in a single build. ...just thinking outloud EDIT:clarification
I would like a bard. maybe something like 1 weapon slot, but slots for lots of party buffs or debuffs.
Definitely part of the inspiration, but they would need more, definitely a terrain attachment or 3 and poison.
In CH terms, I think the rogue item slot structure should roughly match wizards. 2 Rogue Weapons 4 Rogue Items Rogue Armor Boots Racial Skill Rogue Skill Whether rogues get missile weapons or poison is strictly up to the devs, of course. (Poison in open combat is heavily denounced on level 4, but text can change.) Pickpocket is already mentioned in the game text as a card for thieves, if they are ever added. Backstabbing (modeled after Cowardly Attack) seems like a given to me. Possibly with stronger versions at higher token costs to mimic the AD&D level progression. I don't know how difficult traps would be to implement, nor how well they would fit into this sort of game. Constructing a significant trap is not a thing done quickly, nor should it be very effective if the enemy is watching. Tossing caltrops, on the other hand, is quick and easy. Probably roughly equivalent to Stone Spikes. Possibly less damaging, but slowing an opponent who steps on one for a round. (Roll to save, maybe?) I think simple 'traps' like that would fit pretty well, but they should probably show up if they see you set them. (Which brings up invisibility.) Invisibility/camouflage might make a rogue impossible to target at ranges >1. Possibly an attachment discarded if an attack is made. (Again with the old AD&D standard, but it should be very easy to code.) I'd consider setting a trap to be battlefield preparation rather than an attack. This and the free move stuff that isn't already on boots would need to be included on rogue-only items. Just some thoughts.
hm, well I found this old picture. It seems like there was a rogue planned in the past but I guess it didn't work out?
