Magic RPG - Knight, Rogue, and Scout

[Almaz]

I figured I'd fork the discussion because we're bogging down in 1) adding new classes, resulting in feature creep, and 2) talking about warriors and wizards at the same time. So, let's focus a bit on this list of 15(!) classes and hash it out a bit. You're all welcome to talk about the other 25 classes on our agenda in another thread.

Here is our list of classes. I have intensively truncated the existing table with names and alternate names, because frankly, the discussion has trended towards nitpicking and, well, we need to start talking about what they actually do and not just what names are best. So I essentially chose some names, with a note of alternates where I felt it important. I cannot (would not!) forbid discussion of them here, but I ask you to consider carefully the discussion of names versus the actual content of the classes at hand! We need to start hashing out the class features a bit, and I would ask that if you propose a name, that you discuss how it might (or might not) affect the class features.

Class	White	Blue	Black	Red	Green
Knight	Paladin	Hussar	Scourge, (Blackguard)	Dragoon	Warden, (Beastrider), (Steward)
Rogue	Duelist, (Herald)	Spy	Assassin	Vandal, (Bandit)	Bard
Scout	Vanguard	Explorer	Blackguard, (Trailblazer)	Raider	Ranger

Some statements based on the principle I just said!

Knight: You have courtly weapons, courtly armor, and a courtly horse (at least 3 out of 5 times - dragoon, hussar, and warden). Expect mounted combat rules to be important for modeling these guys - lots of knights have some kind of "first strike because cavalry charge with a lance" attribute on their sheet. Dragoons and paladins are explicitly heavily armored, but hussars less so. Maybe that's because they focus more on mobility than their kindred knights do? Who knows! All of them also seem to imply command of some sort of authority and respect - the Scourge is the only exception, and they can be presumed to rely on intimidation.

Rogues: Duelist and Assassin and Vandal! Our rogues are incredibly "fighty" it seems. This rather fits with the fiction - they have to go stab god-wizards in the face and run off with their skin still on them, for crying out loud. So, we're looking at a class (well, set of classes) which is much more violent than the humble Thief of AD&D origins, and in fact predicated more on stabbing people in the face than the D&D rogue ever was. In other words, more like actual play. We can skip most of the "disabling traps" effects and run straight to "ways to more quickly kill opponents after sneaking up on them." Expect our rogues to have premiere access to Critical Stabs, poisonmaking, and the like. Our Bard is probably also going to lean towards the "melee combatant with support effects" end of the scale rather than be quite as much "dude who can song-magic things to death." We'll see. In any case, the MtG rogue seems like they are going into battle with real swords most of the time, not just daggers, though knife fighting is always fun.

Scouts: A lot of the Scout types have "guy who goes in front and checks things out" as a name. This is fitting since the class means exactly that. As a result, Blackguard and Raider in particular are almost odd men out. Of course, with both Explorer and Trailblazer, we might be hard pressed to distinguish between them. So no complaints here. Nonetheless, the implication is "swift and sneaky and highly alert" here, but not just finding things that already exist (but are concealed), but also potentially finding things that don't exist yet such as the literal act of blazing a trail, but also foraging to make a shelter or camp, or even just game narrative effects that "create" weak points by saying you found one. Some thoughts. And, of course, movement bonuses.

[Almaz]

Quotes from last thread about Knights.

On defense versus offense, and Knight abilities:

Why would a Knight be a Defensive specialist? Being a Knight means roughly speaking three things:

• You have access to the Knight Skills. For example: Ride and Diplomacy are on your list.
• You have access to the Knight Proficiencies. For example: you can use Heavy Armor and Martial Weapons.
• You have the Knight resource management system, allowing you to pay mana for instantaneous effects or to invest it into one or more of your Auras, with the mana (and the choice of how to spend it) resetting each turn.

Within that context, the Dragoon is probably an Offense specialist, having auras like Fire Breath that they can use to boost their damage output and instantaneous effects like Double Strike to boost their damage output in a slightly different way. Meanwhile, the Paladin is of course a Defense specialist, having instantenous effects like Lay on Hands and auras like Holy Armor and Ward. And the Warden is in between, having mostly instants and auras that boost and control their pet monster. The Hussar and Blackguard are probably skewed somewhat towards Defense and Offense respectively.

-Username17

On color specialization:

Yes, the Paladin should have some "anti-Black" abilities available, but they shouldn't be the same as the Dragoon's "anti-Blue" abilities. The Dragoon should have stuff that is annoying to Blue and White playstyles in general (Speed Strikes that are uncounterable, Doom Strikes that deal unhealable damage, and so on). But the Dragoon should also have stuff that is specifically anti-White and anti-Blue, but it should still be in terms of setting shit on fire rather than making an anti-Blue ward.

-Username17

On out of combat stuff:

Also remember that you're going to have access to skills, backgrounds, and non-combat rituals based on color in addition to class. So while the Dragoon (Red Knight), Paladin (White Knight), and Blackguard (Black Knight) all have access to the Knight's colorless list and they all have access to Knight secondary skills like Ride, the Blackguard can learn Dark Rituals and the White Knight can learn to make Healing Salve. This over and above the fact that the Blackguard's auras are things like Clinging Darkness and Cloak of Confusion, while the Paladin's are things like Blessing and Ward.k

For starters, there's the Knight Base Class mechanic we were talking about earlier: where the player has a certain amount of mana to spend on their action each turn and leftover mana can power one or more of their auras. A character who multiclassed into Paladin (White Knight) and Dragoon (Red Knight) would have a pile of specifically Red and White mana to play with each turn. So they could spend all their White mana on a Blaze of Glory and have their Red mana invested in their Firebreathing aura. Or they could spend their Red mana on a Shattering Blow and have their leftover White mana power their Circle of Protection aura. They gain access to a longer list of selectable abilities, but they are more restricted in what they can activate. The Paladin/Dragoon could not default to a basic strike to turtle by pumping all of their mana into their Circle of Protection - because a portion of their mana is Red and can't be used for that.

[Almaz]

Quotes about Rogues.

About color of abilities:

Now from my perspective, Fear and Invisibility effects should probably be in the mono-color pile, just because the original spells that granted those abilities required only colored mana. But that's an aesthetic choice. Similarly, Extortion abilities should probably show up on the half-colored sublist, because a lot of multicolored or multi-color friendly Rogues seem to do stuff like that.

-Username17

Both Knights and Rogues:

Class	Resource Management
Knight	Mana fuels activated and sustained abilities and replenishes each turn
Rogue	At-will abilities which need triggers

More on their ability mechanic:

But for the characters who don't do round by round mana accounting, there are still options. The simplest system is to simply give players "mana limits" for buying their abilities. Our prospective Black/Blue Rogue is then able to qualify for abilities off the Rogue list that they can get with UB. So they can get Black Rogue abilities that require 1B, or Blue Rogue abilities that require 1U, but not Rogue abilities that require BB or UU. So the character picks up an extra list to choose off of only by shortening the list he already had.

[Almaz]

Quotes from the main about Scouts.

Also featuring, some general stuff about noncombat skills:

And just as there are multiple different resource schemes going to be in play, there will also be multiple lists to select from. The Priest is different out of combat from the Paladin because he gets to choose from the White list and the Cleric list, while the Paladin gets to choose from the White list and the Knight list.

And of course, there are going to be skills of ambiguous combat/noncombat utility. At least, there had fucking better be. Hiding, riding, and climbing all have clear utility in exploration and scouting, but there are scenarios in which having them is a useful thing during a combat as well. Likely therefore, there will be several lists to choose things off of (for example: skills, rituals, and feats), with sublists within those being opened up by both color and base class. Every Knight gets access to Ride, every White character gets access to Heal, that sort of thing.

Clearly there's room for overlapping skills: All Green characters and Scouts of all colors probably should have access to tracking technology. If you were so determined, you could arrange it so that skill associations from each color were evenly distributed within each base class - so the fact that Heal was on both the White list and the Cleric list wouldn't be any more of a strain on Priests any more than the fact that Planar Knowledge is on both the Cleric list and the Blue list is a strain on Blue Clerics.

-Username17

[zugschef]

Good idea to start this thread. Thank you.

All right, as for the Red Rogue, I'd not go with the Vandal because they're really only about destroying artifacts (also, they were actually a german tribe who conquered rome and it's a shitty role to play, too). I still like the Bandit because there are several in the game (most of them Rogues) and because it makes for a far better role: Robin Hood and Zorro are Bandits, but so is Burt Reynolds. RedRob had the issue with the Bandit being synonym to the Raider, but I honestly don't think that the word bandit overlaps with the word raider. Bandits are brigands, highwaymen, outlaws and scoundrels. A raid on the other hand, is actually a surprise attack by the military and what I take from that is that a Raider is more heavily armed than a Bandit and hasn't got that opportunistic, shrewd, canny style.

The White Rogue is kind of the real problem. Duelist is an uninspired, shallow and boring class name and Heralds in Magic are rather casting types than what the meaning of the word actually implies. Skulk doesn't work as a class name, like at all, but Dodger actually doesn't sound as bad anymore as I've originally thought.

[Gnorman]

How about Agent? It seems defensive and implies some kind of order or hierarchy. The only problem is it doesn't have any card support - the few agents there are tend to be blue or black.

Monk might even work, though that might put it at cross-purposes with the cleric class.

[OgreBattle]

Agent is a good name

S.H.I.E.L.D. does white colored roguish stuff. James Bond is a 'secret Agent'

[Almaz]

For reference, here are some of our extant white Rogues. While going beyond this source material is totally acceptable (our Rogue class is not always the same as the Magic keyword Rogue), it might be useful to remember.

Dodgers and Skulks are our only monocolor white rogues. They both have an effect where they find it easy to evade or otherwise ignore high-Power creatures. So some obvious "stealth based on size factor" modifiers are coming in here, but also potentially an effect which makes it easier to evade the notice of powerful beings by looking more insignificant and helpless? I don't know.

Note however that other Kithkin also hate big enemies so it might just be a race thing!

Less monocolored rogues are profiteers and faeries with miscellaneous "lookit me, I'm clever" effects that lockdown the enemy.

Our others are duelists and euphemistically named assassins who have a common theme of "avoiding shit we don't like" and "being slightly stronger on the cheap" (via first strike or damage ups). In short, they have Evasion, just like a D&D Rogue. Except better. And they hit harder when they have someone to flank with, just like a D&D Rogue. No mention of trapfinding yet, though.

Another thing is that we still don't have any idea what the resource mechanic for scouts will be. We know that Rogues have always-on (but triggered?) abilities. Knights have essentia mana they move around. How will Scouts be different?

[RadiantPhoenix]

If we're not making a soldier class, then we can maybe absorb the various white police officer type characters into rogues.

[sabs]

I'm not sure I like Bard for the Green Rogue. It totally fits in the Celtic definition of Bard. So that's a plus for it, but in the common parlance of Modern Fantasy.. if you have a bard who is mostly about stabbing things in the face, instead of singing things to death with song magic.. people are probably going to be a bit put out. D&D and Everquest have done a solid job pinholing expectations for what a Bard looks like.

Why not go for Trapper? The Green rogue could be all about trap making, trap building, using the terrain and the environment to create a mindfield of lose for the enemy?

[Sigil]

If we're not making a soldier class, then we can maybe absorb the various white police officer type characters into rogues.

The intent, in theory, is to eventually supplement the 5 starting classes with more, so we should avoid names we want to use for the soldier later, since the soldier is such a major part of MTG and we'll obviously want it at some point.

[Midnight_v]

nevermind

[zugschef]

How about Agent? It seems defensive and implies some kind of order or hierarchy. The only problem is it doesn't have any card support - the few agents there are tend to be blue or black.

Monk might even work, though that might put it at cross-purposes with the cleric class.

The problem with Agent is that they're mostly blue and that the only white Agent is an Advisor. Secret Agent is also extremely similar to Spy which would make it really hard to write different abilities.

I'm not sure I like Bard for the Green Rogue. It totally fits in the Celtic definition of Bard. So that's a plus for it, but in the common parlance of Modern Fantasy.. if you have a bard who is mostly about stabbing things in the face, instead of singing things to death with song magic.. people are probably going to be a bit put out.

You do know who the original Bard is, do you? And in Magic Trappers are Warriors and are not really associated with Green.

[Almaz]

As Sigil said, but let's keep in mind there are already several non-Rogue Duelists. Pretty much any White Rogue name we're going to choose is going to overlap with some other class or color, except maybe Dodger. We're just on bit a shortage of White Rogue names. If we want to go with a canon one, we're limited to Dodger, Skulk, Profiteer, "Hushblade" and Duelist. Unless we want to bring in the "Un"-sets, which give us the choice of Emcee.

As for Agent, it works, though the existing White agent is a Gold Advisor. But other Agents of other colors are in fact Rogues.

This is all why I selected Duelist. It may not be the best name, but it's fairly Rogue-y, has additional card-currency, and doesn't overlap with Spy in any meaningful way, while also being identifiably something a White character might be.

[zugschef]

This is all why I selected Duelist. It may not be the best name, but it's fairly Rogue-y, has additional card-currency, and doesn't overlap with Spy in any meaningful way, while also being identifiably something a White character might be.

This was my thought, too, but what do you have against Dodger? Dodger has an out of combat meaning. But ok, Duelists are mostly swashbuckling types and these actually make for a pretty good Rogue. Sadly, there are no Swashbucklers in Magic. *sigh*

[Almaz]

This is all why I selected Duelist. It may not be the best name, but it's fairly Rogue-y, has additional card-currency, and doesn't overlap with Spy in any meaningful way, while also being identifiably something a White character might be.

This was my thought, too, but what do you have against Dodger? Dodger has an out of combat meaning. But ok, Duelists are mostly swashbuckling types and these actually make for a pretty good Rogue. Sadly, there are no Swashbucklers in Magic. *sigh*

Because very few people have read Oliver Twist, the rest of the people who will play this probably know them as a Sports team, and anyone who thinks about it will conclude that "dodgers" are people who have the ability to avoid things, quite reasonably. I am generally opposed to defining a class by what doesn't happen to it (getting hit or saddled with responsibilities) as opposed to what it can do.

[Maxus]

When someone says "Duelist", I always picture someone who specializes in fighting other armed humanoid opponents.

[Almaz]

The main strength of the Duelist is that unlike more generic terms (say, Fighter), we have the notions both real and fictional of a dueling culture where these people exist as real things that are specific in nature and have a place of sorts in society. However, almost always, the most florid dueling cultures were perpetuated in places where dueling was outlawed. Our white Rogue accordingly is some kind of pistolero or rapier-swinger in a place where that might not be acceptable. And we have an idea where he can make trick attacks and stab people in the face, and he has both charm and the ability to evade casual inspection of The Law. Yet we also have legendary duelists (e.g. Miyamoto Musashi) who draw a path towards the possibility of the Duelist using de facto (if not de jure) magic to stab people in the face ten times before they can blink and leap tall buildings in a single bound because when you're a legendary character you can do shit like that.

It's quite fine if the Duelist feels a little odd matching up against a dragon instead of another warrior or wizard. Dragons are what knights are for.

[Whipstitch]

It's not as apolitical as I would like, but white has a lot of Rebel cards, so you might be able to go with Partisan or something similar.

[zugschef]

According to the Oxford dictionary a dodger is someone who evades authorities, but after thinking of all the swashbuckling movies of old I'm much more open to the Duelist. My vote is in for the Duelist.

[Red_Rob]

Yet we also have legendary duelists (e.g. Miyamoto Musashi) who draw a path towards the possibility of the Duelist using de facto (if not de jure) magic to stab people in the face ten times before they can blink and leap tall buildings in a single bound because when you're a legendary character you can do shit like that.

It's important to note that one of the benefits of doing a Magic RPG is that everyone is using magic all the time. There are no 'mundane classes' because everyone is using mana to do their thing. This means that any class can automatically scale from stabbing things with a sword, to infusing themselves with Red mana and hulking out, to sprouting Flame Wings and breathing fire without anyone blinking an eye. Which is nice, because in Magic the top end of creatures include the Soul of the World, Ancient Cthulhoid horrors that can destroy civilizations and Giant Indestructible Adamantine robots. So you better be bringing something better than a strong sword arm to the table at that point.

[Almaz]

It's important to note that one of the benefits of doing a Magic RPG is that everyone is using magic all the time. There are no 'mundane classes' because everyone is using mana to do their thing. This means that any class can automatically scale from stabbing things with a sword, to infusing themselves with Red mana and hulking out, to sprouting Flame Wings and breathing fire without anyone blinking an eye. Which is nice, because in Magic the top end of creatures include the Soul of the World, Ancient Cthulhoid horrors that can destroy civilizations and Giant Indestructible Adamantine robots. So you better be bringing something better than a strong sword arm to the table at that point.

I am 1000% aware of all of that. Yes, I typo'd that. Fuck it, I am ten times aware. Yeah.

Selling people on this is always a good idea though, and making it clear what the relation is, as well. We ideally want characters to seem fantastic even before they start waving around obvious magic. It's mostly just a recommendation against "basket weavers" as a class. I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it though, because it is, as you said, in the setting, but "sounds like it could scale up to high level" does help a class.

[zugschef]

What if we called the White Rogue an Archeologist?

[Gnorman]

I realize the allure of only using names with card support, but I think it's unnecessarily limiting. As mentioned, white just doesn't have a lot of rogues. Dodger, Skulk, and Hushblade are all kind of dumb, to be honest. Dodger is comical, Skulk sounds more black to me, and Hushblade is weird compound word that sounds like a teenage WoW addict's character.

However, I can reluctantly sign on to Duelist. There are definitely a lot more white soldier names, so it's a small sacrifice.

[OgreBattle]

AGENT god damnit!

Agents are what you call your spies and thieves and assassins when they're on the side of lawful organizations!

...also how much of the gameplay has been thought out for this project? Or are we still at the naming phase? It's fun to name things, but are we aiming to actually build up to a playable game?