View Full Version : Why not have a Rogue Mage Class?

06-01-2015, 09:52 PM
Why not have a Rogue Mage Class? Since Mage's have knock and other spells that does can let them into places that are locked why not introduce a class called Rogue Mage? If your wondering they would have disable device, sneak, hide, search and also spot. I know I would play on!

06-01-2015, 10:05 PM

06-02-2015, 12:59 AM
Why not have a Rogue Mage Class?
you just described half of a rogue.
are you aware you can multiclass in this game?

06-02-2015, 02:16 AM
The Arcane Trickster Prestige is a blend of Rogue and Arcane caster classes.

Right now DDO has not implemented Enhancements based on Multiple classes to meet the requirement but this might be a good one to start with. It would especially be fun if the ability to disable/unlock can be done at range (even with a +5 DC on the check it could be worth disabling or unlocking stuff in dangerous locations when it can be avoided by being up to 30 feet away.

In the meantime the option of an 18/2 Wizard/Rogue will be very close to what you are looking for.
Also pointed out is the Artificer Class which is also a blend of Machinery and Magic. Giving you some powerful infusions as well as a full range of roguish skill

06-04-2015, 07:41 AM
Heh, Trickster Rogue. Unlock it by obtaining both rogue and wizard past lifes, free to VIP. I could dig it.

06-04-2015, 09:39 AM
Arcane Trickster was always a flavor PrC, IMHO; geared towards those who were more interested in RPing than minmaxing. Which is fine in PnP, but in DDO there's not much incentive for doing so, unless you like the extra challenge of playing a "gimp" toon, ofc. ;) And considering how hard it is for Turbine to balance the existing PrEs, I shudder to imagine how much harder it gets to balance a PrE which depends on specific multiclass combos. :eek: Besides, it's not hard to capture the flavor of Arcane Trickster through a judicious combo of rog & wiz PrEs; I don't see the point in adding a specialist PrE as well.

06-07-2015, 02:53 PM
Because that would be stupid.