We know about the Fighter, but the Rogue ain't looking too hot either

In fact, it might even be worse.

Consider that other than the 2x per day power, the Rogue's one sure-fire, at-will way to get advantage is to Hide. (DM fiat means that you can't even count on flanking giving advantage.) And consider that Hide is now an action that makes you give up your opportunity to attack.

Also consider that even with Sneak Attack, for the first two levels the Rogue is doing even WORSE than the Fighter even when the Fighter's damage is corrected to 1d12+5.

The Rogue is basically only attacking every other round, alternating between hiding and I HIT IT WITH MA DAGGER and for less damage than the Fighter until Lv. 3 (where it's still not THAT much better).

Yeah, why play a Rogue, again? Unless your DM is just that nice? (And if you're gonna say, "because you want to," get out.) 
Yeah but ROGUES are AWESOME.

/eyeroll

Thanks for the summary. It looks pretty grim for 5e.
So you can hopefully find a corner or something to hide in and become a sniper?

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/21.jpg)

Yup. There's no way in the system to get Advantage other than wasting every other turn for not much reward or else playing DM-May-I every turn. Which really defeats the purpose of the streamlined combat rules, since you're artificially extending the length of your round trying to talk the DM into pretty-please letting you use your class feature.
Rogues (at least with the Thief scheme) are basically sacrificing combat capability for skill bonuses to use out of combat. I'm betting there will be a "Thug" or "Commando" scheme to provide more direct combat utility at the loss of trap and lock capability.
In fact, it might even be worse.

Consider that other than the 2x per day power, the Rogue's one sure-fire, at-will way to get advantage is to Hide. (DM fiat means that you can't even count on flanking giving advantage.) And consider that Hide is now an action that makes you give up your opportunity to attack.

Also consider that even with Sneak Attack, for the first two levels the Rogue is doing even WORSE than the Fighter even when the Fighter's damage is corrected to 1d12+5.

The Rogue is basically only attacking every other round, alternating between hiding and I HIT IT WITH MA DAGGER and for less damage than the Fighter until Lv. 3 (where it's still not THAT much better).

Yeah, why play a Rogue, again? Unless your DM is just that nice? (And if you're gonna say, "because you want to," get out.) 



What is wrong with "Because I want too?" That's as valid a reason as any to play a roleplaying game. We're playing a game of pretend here folks.

Not that I disagree with you. The martial classes definitely need some work in the variation department. However, being condescending is not the way to go. The last thing anyone wants is another edition flamewar, especially when it's not even out yet. Stating your opinion is fine, telling people to 'get out' because you don't like their reasons is not. 

In fact, it might even be worse.

Consider that other than the 2x per day power, the Rogue's one sure-fire, at-will way to get advantage is to Hide. (DM fiat means that you can't even count on flanking giving advantage.) And consider that Hide is now an action that makes you give up your opportunity to attack.

Also consider that even with Sneak Attack, for the first two levels the Rogue is doing even WORSE than the Fighter even when the Fighter's damage is corrected to 1d12+5.

The Rogue is basically only attacking every other round, alternating between hiding and I HIT IT WITH MA DAGGER and for less damage than the Fighter until Lv. 3 (where it's still not THAT much better).

Yeah, why play a Rogue, again? Unless your DM is just that nice? (And if you're gonna say, "because you want to," get out.) 



What is wrong with "Because I want too?" That's as valid a reason as any to play a roleplaying game. We're playing a game of pretend here folks.

Not that I disagree with you. The martial classes definitely need some work in the variation department. However, being condescending is not the way to go. The last thing anyone wants is another edition flamewar, especially when it's not even out yet. Stating your opinion is fine, telling people to 'get out' because you don't like their reasons is not. 




It's a pre-emptive response to those people who'll disregard any mechanical analysis of a classed, valid or not, based on the idea that they want to play that class. Which completely misses the point of the thread itself (to examine why the Rogue isn't good), and assumes "Why would you want to play a rogue?" isn't a rhetorical question.


What is wrong with "Because I want too?" That's as valid a reason as any to play a roleplaying game. We're playing a game of pretend here folks.

Not that I disagree with you. The martial classes definitely need some work in the variation department. However, being condescending is not the way to go. The last thing anyone wants is another edition flamewar, especially when it's not even out yet. Stating your opinion is fine, telling people to 'get out' because you don't like their reasons is not. 




Why the heck are you bringing up edition wars? I didn't make a single reference to any one edition in my post other than the one that's being playtested. Not one.

I'm bringing this up because I just do not like the way the Rogue is turning out. Period. It's a fatally flawed class at the moment. What previous edition of D&D I like is irrelevant (because, AGAIN, I didn't bring it up).

And "because you want to" is not at all a constructive response. And I've seen it one too many times today, and I'm really getting tired of it.
you play a rogue to be...great at skills! woohoo wheeee
There are a couple other ways to gain advantage (hold person can paralyze, providing advantage; command and grease (plus caltrops) can knock someone prone; Sunburst causes blindness), so your party members can help you with advantage. It would still be difficult to pull off with any regularity, based solely on the rules given. I expect that other themes and/or rogue builds will have other ways of gaining advantage. Flanking is something that should be addressed as part of the grid based module (but the current system is gridless). Considering there aren't rules for charging, there are definitely some elements that have been left out for now.

Some of the monsters in the playtest give advantage as a consequence of their own actions as well, so for some fights, the rogue won't have to work as hard.

"Because I want to" is a reason to include the rogue in the game. However, once you've decided to include a rogue, you then have to make sure you aren't punishing someone for taking that choice.  
I think the Advantage system might be workable, but it's a bit wonky atm. For one thing, a creature being Blinded, Frightened, or Intoxicated give the creature a disadvantage but don't give the player an advantage, so Sneak Attack isn't an option. This doesn't make sense to me. If I throw sand in your eyes and you can't see me, or if you're hammered so that you see three rogues, or you're running away in a blind panic, it should be easy to put a dagger or arrow in your back. Also, it seems logical that if being Deafened makes sneaking an auto-success, the same should probably happen with Blinded, no?

One possibility is to give the rogue a core mechanic special attack (coshing them in the head or throwing sand in their eyes, etc.) that if successful grants advantage to the rogue on the next turn and additionally gives the rogue the opportunity to attempt to Hide/Sneak on that target - a bit like Mugging in the Complete Thief's Handbook from AD&D2nd. This would give rogues a reliable way to regain advantage in combat after sneak attacking out of stealth, retreat from a potentially disastrous situation, or more effectively use stealth out of combat.

On a different topic - stealth rules - I'm still finding the current situation a bit weird. For example, you need to be both not seen and not heard but unless you make a sound either deliberately or accidentally, you're assumed to have moved silently if you succeeded your check. By contrast, you need cover to avoid visual detection, and there's no way to just sneak up behind someone when their back is turned.

What makes this odd is that the rules for what happens when you're detected implicitly include line-of-sight, but nothing else does. Having line-of-sight both before and after would make sense; sneaking up behind someone is the classic sense of sneaking. I could see a mechanic where cover gave a bonus against detection working, since it would make sense that if you're just trying to get past/up close by relying on their back being turned, you're at greater risk if someone turns unexpectedly, whereas if you're moving through trees or behind columns or something, you've got somewhere to hide. 

Alternately, while returning to a split Move Silently/Hide would be bad, I think some sort of Stealth-while-moving and Stealth-after-my-turn difference would be smart. After all, if I'm trying to sneak up on a guard standing in an empty corridor, what I'm trying to do is just get up to him by staying out of his sight so that I can sap him, so the question is does he turn around or hear me coming. When I've moved my turn, unless I have cover, then I'm standing out in plain sight, and should be spotted. 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
Fighters > Clerics > Wizards > Rogues.


Though you should probably count rogues as having advantage on round 1.  And you get a big accuracy boost with advantage.  Which won't make it fighter level, but will helps.

And the take 10 on skills is pretty awsome...  If you want a skill monkey.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I think the posters who mentioned "being good at skills" hit the nail on the head here, whether they were being sarcastic or not.

In most editions of D&D (not starting a flame war, just establishing precedent for the tone of the class), the Rogue/Thief  was not a combat-oriented character.  In some editions there were some combat-related abilities or advantages given, but in general the focus of the class was on non-combat abilities that other classes didn't possess.

That being the case, there's an argument to be made for whether or not the rogue is adequately compensated for the relative lack of combat prowess that seems to be there for the early levels at least.  However, judging the rogue's playability based solely on damage output seems to be a limiting approach.
It seems sneak attack is scaling at +1d6 per level.  That's somewhat frightening (but nice) to consider at higher levels... you may only need advantage once.
It seems sneak attack is scaling at +1d6 per level.  That's somewhat frightening (but nice) to consider at higher levels... you may only need advantage once.

This may be the case. If the sneak attack scales up highly enough, attacking every other turn may not be that bad, especially as you get other benefits from hiding, such as making yourself untargetable by single target attacks. This rogue, based on it's theme and rogue build option, is heavily sneak focused. There will likely be other options.

Specifically, once the customization opens up, it will be easier to have allies which can help on the providing advantage front, plus there may be themes the rogue can take to help himself as well.
Rogues (at least with the Thief scheme) are basically sacrificing combat capability for skill bonuses to use out of combat. I'm betting there will be a "Thug" or "Commando" scheme to provide more direct combat utility at the loss of trap and lock capability.



I agree that there will probably be other rogue schemes to provide more advantage options at the loss of trap and lock capability, but why should rogues have to give up what they've traditionally been known for in the game (i.e. having lots of unique skills) just to keep up in combat?  In other editions (particularly 4th), the rogue is great at BOTH skills and attacking, and he doesn't have to give up every other turn to get combat advantage either.  He just FEELS like a rogue in 4th ed.: He's a striker who gets to make use of his class feature that makes him a striker (i.e. sneak attack) almost every turn (barring some condition like dazing or blinding).  The 5th edition rogue just doesn't quite feel like a rogue yet.

Bill Newsome


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

"In a hole in the ground there lived....my clan of halfling thieves!"

Rogues (at least with the Thief scheme) are basically sacrificing combat capability for skill bonuses to use out of combat. I'm betting there will be a "Thug" or "Commando" scheme to provide more direct combat utility at the loss of trap and lock capability.



I agree that there will probably be other rogue schemes to provide more advantage options at the loss of trap and lock capability, but why should rogues have to give up what they've traditionally been known for in the game (i.e. having lots of unique skills) just to keep up in combat?  In other editions (particularly 4th), the rogue is great at BOTH skills and attacking, and he doesn't have to give up every other turn to get combat advantage either.  He just FEELS like a rogue in 4th ed.: He's a striker who gets to make use of his class feature that makes him a striker (i.e. sneak attack) almost every turn (barring some condition like dazing or blinding).  The 5th edition rogue just doesn't quite feel like a rogue yet.

(disclaimer : Im a victim of the failed download so Im still trying to get my hands on the doco, but I have been following 5e development closely and understand the gripe. If I make a incorrect statement, please have mercy on this poor guy desperate geek who cant get his D&D )

For anyone who regards the rogue as a combatent, yes, I can imagine you having a gripe. For me personally, I have wanted a return on the rogue as something other than a DPS machine, so the fact that their combat utility being under the fighters is something I am looking forward to.

To me the trick is speed up combat so it isnt the sum of the game, and rogues arent falling asleep 
It seems sneak attack is scaling at +1d6 per level.  That's somewhat frightening (but nice) to consider at higher levels... you may only need advantage once.



Only working at high levels isn't good enough. In 5E, it'll be rogues afraid of housecats.
...whatever
The Rogue does seem to be a bit of a mess right now.  While it might be mechanically sound, I find the imagery of using the Halfling's Naturally Stealthy trait to hide behind your allies to be extremely offputting.  Seems very cheesy to me (oh, where'd the little guy go?  I just saw him run behind his friend but now I have no idea where he is for some reason.  Despite the fact that his friend is moving around to swing his weapon or cast his spells). 

Without advantage (which doesn't seem particularly easy to get) the Cleric and Wizard both easily outdamage him with their minor spells.  He doesn't seem to be particularly accurate either (again, leaving advantage out of the equation). 

I'm not sure I like the Skill Mastery class feature.

Other issues are with the pre-gen itself, which seems to be less competently constructed than the others.  He's built around being a skill monkey, specifically when it comes to dungeoneering type stuff (which includes traps), yet he's dumped Wis which makes him not that great at spotting traps.  The Commoner background also seems to be the weakest of the bunch, which really hurts when added to an already-weak character.
Rogues are not fighters. I'm not quite sure why there is an assumption that rogues must be masters of combat. Rogues are master of skills.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
Rogues are not fighters. I'm not quite sure why there is an assumption that rogues must be masters of combat. Rogues are master of skills.



Combat is too big a part of D&D for any class to suck at it.

Conditional modifiers(in this case advantage) are rubbish unless you can control and create the conditions yourself. The pregen Rogue can do so, but only by wasting a turn hiding before a successful attack. The Halfing and Lurker choices expand the ability to hide, but don't change the fact that you have to do nothing for a turn to set up Sneak Attack.
...whatever
So you mean rogues aren't skill monsters and bad-ass ninjas anymore? Thank Christ.

They're an exploration focused class again. They get double the skills of all other characters (6 instead of 3). They can't roll lower than a 10 on any attempt related to those 6 skills, and they can all but guarantee advantage every other round to get a huge boost in % to hit, and an extra 1d6 damage?

(edited: Baiting)

Edit: And don't forget that you don't have to attack with advantage. That's just to get the extra % to-hit and the +1d6 damage. You can still attack every single round if you want to, this set up just limits the 4E cheese of Bat-God ninja skill monkey combat monster rogues.

"And why the simple mechanics? Two reasons: First, complex mechanics invariably channel and limit the imagination; second, my neurons have better things to do than calculate numbers and refer to charts all evening." -Over the Edge

Combat is the only part of D&D where your life is without a doubt on the line. You suck at it, you die. Because of this, combat has to balance.
Combat is not too big a part of d&d unless you make it that way. There are three pillars of D&D, the rogue is exceptionally good at one of them. And the rogue can attack every round, he can use his advantage at select times in combat. Are you arguing for the rogue to have an aesome attack equal to the fighter every round?
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
So you mean rogues aren't skill monsters and bad-ass ninjas anymore? Thank Christ.

They're an exploration focused class again. They get double the skills of all other characters (6 instead of 3). They can't roll lower than a 10 on any attempt related to those 6 skills, and they can all but guarantee advantage every other round to get a huge boost in % to hit, and an extra 1d6 damage?

(edited: Baiting).



Combat parity is important. If combat rolls around, and any class is better off just avoiding it altogether, why would you play? None of the official supported methods of Play (Encounters/LFR/Lair Assault) give a crap about roleplaying. Or at least, not a whole lot. If they intend to continue those, then all classes have to have some use in combat.

Doing 1/4th the damage of everyone else by design is not 'some use'.
Combat parity is important. If combat rolls around, and any class is better off just avoiding it altogether, why would you play? None of the official supported methods of Play (Encounters/LFR/Lair Assault) give a crap about roleplaying. Or at least, not a whole lot. If they intend to continue those, then all classes have to have some use in combat.



The official 4E play, not 5th play. Keep that in mind. And the rogue does have use in combat, a lot actually. The rogue just can't beat the fighter designed to be a combat monster. There's a difference.

Doing 1/4th the damage of everyone else by design is not 'some use'.



What the hell? Throwing +5 to-hit every round, w/ d6+3 or d8+3 is 1/4 the damage of everyone else? Your maths are false.

The figther is the biggest bad-ass in the bunch and he throws +6 to-hit and d12+7. That's half the damage round after round in melee (the fighter's strong suit, and arguably the rogue's weak suit).

If the rogue wants a better % to-hit, and some extra damage he hides and attacks with advantage. Then, and only then, does the rogue deal 1/4 the damage of the best damage dealer in the playtest, if you willfully ignore the sneak attack damage and to-hit % boost.

Combat can't--and shouldn't--be balanced across all the classes anymore. Every class being just as viable in combat as every other class makes for a dull and boring game. With 5th Edition and the focus shifting from combat to exploration, interation, and combat things change and for the better in this case.

The fighter shines in combat. The rogue shines at exploration. Perfect. Well done WotC. Gimme more. Please.

"And why the simple mechanics? Two reasons: First, complex mechanics invariably channel and limit the imagination; second, my neurons have better things to do than calculate numbers and refer to charts all evening." -Over the Edge

Combat can't--and shouldn't--be balanced across all the classes anymore. Every class being just as viable in combat as every other class makes for a dull and boring game.



Not for me and not for other 4th edition players.

I don't give a flying sack of flying sacks whether you think balanced combat is good for the game, atleast not as it pertains to my own games. Having one character be better than everyone else in combat is not my preference for playing this game, and I will scream and cry and kick my feet to let Wizards know that it is an important part of the game to me. The most important aspect of the game in fact.
So what we have is a class that trivializes certain exploration tasks (possibly othrs as well), while making trivial contributions in combat? Well, I must say, Mearls has certainly delivered on his word this time. Delivered a sack o' crap that is.
Not for me and not for other 4th edition players.



Interesting that I'm a 4E player too... but whatevs.

I don't give a flying sack of flying sacks whether you think balanced combat is good for the game, atleast not as it pertains to my own games. Having one character be better than everyone else in combat is not my preference for playing this game, and I will scream and cry and kick my feet to let Wizards know that it is an important part of the game to me. The most important aspect of the game in fact.



Interesting that my assessment of your opinion is basically the same. And nice choice of words, btw.

(Edited: Baiting)

Again, out of all three pillars, combat is the only one in which it is guaranteed that your life is in danger. It is also the only aspect of D&D that requires tactical acumen. It's also the aspect of D&D in which everyone must take a turn. And when someone's turn is to hide with their thumb up their butt for one round just to be able to take advantage of their class features to the fullest the next, no, that's just plain bad design.



If there's no chance to be hurt or die while exploring or interacting with NPCs then you're doing it wrong.

I don't care if it's "tradition".  In cases where it's obvious that "tradition" clashes with principles of good game design, it's obvious which way to go.



Good game design doesn't require the humdrum of all classes filling a given role being equal. That's bad design. Moving beyond the rogue being an acrobatic fighter substitute without armor is good design. Funny that you can move back chronologically and yet achieve better game design simultaneously.

"And why the simple mechanics? Two reasons: First, complex mechanics invariably channel and limit the imagination; second, my neurons have better things to do than calculate numbers and refer to charts all evening." -Over the Edge

"A creature that moves across a field of ball bearings must succeed on a DC 11 dexterity check or fall prone."

Hunting Trap: "A creature stepping on a hunting trap must make a DC 13 Dexterity check or be restrained."

Preparation is key, and those who plan ahead and give themselves the tools to create lasting advantage shall prosper.

 
Okay, I'm not a moderator, but I think you guys are out of line. First of all calling the game a sack of crap is exactly the kind of nonsense we agreed to avoid in trying to make the game better for all concerned. And attacking the play style of others isn't going to get us anywhere. However, arguing that your style of play be included is wise imo. Remember this is the core game. I'm sure that there are all sorts of amazing powers to be added in the future. Evidently themes aren't going to be tied to class either. It's been bantered around for instance that if you want to pick a non-fighter theme for your fighter you may be able to do that. I would imagine that later on it will be possible to make a combat oriented rogue. But we are talking about the base class here--the rogue archetype.

I'm not arguing against combat parity for your game, I'm trying to make the point that at it's core the rogue is good at skills, not at combat.

and as to not having danger outside of combat--my adventures have the environment, hazards and traps every bit as dangerous as combat, if not moreso.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I'm not arguing against combat parity for your game, I'm trying to make the point that at it's core the rogue is good at skills, not at combat.



And I'm arguing that the rogue not being good at combat is unacceptable period.
...whatever
In most cases though ... the guy who isn't good at disabling traps can stand aside and let the person that is good at doing it do his thing. The guy who isn't good at talking people can shut up and try not to get in the way. However, in combat ... you can't just tell the monsters "Oh, I'm not good at this, I'll just wait over here while you fight it out".

Admitedly, I can see the 'every other round when you don't have consistent advantage through prep/help/reckless monsters' as being useful, especially as hiding doesn't just get you advantage, it makes you no longer a target (if they can't find you, which they basically have to take an action to do, they can't even attack you outside of an area effect). So you do less damage (again, depending on the mosnters you are fighting, you may instakill everything anyway, so it doesn't matter if you are doing d8+3 or 2d6+7 [which might be too high, d12+5 would be closer to what is written, but there may be other rules that are factored in we weren't told about] since some of the lower level monsters have less than 10hp anyway. Similarly, if you set things up to start with combat advantage, you might kill, or make a monster easy to kill very quickly.  
I was quite impressed with both the fighter and the rogue.

ZoMG no AUt0 SneAkATTackz0RZ!

Historically sneak attack and backstab were something to had to work for to get the rediculous damage that im sure it willl become. ID also like to point out and are you ready for this.....

THIEF SCHEMA, BASED ON THEIFING.

Meaning that there are  other variations of the Rogue that make it easier to achieve advantage, im betting on it.

Please remember these are very PARTICULAR, PRE-GENNED, charactors, no where near the finished product nor anywhere near every side of the class. Look how different the 2 clerics are.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please
And making the Rogue pretty much useless in combat as he is now is bad design. Exploration-focused does NOT mean, nor SHOULD it mean combat-deadweight



Ha. So you haven't even read the playtest docs then I take it. Dealing less damage than the fighter round to round, but about the same damage as all the other classes makes you deadweight. Oh, is this that "you're either perfect or you suck" optimizer logic? I've never understood that mindset.

"And why the simple mechanics? Two reasons: First, complex mechanics invariably channel and limit the imagination; second, my neurons have better things to do than calculate numbers and refer to charts all evening." -Over the Edge

Litigation, I haven't even started talking here yet, but I'm gonna echo that call for civility. We're here to help make changes to the game, not eachother.

On to the topic at hand. I haven't gotten hold of the doc yet, but, from what I can tell, sneak attack is now +1d6 per level? (If that's wrong, the rest of my post can be disregarded). That'll stack up to be a lot over time. If so, I actually kinda like where this is going. Rather than having a sneak attack every round for 1-3d6 extra damage, a rogue now gets 2-3 sneak attacks for massive damage in a fight if he tries to set them up. That seems to fit the theme of a rogue more. somebody who knows just the right spot to put their knife/arrow to make it hurt, even if they do have to prep for it first.

That said, I do think that at early levels, rogues are definitely underpowered, and from what I hear, advantage mechanics are a a bit too difficult to achieve. (I think the rogue needs better options that just hiding. Maybe make them also require some prep time, but not be as situational?)
And making the Rogue pretty much useless in combat as he is now is bad design. Exploration-focused does NOT mean, nor SHOULD it mean combat-deadweight



Ha. So you haven't even read the playtest docs then I take it. Dealing less damage than the fighter round to round, but about the same damage as all the other classes makes you deadweight. Oh, is this that "you're either perfect or you suck" optimizer logic? I've never understood that mindset.



At level 1, the Fighter does more damage At-Will than the Rogue does with Sneak Attack. At level 3, the Rogue deals 1d8+3d6+3 every two rounds(if they hit) for 18 total. The Fighter averages 14 damage each hit, dealing 3 on a miss and the Wizard can spam 2d4+2 and auto-hit.

Puh-lease
...whatever
Interesting that I'm a 4E player too... but whatevs.


Fair enough, saying other 4th edition players is a generalization.

Mind if I ask why you're into 4th if you're not interested in balanced combat? I realize that isn't the only virtue of 4th, but it seems like a big one to me.

Interesting that my assessment of your opinion is basically the same. And nice choice of words, btw.



I see no reason to mince words, or be dishonest about how I will approach this issue. This is literally the biggest issue for me. I don't intend to eliminate your playstyle, just make sure mine is represented. I will complain and mention it endlessly, until I'm either sure its there or sure that I'm boned.


Ha. So you haven't even read the playtest docs then I take it. Dealing less damage than the fighter round to round, but about the same damage as all the other classes makes you deadweight. Oh, is this that "you're either perfect or you suck" optimizer logic? I've never understood that mindset.


You know what the Cleric is doing, though? Summoning a floating hammer that attacks with him to put both the Rogue AND the Fighter to shame. All while being able to heal himself. The Wizard? Keeping the big scary melee guy on the enemy team frozen in place.

The Rogue, on the other hand? Thumb up his hiney and hiding. And you don't need optimizer skills to see that.
@ Litigation: No I call for civility becuase that's how we agreed we'd act by posting here. Trevor made that fairly clear. I tried to make it clear as well, that it wasn't disagreement I was against, it is the growing nature of teh slurs that are beginning to enter the dialogue here.

If you feel that "combat parity" should be an element of the core game, then how do those of us who choose to play the game differently fit in? I think 5e's purpose was to allow as many playstyles as possible. The point I was making is that the core game is the simplest possible version of the game. I think you may be looking for something that is available at higher levels of the game.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
. The point I was making is that the core game is the simplest possible version of the game. I think you may be looking for something that is available at higher levels of the game.



Yes, I think this is an important point. We're seeing a baseline here, and just a scant sampling of that. If they really intend to appeal to all playstyles, then the baseline has to have this kind of simple approach that a lot of people want, and then modular rules that build on it will incorporate the features that a lot of other people want.
Sign In to post comments