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.

any ideas?

1) So basically physical/non-magic are the closest things to similarities between rogue/ranger/warrior? Wouldn't non-magic work better though? In the case that besides physical and non-magic there may be other roles in other genres/games depending on the available mechanics and goal of the game that might not only involve combat. Which may include pure utility classes.

2) By biomechanics, I meant to suggest that as one of the similarities among rangers rogues warriors, but it wouldn't work if we expand it to other genres and include machines and such.

3) Is there a way to distinguish rangers/rogues/warriors from mages in other genres that do not necessarily have magic? Like the scifi genre? Or mass effect 3.

[QUOTE="RogueWarriorRPG"]

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

1. Usually non-magical (physical) ability but depends on the backstory. In some games/movies, Rangers and Rogues have magic. Hell in some stories, warriors have their own type of magic (with Rage as a mana bar.) In the end these are all "abilities" and it's up to the story to attribute them as either purely physical abilities or whether there is some type of magic involved.

2. Even a pure thief has to contribute to fight their way out of a situation. Can't just have the thief twiddling his thumbs while the rest of the group fights their way out. Or maybe the thief can concentrate on unlocking a door like R2D2 while the rest of the group is keeping the imperial stormtroopers at bay "cmon R2 get this schit open! We gotta get outta here!" Depends on the backstory. In some sci-fi there's things like "the force" that take the place of magic, or sometimes controlling nanites (microscopic machines) take the place of magic that exists in fantasy genre.

3. As I said, sometimes even a Rogue has to contribute to a action, the same goes for "hackers." For example take the cutscene in ME1 where Tali is in a back alley making a deal with the Shadow Broker's agents, she throws down a couple of concussion grenades to get them off balance and goes behind the crates to pull out her shottie. Typically "sneaky" classes always use close range weapons like daggers and shotguns, but sometimes they are also assassins and use sniper rifles. It depends on the backstory.

4. Depends alot on backstory but "magic" does not generally defy the laws of physics but often uses little known aspects of physics. For example "the force" is based on physical properties in the universe and certain people with a special ability to access that natural energy. In some sci-fi magic consists of controlling nanites, microscopic machines. In fantasy genre there is usually some backstory explanation of why magic works and it often has to do with some people being attuned to natural universal energy.

Ultimately the classes have more to do with a character's circumstance. Some people are born big and strong. Some are born weak. While the strong practice swordfighting with father, the weak read old books and develop themselves in other ways. Just like in RL you develop yourself with whatever natural talents you have.

ZombieKiller7

So really the only fundamental similarity between those classes is physical/non-magic? Physics would include mages as well right?

What about biomechanics? But that wouldn't work if we expand these classes to scifi genre with machines and non-human races right?

Is there a definitive way to classify something as a ranger/rogue/warrior in a variety of genres?

Classes are purely subjective to their own world.

In a world without magic, there are no "magicians."

but didn't you say before that like controlling nanites can be comparable to the mage class?

[QUOTE="RogueWarriorRPG"]

1) What are the fundamental similarities among rogues/warriors/rangers?

2) Are there actually any real similarities among rogues/warriors/rangers? Is non-magic and physical adeptness the closest things? I wouldn't say physical damage since rogues could be pure thieves that don't go into combat at all.

3) Are there any rogue/warrior/ranger subclasses that don't necessarily have to be physically trained? If we extend this to other genres, would hackers count as a rogue subclass?

4) Would physics also be a common factor? I mean rogues/warriors/rangers generally obey the laws of physics while magic doesn't right? What would be the mage equivalent in a scifi genre?

ZombieKiller7

1. Usually non-magical (physical) ability but depends on the backstory. In some games/movies, Rangers and Rogues have magic. Hell in some stories, warriors have their own type of magic (with Rage as a mana bar.) In the end these are all "abilities" and it's up to the story to attribute them as either purely physical abilities or whether there is some type of magic involved.

2. Even a pure thief has to contribute to fight their way out of a situation. Can't just have the thief twiddling his thumbs while the rest of the group fights their way out. Or maybe the thief can concentrate on unlocking a door like R2D2 while the rest of the group is keeping the imperial stormtroopers at bay "cmon R2 get this schit open! We gotta get outta here!" Depends on the backstory. In some sci-fi there's things like "the force" that take the place of magic, or sometimes controlling nanites (microscopic machines) take the place of magic that exists in fantasy genre.

3. As I said, sometimes even a Rogue has to contribute to a action, the same goes for "hackers." For example take the cutscene in ME1 where Tali is in a back alley making a deal with the Shadow Broker's agents, she throws down a couple of concussion grenades to get them off balance and goes behind the crates to pull out her shottie. Typically "sneaky" classes always use close range weapons like daggers and shotguns, but sometimes they are also assassins and use sniper rifles. It depends on the backstory.

4. Depends alot on backstory but "magic" does not generally defy the laws of physics but often uses little known aspects of physics. For example "the force" is based on physical properties in the universe and certain people with a special ability to access that natural energy. In some sci-fi magic consists of controlling nanites, microscopic machines. In fantasy genre there is usually some backstory explanation of why magic works and it often has to do with some people being attuned to natural universal energy.

Ultimately the classes have more to do with a character's circumstance. Some people are born big and strong. Some are born weak. While the strong practice swordfighting with father, the weak read old books and develop themselves in other ways. Just like in RL you develop yourself with whatever natural talents you have.

So really the only fundamental similarity between those classes is physical/non-magic? Physics would include mages as well right?

What about biomechanics? But that wouldn't work if we expand these classes to scifi genre with machines and non-human races right?

Is there a definitive way to classify something as a ranger/rogue/warrior in a variety of genres?

1) What are the fundamental similarities among rogues/warriors/rangers?

2) Are there actually any real similarities among rogues/warriors/rangers? Is non-magic and physical adeptness the closest things? I wouldn't say physical damage since rogues could be pure thieves that don't go into combat at all.

3) Are there any rogue/warrior/ranger subclasses that don't necessarily have to be physically trained? If we extend this to other genres, would hackers count as a rogue subclass?

4) Would physics also be a common factor? I mean rogues/warriors/rangers generally obey the laws of physics while magic doesn't right? What would be the mage equivalent in a scifi genre?

I just want to understand like how rogues and warriors work in video games. Wouldn't understanding applied mechanics help me with that though? I mean after all if I like everything about rogues and everything about warriors, doesn't it make sense to say that I like what they have in common the most?

And about that question, what I mean is that in another setting like a scifi setting, rangers could be comparable to snipers with futuristic energy weapons right? But that would have nothing to do with applied mechanics and more with quantum mechanics right?

And as for rogues and warriors. Are there any rogues and warrior type examples that aren't related to applied mechanics at all? I mean so far, I can't think of any exceptions that don't use physical damage as their primary form of combat.
Would saying that I like physical damage be better than saying I like rogues and warriors?

I said I include rangers as rogues.....

1) Yeah, melee.

2) Sometimes.

3) No. It just seems to imply you prefer melee characters to ranged ones. Rogues and warriors overlap immensely on design.

4) I like chocolate; I like steak. They are both food, do i like all food? Nah. Also, i would hate a chocolate covered steak.

5) ....No?

6) i think you'll get a better idea of you play them, break down their design mechanics individually and *then* look for similarities, instead of looking for similarities right off the bat.

XaosII

thanks. But I mean if that logic follows, then why wouldn't that mean I like applied mechanics? After all, in the same way as I stated in that scenario, rogues and warriors basically are complete opposites besides the fact that they deal physical damage. Btw, I stated that I include rangers as rogues so it's not only limited to stabbing things and melee. In addition, applied mechanics is the only thing they share right? Why wouldn't I like that singular trait then?

I mean if you like two things that are completely different except for one single trait. Why wouldn't that imply that you like that single trait? Applied mechanics/physical adeptness is the only thing the two share right?

Basically, I like the rogue and warrior classes the most in rpgs among the general classes rogues warriors clerics and mages.I include rangers as a subclass of rogues btw.

Just a few quick questions:

1) Are there are any similarities that rogues and warrior classes generally share?

2) Do they both primarily deal physical damage as opposed to magical damage?

3) Would me liking rogue and warrior classes the most imply that I like applied mechanics? Like the study of motion of bodies in classical physics. Which includes solid mechanics, fluid mechanics, fracture, finite element analysis, etc. Meaning that if I like both rogues and warriors and if they share a specific similarity, then does that mean that I like that? Which in this case seems to be applied mechanics since they are both proficient in mechanics? After all, from the games I've played they're basically complete opposites other than mostly doing physical damage

4) If we just use logic. Say you like everything about one thing. And say you like everything in another thing. Yet those two things are completely opposite except for one single attribute that they share in common. Wouldn't that imply that you like that single attribute?

Take for example a set of elements. You like every single element in that set and every element in another set. And those two sets only share one element in common. Wouldn't it make sense to say that you like that one element the most?

5) I just want to know if one likes rogues and warriors then does that imply applied mechanics?

since the only similarity they share is physical attributes/traits, why wouldn't applied mechanics be their unifying factor?

6) And just one final thing, how else would you learn more about rogues and warriors besides finding a constant similarity like applied mechanics and learning more about that?

thanks.