They ruined the rogue...

347 posts / 0 new
Last post

They ruined the rogue. Before, the rogue was boring. He was not, however, underpowered. Now the rogue is just garbage. It is nothing but a strictly inferior fighter. It gets worse weapon choices. It gets worse armor choices. It gets one less maneuver. It has less hit points. It does not gain an extra attack at sixth level. When it sneak attacks, it deals far less damage than it did in the last playtest packet. In fact, sneak attack is now nothing but an inferior deadly strike. So, the rogue is hands down an inferior combatant.


It also lost some of its advantage when it comes to skills. I mean, I would call its skill mastery maneuver largely a wash, in terms of power, for what it used to get. Using skills won’t be as much of a sure thing, but its maximum rolls went up as well. And, a rogue will get 8 trained skills now. Thing is, they hacked up the skill list into super specialized options ala 3e again. So, those 8 trained skills amount to fewer overall abilities than its 6 skills did last time around. In fact, it is now fairly hard to build a character who is good at any decent number of skill based abilities unless you play a rogue. So, this change nerfed everyone. You even need two skills to be perceptive (listen and spot) again! Lame. Very lame.


I like the idea of rogues getting expertise dice. But, the overall implementation of the concept, and the changes that the rogue has gone through, leave a lot to be desired…

This is how I would fix the class:

1) Rename "Sneak Attack" to "Dirty Fighting." Add the following feature to "Dirty Fighting:" any foe that takes damage from "Dirty Fighting" grants advantage against all attacks made to hit it until the start of the rogue's next turn. Please notice, this is designed to aid a rogue's allies. The rogue would not get advantage against this foe. At best, if a rogue was dual wielding it could lose disadvantage with its second attack. So, by itself, the rogue will not be any better at dealing damage from levels 1-4 than it is now. It will, however, up the party's DPR by giving its allies advantage to hit whatever it has just hit. It will make the rogue feel like a sneaky bugger, but it won't make the rogue feel like an assassin (as he will still be dealing the same damage as the fighter but worse).  

2) Remove the "Skill Mastery" maneuver. Give all rogues "Dirty Fighting" instead. 

3) Give all rogues a class trait called "Skill Mastery." Skill Mastery allows rogues to roll twice for all skill checks and keep the best result. When a rogue has advantage on a skill check, it may roll 3d20 and keep the best result. Allow rogues to gain bonuses to skill checks (from rogue levels) at 4 times the speed of other classes (the maximum bonus a rogue can get in any single skill from training is still +7, though). This would mean that instead of being able to max out only one single skill by level 10, it could max out 4 skills. At level 20 it could max out 8 skills.  

4) Allow rogues to gain manoeuvres at the same rate as fighters.

5) Give a rogue more manoeuvres designed to debuff its targets and to grant itself advantage (against targets) with skill checks.

6) Boost a rogues HD to d8.

7) This is a big one: At 6th level a rogue needs something to keep it competitive with the fighter (as a result of the fighter's second attack). So far, this is the best idea I have seen--give the rogue "Backstab." Backstab: when a rogue makes an attack roll with advantage, if it hits with both attack dice it deals a critical hit. If you combine that with the ability to get advantage about 2 out of every 5 rounds or so, via the new manoeuvres, the rogue will be able to deal meaningful damage (in big spikes) without having a higher DPR than the fighter.  

8) 
Finally, right now the rogue has no real reason to choose to use sneaky weapons like the dagger, shortsword, or the like. There are other finesse weapons which are just better. This power is designed to add some flavor for the "I want to sneak up and cut some throats at level 1" crowd. At 1st level, give the rogue a class feature called "Sneak Attack." Sneak Attack: when you attack a target that grant grants advantage, if your attack is dealt with a dagger all of your "Dirty Fighting" damage dice are maximised. The damage per round bonus from this power will be minimal, as you are forced to use a dagger, and the benefit of this power does not stack with rolling a critical hit. This power is really just for flavor.


With these changes a rogue will deal about 80% of a fighter's damage per round, but in spikes. A rogue will maintain its skill based identity, and will actually feel like it can use skills in combat without ruining its affectivity. The rogue will be fun!

My reading of it as well. Actually looking at a high dex elven fighter with the right feats can almost replace a rogue. As far as I can tell the Rogues main advanatgae these days is 4 more skills and ability to spend expertise dice on them.

 The old rogue was almost fine but the sneak attack damage was to much and the thug was a no brianer. Our Rogues suggestion was halve the sneak attack and make advantage easier for the rogue to get via flanking or winning initiative. 3.5 or 4th ed sneak attack would have been fine IMHO although 1d6 at level 1 would have been about right.

 The fighter was a bit to good, got nerfed and a big buff in regaining expertise dice, cleric was to boring got minor buff, wizard was to weak got buffed. I'll have to test the changes but thats my feeling. I suppose the Rogue is the best out of combat skill class now though unbless some of the rogue maneuvers are a bit better than fighter ones.

They ruined the rogue. Before, the rogue was boring. He was not, however, underpowered. Now the rogue is just garbage. It is nothing but a strictly inferior fighter. It gets worse weapon choices. It gets worse armor choices. It gets one less maneuver. It has less hit points. It does not gain an extra attack at sixth level. When it sneak attacks, it deals far less damage than it did in the last playtest packet. In fact, sneak attack is now nothing but an inferior deadly strike. So, the rogue is hands down an inferior combatant.


It also lost some of its advantage when it comes to skills. I mean, I would call its skill mastery maneuver largely a wash, in terms of power, for what it used to get. Using skills won’t be as much of a sure thing, but its maximum rolls went up as well. And, a rogue will get 8 trained skills now. Thing is, they hacked up the skill list into super specialized options ala 3e again. So, those 8 trained skills amount to fewer overall abilities than its 6 skills did last time around. In fact, it is now fairly hard to build a character who is good at any decent number of skill based abilities unless you play a rogue. So, this change nerfed everyone. You even need two skills to be perceptive (listen and spot) again! Lame. Very lame.


I like the idea of rogues getting expertise dice. But, the overall implementation of the concept, and the changes that the rogue has gone through, leave a lot to be desired…




I gotta agree with you. They borked this one.

At the very least sneak attack needs to be changed to:

Sneak Attack
You use cunning and guile to deliver a deadly attack against an unsuspecting foe.
Benefit: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can spend expertise dice to increase the attack’s natural roll against that target, provided you have advantage against the target or it is in the reach of a creature friendly to you. Roll all the expertise dice you spend, and add up their results. The natural roll gains a bonus equal to that total. If the natural roll (before adding all other bonuses or penalties) is 20 or higher you count it as a critical hit dealing critical hit damage.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Sneak Attack
You use cunning and guile to deliver a deadly attack against an unsuspecting foe.
Benefit: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can spend expertise dice to increase the attack’s natural roll against that target, provided you have advantage against the target or it is in the reach of a creature friendly to you. Roll all the expertise dice you spend, and add up their results. The natural roll gains a bonus equal to that total. If the natural roll (before adding all other bonuses or penalties) is 20 or higher you count it as a critical hit dealing critical hit damage.


This is probably broken, but I like the idea of combining the mechanics of sneak attack and critical hit.  They were always basically the same thing conceptually; it was weird how they used totally different mechanics.
More or less agree with Lokiare for the 1st time today. Waits for world to explode. Sneak attack could also grant advantage if its situational and they have to spend dice to get it for a lousy d4 sneak attack at level 1.
I actually think the rogue looks like fun. Haven't played it yet so I can't speak on too much. But on your last point splitting up spot and listen is, for once, a good thing. Reason? If the dm asks for a perception check a player trained in spot can get his +3 to the check while a player trained in both can get a +6.

Nah. They snuck a mechanic in there that forces you to use the inferior rogue. Specifically, proficiency in thieves tools. You cannot pick locks or disable devices without that class trait. Only the rogue gets that class trait. So, you need someone to play a rogue, but whoever does is basically picking the short straw. 

So disappointed... 

The rogue needs to have some extra fun mechanics that give people a reason to want to play one instead of a fighter. I don't even need those mechanics to be combat based. They can make them skill based. Whatever. But 4 extra skills and the ability to roll an expertise dice on skill checks does not make up for the differences between this class and the fighter, and making the rogue the only class that can ever attempt to pick locks or disable traps doesn't make the rogue more fun. I mean, I am fine if the rogue is the only class that can do that. But, just like the cleric needs to be able to do more than just heal, the rogue needs something more. 

I actually think the rogue looks like fun. Haven't played it yet so I can't speak on too much. But on your last point splitting up spot and listen is, for once, a good thing. Reason? If the dm asks for a perception check a player trained in spot can get his +3 to the check while a player trained in both can get a +6.



That's not how it works. You don't get advantage or get to use both abilities or anything. You use Wisdom to passively and for listen checks, you use intelligence for active searching and for spot checks...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I actually think the rogue looks like fun. Haven't played it yet so I can't speak on too much. But on your last point splitting up spot and listen is, for once, a good thing. Reason? If the dm asks for a perception check a player trained in spot can get his +3 to the check while a player trained in both can get a +6.




Ah. I see. But, since there is only one stealth skill, stealth just became far, far, far more dangerous. You cannot relly on rolling a minimum of 10. Sure, you can add expertise to your die roll, but if you do you cannot sneak attack the creature after you use your move action to move up to it. So, playing a rogue who likes to engage in melee combat just became a whole lot more tricky. Even more so, because you sneak attack is going to be fairly weak compared to what it would have been before! So you are right. Perception got a secret boost that I didn't catch. Stealth also got a secret nerf in the process. Good game...


Daaaaaang. I was scrolling my way on down to Rogue and did NOT expect to see that tiny 1d4 there. I would rather see 2d4 for rogue and bigger die for the fighter. If that was the case, the rogue would be good at doing more tricks and stuff, which would be super fine with me.
I actually think the rogue looks like fun. Haven't played it yet so I can't speak on too much. But on your last point splitting up spot and listen is, for once, a good thing. Reason? If the dm asks for a perception check a player trained in spot can get his +3 to the check while a player trained in both can get a +6.



That's not how it works. You don't get advantage or get to use both abilities or anything. You use Wisdom to passively and for listen checks, you use intelligence for active searching and for spot checks...




I don't know. I am still looking through the packet, but a skill is basically a situational mod to any action a player narrates. So, if you narrate sitting there and focusing on what is going on around you, that is a single Wisdom check. As you are both trying to listen and spot at the same time, and each of those is its own skill now, you get to add them both to the roll, no? 

I admit, I have not read over all of this carefully as of yet. I am still in the process of doing so.  

Sneak Attack
You use cunning and guile to deliver a deadly attack against an unsuspecting foe.
Benefit: When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can spend expertise dice to increase the attack’s natural roll against that target, provided you have advantage against the target or it is in the reach of a creature friendly to you. Roll all the expertise dice you spend, and add up their results. The natural roll gains a bonus equal to that total. If the natural roll (before adding all other bonuses or penalties) is 20 or higher you count it as a critical hit dealing critical hit damage.


This is probably broken, but I like the idea of combining the mechanics of sneak attack and critical hit.  They were always basically the same thing conceptually; it was weird how they used totally different mechanics.


Oh, and the other good thing about this ability is its lack of consistency.  That may sound like a weird thing to say, but think about it.  Rogues for the past three editions at least have bent over backwards to get advantage on every attack.  And good players have been pretty good at pulling this off.  But if they can do this, then sneak attack is not so much a sneak attack as it is regular bonus damage.  If the ability is less consistent, then when you do land a sneak attack, the game can afford to let you deal some real burst damage, and you get that wonderful "Haha!  Gotcha!" moment.
Posted a fix to the Rogue.

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

 As someone else pointed out they added proficinecy in thieves tools. All they had to do is fix the thug and sneak attack issues. This is like using a sledge hammer fix to 3.5 which resulted in 4th ed.
I actually think the rogue looks like fun. Haven't played it yet so I can't speak on too much. But on your last point splitting up spot and listen is, for once, a good thing. Reason? If the dm asks for a perception check a player trained in spot can get his +3 to the check while a player trained in both can get a +6.



That's not how it works. You don't get advantage or get to use both abilities or anything. You use Wisdom to passively and for listen checks, you use intelligence for active searching and for spot checks...




I don't know. I am still looking through the packet, but a skill is basically a situational mod to any action a player narrates. So, if you narrate sitting there and focusing on what is going on around you, that is a single Wisdom check. As you are both trying to listen and spot at the same time, and each of those is its own skill now, you get to add them both to the roll, no? 

I admit, I have not read over all of this carefully as of yet. I am still in the process of doing so.  




Skip to the page 10 of how to play: Perception. They explain it in detail...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
So, everything else aside (I'm going to wait until I play it to pass judgment), why is a rogue being an inferior combatant to the *FIGHTER* a bad thing? It's pretty much what I'd expect, after all.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

Because the Rogues situational extra damage ability is inferiors to the fighters extra damage. You know the ability they have had in every other edition of D&D ever. Its like forcing someone to be a cleric in pre 3rd ed D&D. They know they are getting the shaft in the back passage.
So, everything else aside (I'm going to wait until I play it to pass judgment), why is a rogue being an inferior combatant to the *FIGHTER* a bad thing? It's pretty much what I'd expect, after all.



All classes should be equally effective, but in different ways.

The Rogue should deal the same damage but in bursts.
The Fighter should deal the same damage but average all the time.
The Wizard should deal less damage but to more targets and penalize them.
The Cleric should deal less damage but grant buffs to party members.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
So, everything else aside (I'm going to wait until I play it to pass judgment), why is a rogue being an inferior combatant to the *FIGHTER* a bad thing? It's pretty much what I'd expect, after all.


The problem is that there is no point to choosing a rogue over a fighter.
So, everything else aside (I'm going to wait until I play it to pass judgment), why is a rogue being an inferior combatant to the *FIGHTER* a bad thing? It's pretty much what I'd expect, after all.


The problem is that there is no point to choosing a rogue over a fighter.



More skills and skill abilities?
What if the rogue got, I dunno, twice the fighter's expertise dice when he had advantage against something, but maybe only half when he didn't?  Call this feature "sneak attack" and just give 'em deadly attack for the extra damage option.
I'm starting to get the very distinct feeling that some people are playing a strictly numbers game instead of, I dunno, roleplaying. That makes me sad.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

So, everything else aside (I'm going to wait until I play it to pass judgment), why is a rogue being an inferior combatant to the *FIGHTER* a bad thing? It's pretty much what I'd expect, after all.


The problem is that there is no point to choosing a rogue over a fighter.



More skills and skill abilities?



 Its only 4 skills and the ability to spend expertise dice on modifying skill rolls. They made thieves tools proficiency a rogue exclusive ability presumably to force you to play one.
I'm starting to get the very distinct feeling that some people are playing a strictly numbers game instead of, I dunno, roleplaying. That makes me sad.


There's nothing wrong with insisting that a character whom you're roleplaying as competent actually be competent.
I'm starting to get the very distinct feeling that some people are playing a strictly numbers game instead of, I dunno, role playing. That makes me sad.



We can play the role playing part after the numbers are right, so we have actual options in the game and people aren't penalized for their role playing choices...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
 The rogue is actually the 3.5 fighter in reverse now. Sucks at combat, good outside of combat but really only in a few skills that are essentially rogue only skills now.
I'm starting to get the very distinct feeling that some people are playing a strictly numbers game instead of, I dunno, roleplaying. That makes me sad.


There's nothing wrong with insisting that a character whom you're roleplaying as competent actually be competent.



That's fine. And, as I said, for the rest of the rogue, I'm waiting until I actually see it in action before judging it.

But to assume the rogue should be as good in combat as a fighter (as it seems the idea is) just seems ludicrous to me. Of course the fighter is better. It's what the fighter *does* after all.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

Problem is though the rogue is not any better at combat now than the wizard. Thats a woops in my book.
I'm starting to get the very distinct feeling that some people are playing a strictly numbers game instead of, I dunno, roleplaying. That makes me sad.


In my current gaming group I am playing a 2E thief. I am roleplaying and having fun. However, the fact that my character is crap in combat is irritating. Having cool abilities and being able to dish out serious damage like a 4E rogue would be a lot more fun. Having real, interesting choices and capabilites doesn't in any way hinder roleplaying, especially since combat is its own mini-game divorced from most of the roleplaying that takes place.
Second ed thief can at least backstab and be 1-4 levels ahead of everyone else. Just saying.
I'm starting to get the very distinct feeling that some people are playing a strictly numbers game instead of, I dunno, roleplaying. That makes me sad.


There's nothing wrong with insisting that a character whom you're roleplaying as competent actually be competent.



That's fine. And, as I said, for the rest of the rogue, I'm waiting until I actually see it in action before judging it.

But to assume the rogue should be as good in combat as a fighter (as it seems the idea is) just seems ludicrous to me. Of course the fighter is better. It's what the fighter *does* after all.




The Fighter is good at confronting enemies face to face and is a master with weapons.

The Rogue is great at deception and stealth and a master with light and small weapons.

They should both be just as effective in combat, but in different ways. If the Rogue can only get stealth once per encounter they should be able to deal damage equal to the fighter in that one stealthy attack as the fighter can in the entire fight. If they can get it more often it should be toned down.

The idea that the Rogue needs advantage to use sneak attack is a good one. If the Rogue needs something in order to perform a maneuver, then that fits with the whole deception aspect.

The Fighter can do anything they choose at a certain average level. The Rogue can do powerful things, but only situationaly would be a great way to differentiate them...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I'm starting to get the very distinct feeling that some people are playing a strictly numbers game instead of, I dunno, roleplaying. That makes me sad.


There's nothing wrong with insisting that a character whom you're roleplaying as competent actually be competent.



That's fine. And, as I said, for the rest of the rogue, I'm waiting until I actually see it in action before judging it.

But to assume the rogue should be as good in combat as a fighter (as it seems the idea is) just seems ludicrous to me. Of course the fighter is better. It's what the fighter *does* after all.




The Fighter is good at confronting enemies face to face and is a master with weapons.

The Rogue is great at deception and stealth and a master with light and small weapons.

They should both be just as effective in combat, but in different ways. If the Rogue can only get stealth once per encounter they should be able to deal damage equal to the fighter in that one stealthy attack as the fighter can in the entire fight. If they can get it more often it should be toned down.

The idea that the Rogue needs advantage to use sneak attack is a good one. If the Rogue needs something in order to perform a maneuver, then that fits with the whole deception aspect.

The Fighter can do anything they choose at a certain average level. The Rogue can do powerful things, but only situationaly would be a great way to differentiate them...



I simply disagree with that entire premise. And, since that is apparently shared fairly widely on the boards here, I will do nothing more than get incredibly stressed here, so I'm done. Good day.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

I'm starting to get the very distinct feeling that some people are playing a strictly numbers game instead of, I dunno, roleplaying. That makes me sad.


There's nothing wrong with insisting that a character whom you're roleplaying as competent actually be competent.



That's fine. And, as I said, for the rest of the rogue, I'm waiting until I actually see it in action before judging it.

But to assume the rogue should be as good in combat as a fighter (as it seems the idea is) just seems ludicrous to me. Of course the fighter is better. It's what the fighter *does* after all.




The Fighter is good at confronting enemies face to face and is a master with weapons.

The Rogue is great at deception and stealth and a master with light and small weapons.

They should both be just as effective in combat, but in different ways. If the Rogue can only get stealth once per encounter they should be able to deal damage equal to the fighter in that one stealthy attack as the fighter can in the entire fight. If they can get it more often it should be toned down.

The idea that the Rogue needs advantage to use sneak attack is a good one. If the Rogue needs something in order to perform a maneuver, then that fits with the whole deception aspect.

The Fighter can do anything they choose at a certain average level. The Rogue can do powerful things, but only situationaly would be a great way to differentiate them...



I simply disagree with that entire premise. And, since that is apparently shared fairly widely on the boards here, I will do nothing more than get incredibly stressed here, so I'm done. Good day.



Let me guess because Rogues get lots of skill points in 3.xE and in previous editions they got their class features that seemed like skills, you assume they are a skill monkey? You know instead of 'Skill Monkey' being a specialty like it should be...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The Fighter can do anything they choose at a certain average level. The Rogue can do powerful things, but only situationaly would be a great way to differentiate them...


Agreed.  I think the core of the rogue's presence in combat should be that he's always looking for advantage.  Could be stealth, could be flanking, could be sand in the eyes, could be anything.  And what exactly he does with it could depend on his maneuver pool.  But the overall point is that the rogue's style focuses on exploiting every edge, while the fighter can stand and "fight fair".  (Not that fighters should be forced into a code of chivalry or anything, but they should have a higher baseline and lower peaks.)
I think the biggest problem with the rogue is sneak attack - to gain advantage it typically cost an action (example: Stealth) - that means unless the rogue in ganging up on a target (a viable tactic, albeit not always thematic) he has to spend 2 rounds to get a single attack in with a meagre damage boost, a poor choice given that the fighter is doing  two or more attacks in the same amount of time and with the same damage boost each (likely resulting in a higher dpr). 

I don't mind the fighter being better in combat, I actually expect it, but I'm finding this iconic rogue trick falls way too short to be resonable. In the first playtest sneak attack at first level suffered the same problem, just not so bad - +1d6 damage every second round just was not enough to make it a welcome choice - now it is effectively +1d4 for 2 rounds, an even poorer option. The problem is slightly reduced with increase expertise dice from level gain, but not fast enough.

I've seen two suggestion that interest me so far, 1) Have sneak attack cause a critical hit when an attack has advantage; makes sense since that is what it effectively is, a critical hit. or 2) Give the rogue more, but smaller expertise dice, starting at 2d4 or 3d4 perhaps; the numbers would have to be fiddled with, but it would distinguish the two classes nicely, say if the rogue had doubled the number of expertise dice, but each die being a step or two down from the fighter. This would give sneak attack the boost it needs while giving a potentially different feel to how the rogues manuevers play out.
He who should not speak...
I'm thinking that a good compromise would be to give the 'full' martial classes (i.e. fighter, rogue, maybe warlord) 3 expertise options at level 1 (one standard for class, one for build option, one free choice), and give the 'other' martial classes (i.e. ranger, paladin, maybe bard) 2 expertise options at level 1 (one standard for class, one for build option).

This way, the full martials get lots of cool options, and the other classes are tempered by the consideration of their extra spell/skill options.

Danny

Well, the problem is that rogues' sneak attack is exactly the same thing as fighters' deadly strike, EXCEPT they require advantage or an ally in reach (so it can get off every turn reasonably, but the point stands). How is this reasonable in anyone's book? Especially since, in order to get SA, you must give up the only good Rogue maneuver: Skill Mastery (my opinion of course...but nothing else is all that important at level 1). You can pick up SA at level 4 once it goes back up to 2d6...now you have a skill you use outside of combat all the time, one you use inside combat all the time, and one you use in combat when you want to do something fancy.

All-in-all the Maneuver and expertise dice system is worse than it was in the last packet...and I don't care about the power level, but the options. Wasn't this edition supposed to fix the "starting at level 3-5 cuz 1-2 and even up to 4 are boring/bad/slow/notbalanced/etc? Now it's the same thing, you need level 3-4 to access the proper stuff to give your character variety if you are martial class. Kinda sadens me a lot. I'm just hoping this is a test packet for swinging PC power levels way lower than they intend to see our reaction and what they can get away with? Who knows.

Oh ya, and beyond that...only a few people commented on it: but you are indeed now forced to take a rogue. There is zero option around it, unless your DM wants to work with you and remove all traps/locks/etc. Thieves tools require a rogue, which is funny (to me) since you can make a better rogue by just rolling up a fighter and taking Thief background. of course they nipped that one hard cuz I suspect they noticed the same thing?

Nah. They snuck a mechanic in there that forces you to use the inferior rogue. Specifically, proficiency in thieves tools. You cannot pick locks or disable devices without that class trait. Only the rogue gets that class trait. So, you need someone to play a rogue, but whoever does is basically picking the short straw.




Yeah that sucks. I don't see the point of that mechanic. There shouldn't be anything wrong with making a fighter or wizard that can disarm traps or pick locks. That's just silly that only rogues get to do it. Rogues should be better (and skill mastery achieves that), but there shouldn't be a blanket "Rogues only" restriction on that.


After learning about the boost to critical hits, I particularly like the idea of sneak attack causing a critical hit when the attack had advantage... it would be a bit nasty at the moment, but some playtesting should balance that out... [EDIT: Though maybe nasty is what this rogue needs to feel right]

Something like this would keep the rogue's focus on exploration and skills while giving them a nice boost in combat.
He who should not speak...
Yeah that sucks. I don't see the point of that mechanic. There shouldn't be anything wrong with making a fighter or wizard that can disarm traps or pick locks. That's just silly that only rogues get to do it. Rogues should be better (and skill mastery achieves that), but there shouldn't be a blanket "Rogues only" restriction on that.




Absolutely. I loath the 2E approach of giving the thief special skills which almost necessarily means the other classes can't perform those skills, and then balancing this by making the thief fight with a squirt gun. I'd much prefer the 4E approach where the rogue's defining mechanic is a sneak attack that cranks his damage potential to 11 and gets him moving about the battlefield. If the rogue has to be a "skill monkey", fine, but don't start with that premise and treat his combat capabilities as an after thought or hamstring what skills other classes can excel at. I'm disappointed that the designers seem to be going in the 2E direction.

A player should choose to play a rogue because he or she really wants to, not because the game expects each party to have one.

So, my 2 cents. I don't expect rogues to be as good in straight up combat as the fighter. The fighter fights after all. Part of the rogue's focus leans towards skill use, and I expect him to take a hit to his combat capabilities as a result. The problem is that the hit is a little much at the current moment in time. 

The rogue still needs to have some sort of unique identity at all moments of play. Backstab/sneak attack is typically how that was achieved in combat. The rogue hit less often than the fighter, and hit less hard, until he got his moment to shine; then the rogue hit really hard. The last playtest rogue did that (though sneak attack got overpowered in the hands of a thug). The rogue was still a worse combatant than the fighter. The rogue had weaker armor/weapon proficiencies, and couldn’t put out anywhere near the fighter’s consistent damage output. Even getting sneak attack every other round did not make the rogue deal as much DPR as the fighter. But, those sneak attacks were still quite effective when they did happen. In those moments the rogue had a unique and fun identity. For the rest of the fight he was running away and hiding while the fighter shone. Overall, the fighter was still the more effective class in combat. But hey, the rogue shone when he started making skill checks. The two were different enough for someone to subjectively judge them as each having their own strengths and weaknesses.  


Now, I get the argument that not all rogues should be forced to act like assassins. Giving rogues the option to do something else, equally powerful, instead of sneak attack was a good idea. But that isn't what happened. Instead, they turned the rogue into a flat out worse fighter. I mean, they made him play like a fighter, but one with fewer abilities, less numerical advantage in every area of combat, and a damage mechanic that works under certain situations instead of all the time (but the damage is the same). Four extra skills and the ability to add your expertise die roll to your trained skill checks just doesn't seem that appealing in light of all the ways you are just a fighter, but worse. The only reason to play a rogue is now because you need one--they are the only class that can pick locks or disable traps. Not cool.


The rogue needs to be different from a fighter in combat, and still appealing. He doesn’t have to be as good overall. He cannot, however, simply be the same but worse. Giving the rogue expertise dice could work, if the rogue really had a unique maneuver list (which he doesn’t right now), and if the rogue's manoeuvres amounted to something different and appealing (if not as effective overall) instead of the same but worse.


Anyway, changing sneak attack into a maneuver that grants reliable critical hits when you have advantage could work. Giving the rogue some more skill based mechanics might help. I really liked the idea of rogues being able to make a skill check (that normally requires its own action) as part of an attack in combat. But whereas I found the last version a little boring due to a lack of in game options, I find this new version unplayable despite having in game options. 

Oh...major overlook on my part:

ALL ROGUES get Skill Mastery Maneuver for free and then you choose another. Jolly good, still not happy with my 3.5e v2.0 rogue this packet