Rogues, even worse than I imagined

I really had hoped that I had over reacted about the rogue and that I was blowing things out of porportion and making assumptions that I really should not have made. BUT looks like I was right after all, and even worse I actually guessed the name of the Skill Trick!!!!! 

So Taunt, just as I feared does exactly what I claimed it would and without any exceptions that I said wouldn't be provided. Several people tried to say that nothing said you had to charge, but the Skill Trick does state you must move towards the character. You aren't allowed any exceptions, even if attacking with a crossbow would have made more logical sense to do so. The only people who are provided an exception are those who are immune to charm effects...but exactly why is this the case for a mundane ability? No creature who is immune to magical charm should automatically be immune to a mundane charm. 

Anyway Taunt is not the only magical rogue ability. Charming Pressense is another. You somehow magically charm a creature... even if that creature wants to kill you or hates rogues or would never ever deal with you ever (Thinking of you Lawful Good Paladin). You can end this ability at will (clearly making it magical) and somehow using the ability means you can't use your skill dice. Apparently if you Charm the bartender you can't pick a lock that well any more. Flip a switch and the charm effect ends...magically as there is no reason for it to ever end if it is truly mundane (until you do something like stab the poor bartender). Even worse, even if I liked the ability, I'm not exactly sure what affect it is suppose to have. What does it mean to have someone charmed?

Display deadliness is another ability that just seems silly. I mean lets be honest the fighter looks way more deadly than the rogue could ever look, especially if the rogue is doing his job of not being noticed.

Distract is silly and apparently magical as well. (Doesn't work on creatures immune to charm affects...no reason this should be the case) May actually have some redeemability.

While I like Feint, I think this is more of a fighter ability rather than something the rogue should have.

Use Magic Device makes no logical sense. How exactly do you trick a magical item into thinking you are a particular race, class, or have a spellcasting ability???????????

Unsassuming threat is horrible. I mean if the monster isn't paying attention to the other guy but you, there is no reason this should give you an ability to your AC.


At least I like sneak attack looking at it. But I've just elimated half the Skill Tricks that I could not possibly put up with in a game of D&D wihtout quiting the game after five seconds. I've never house rulled anything and yet the rogue continues to be a problem.

*Please note that at least at the moment if I didn't mention a skill trick it means I actually like it or it is acceptable.


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

I love the rogue in this playtest.  I think it's just about right.
I hate it. I'm Banning the rogue from my games and ripping the page out of the Players Handbook. 
Do we really have to go through the same multi-hundred-post "discussion" with you denying the entire field of human psychology?

Really?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I hate it. I'm Banning the rogue from my games and ripping the page out of the Players Handbook. 



Welcome to Nofriendsville, population:  You.
I hate it. I'm Banning the rogue from my games and ripping the page out of the Players Handbook. 


That seems a little extreme doesn't it?
I hate it. I'm Banning the rogue from my games and ripping the page out of the Players Handbook. 


Its a PDF
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
....I still would not want to sit down and play at your table. If you are willing to do this over something that you disagree with, we probably would not have a good time. 
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
Do we really have to go through the same multi-hundred-post "discussion" with you denying the entire field of human psychology?

Really?


What is the psychological reason that you must attack someeone or move close to them when being taunted? Why on earth would that always be the action you would take when being taunted?
I hate it. I'm Banning the rogue from my games and ripping the page out of the Players Handbook. 


That seems a little extreme doesn't it?



No. I can't stand these types of abilities. One of the very few things I hated about fourth. I'd rather have 4th reprinted than the rogue as it is currently.
I hate it. I'm Banning the rogue from my games and ripping the page out of the Players Handbook. 

I hate destroying books, so I'll just avoid buying it in the first place.  I highly recommend the same.

Whatever could have made them think that "Come and Get It" would be less controversial by handing it out to the Rogue as an at-will ability?

The metagame is not the game.

I hate it. I'm Banning the rogue from my games and ripping the page out of the Players Handbook. 


That seems a little extreme doesn't it?



No. I can't stand these types of abilities. One of the very few things I hated about fourth. I'd rather have 4th reprinted than the rogue as it is currently.


You should probably avoid the Wizard class then, you might get a heart attack.
I hate it. I'm Banning the rogue from my games and ripping the page out of the Players Handbook. 


That seems a little extreme doesn't it?



No. I can't stand these types of abilities. One of the very few things I hated about fourth. I'd rather have 4th reprinted than the rogue as it is currently.



Stop and read what you just wrote.  You can't stand these abilities.  This is your problem, and your solution is that nobody should have them?  Yes, that's extreme. 
Do we really have to go through the same multi-hundred-post "discussion" with you denying the entire field of human psychology?

Really?


What is the psychological reason that you must attack someeone or move close to them when being taunted? Why on earth would that always be the action you would take when being taunted?


It's the action you would take when being successfully taunted to do the thing that the rogue wants you to do, which is a very different situation than "always"
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I hate it. I'm Banning the rogue from my games and ripping the page out of the Players Handbook. 

I hate destroying books, so I'll just avoid buying it in the first place.  I highly recommend the same.

Whatever could have made them think that "Come and Get It" would be less controversial by handing it out to the Rogue as an at-will ability?



I hate ripping books too. And I actually like most of the game, so I'd prefer to actually buy it just without this version of the rogue.
Do we really have to go through the same multi-hundred-post "discussion" with you denying the entire field of human psychology?

Really?


What is the psychological reason that you must attack someeone or move close to them when being taunted? Why on earth would that always be the action you would take when being taunted?



That's just the way rogue magic works.  You wanna do a mundane taunt, roll the opposed Charisma check like anyone else and see what the DM says happens.
Do we really have to go through the same multi-hundred-post "discussion" with you denying the entire field of human psychology?

Really?


What is the psychological reason that you must attack someeone or move close to them when being taunted? Why on earth would that always be the action you would take when being taunted?


It's the action you would take when being successfully taunted to do that thing, which is a very different thing than "always"


You can be successfully taunted and shoot an arrow at the person, or toss something towards him. You don't have to always head towards the person who is taunting you, even if he does successfully taunt you.

How do you successfully taunt someone anyway? 
That's just the way rogue magic works.  You wanna do a mundane taunt, roll the opposed Charisma check like anyone else and see what the DM says happens.

Actually, that gives me an idea.

What if we re-name the class Beguiler, and pretend that the ability actually is magic?  That's pretty much what I did with 4E, and it worked well enough there.

Edit: I'm going to hope that they cover that in a sidebar, explaining how to re-fluff this stuff to be less offensive.

The metagame is not the game.

To be fair, while most of his arguments are dumb, this:

You can end this ability at will and somehow using the ability means you can't use your skill dice. Apparently if you Charm the bartender you can't pick a lock that well any more.



Is a good point. The target remains charmed, and while you've got him charmed you can't do anything else with your skill dice? That seems very awkward. 
You can be successfully taunted and shoot an arrow at the person, or toss something towards him. You don't have to always head towards the person who is taunting you, even if he does successfully taunt you.

How do you successfully taunt someone anyway? 

If you have to ask this, and think the only answer is "magic," then you need to go out into the real world more often.

You're taunting him with the goal of getting him to charge you.  If you succeed at this goal, then he charges you, by definition.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
That's just the way rogue magic works.  You wanna do a mundane taunt, roll the opposed Charisma check like anyone else and see what the DM says happens.

Actually, that gives me an idea.

What if we re-name the class Beguiler, and pretend that the ability actually is magic?  That's pretty much what I did with 4E, and it worked well enough there.




Yannow, this kind of argument could be taken a bit more seriously if your sig didn't make you look like a hypocrite for it.  Just sayin'.
Do we really have to go through the same multi-hundred-post "discussion" with you denying the entire field of human psychology?

Really?


What is the psychological reason that you must attack someeone or move close to them when being taunted? Why on earth would that always be the action you would take when being taunted?


It's the action you would take when being successfully taunted to do the thing that the rogue wants you to do, which is a very different situation than "always"


No the abilility isn't what the rogue wants... What if the rogue would prefer to taunt you to jump and hit your head so you get knocked out? Doesn't matter, you still just run toward the rogue.
Do we really have to go through the same multi-hundred-post "discussion" with you denying the entire field of human psychology?

Really?


What is the psychological reason that you must attack someeone or move close to them when being taunted? Why on earth would that always be the action you would take when being taunted?


It's the action you would take when being successfully taunted to do the thing that the rogue wants you to do, which is a very different situation than "always"


No the abilility isn't what the rogue wants... What if the rogue would prefer to taunt you to jump and hit your head so you get knocked out? Doesn't matter, you still just run toward the rogue.


The ability is specifically the taunt that makes him charge you.  If it works, then he charges you. 

How is this complicated?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
You can be successfully taunted and shoot an arrow at the person, or toss something towards him. You don't have to always head towards the person who is taunting you, even if he does successfully taunt you.

How do you successfully taunt someone anyway? 

If you have to ask this, and think the only answer is "magic," then you need to go out into the real world more often.

You're taunting him with the goal of getting him to charge you.  If you succeed at this goal, then he charges you, by definition.




Uh...that or read The Hobbit again.
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
Do we really have to go through the same multi-hundred-post "discussion" with you denying the entire field of human psychology?

Really?


What is the psychological reason that you must attack someeone or move close to them when being taunted? Why on earth would that always be the action you would take when being taunted?


It's the action you would take when being successfully taunted to do the thing that the rogue wants you to do, which is a very different situation than "always"


No the abilility isn't what the rogue wants... What if the rogue would prefer to taunt you to jump and hit your head so you get knocked out? Doesn't matter, you still just run toward the rogue.


The ability is specifically the taunt that makes him charge you.  If it works, then he charges you. 

How is this complicated?


Because it's not magic.
I hate it. I'm Banning the rogue from my games and ripping the page out of the Players Handbook. 


That seems a little extreme doesn't it?



No. I can't stand these types of abilities. One of the very few things I hated about fourth. I'd rather have 4th reprinted than the rogue as it is currently.



Stop and read what you just wrote.  You can't stand these abilities.  This is your problem, and your solution is that nobody should have them?  Yes, that's extreme. 


As long as the goal is to get my money I would prefer mundane magical abilities to not be in the game, and Yes I want a rogue I'd actually allow in a game so that people can play the rogue. 
What if we re-name the class Beguiler, and pretend that the ability actually is magic?  That's pretty much what I did with 4E, and it worked well enough there.

Yannow, this kind of argument could be taken a bit more seriously if your sig didn't make you look like a hypocrite for it.  Just sayin'.

I have a sig?

Edit: Huh, I guess I do at that.  Well, I honestly don't see how my sig is inconsistent with my post - as long as Magic A is Magic A, then that works fine at a game level.

The metagame is not the game.

Do we really have to go through the same multi-hundred-post "discussion" with you denying the entire field of human psychology?

Really?


What is the psychological reason that you must attack someeone or move close to them when being taunted? Why on earth would that always be the action you would take when being taunted?


It's the action you would take when being successfully taunted to do the thing that the rogue wants you to do, which is a very different situation than "always"


No the abilility isn't what the rogue wants... What if the rogue would prefer to taunt you to jump and hit your head so you get knocked out? Doesn't matter, you still just run toward the rogue.


The ability is specifically the taunt that makes him charge you.  If it works, then he charges you. 

How is this complicated?


Then what is keeping the rogue from taunting him to doing somethign else? (Besides there not being a skill trick to do so?) Further why can't a fighter taunt someone as well?
Because it's not magic.


Thunderumpkins!  The rogue has always been somewhat, partially magical.  (Well, I don't have the original, but at least since the 1e thief).

Then what is keeping the rogue from taunting him to doing somethign else? (Besides there not being a skill trick to do so?) Further why can't a fighter taunt someone as well?


Both can.  Opposed Charisma checks.  May be able to talk the DM into allowing Bluff.
I hate it. I'm Banning the rogue from my games and ripping the page out of the Players Handbook. 


That seems a little extreme doesn't it?



No. I can't stand these types of abilities. One of the very few things I hated about fourth. I'd rather have 4th reprinted than the rogue as it is currently.



Stop and read what you just wrote.  You can't stand these abilities.  This is your problem, and your solution is that nobody should have them?  Yes, that's extreme. 


As long as the goal is to get my money I would prefer mundane magical abilities to not be in the game, and Yes I want a rogue I'd actually allow in a game so that people can play the rogue. 



So let me get this straight.  You are so hidebound that, presented with a fantasy setting where fantastic things should happen on a regular basis, characters in this fantasy setting that aren't defined as specifically using magic should be limited to real physics?  Is anyone else noting a bit of hypocrisy here, 'cus I'm not about to let this guy anywhere near a D&D book in the near future.

Then what is keeping the rogue from taunting him to doing somethign else? (Besides there not being a skill trick to do so?) Further why can't a fighter taunt someone as well?


Both can.  Opposed Charisma checks.  May be able to talk the DM into allowing Bluff.


If you allow any skills to be added you completely destroy the rogue having it as a skill trick as the rogue won't gain anything from having it.
I hate it. I'm Banning the rogue from my games and ripping the page out of the Players Handbook. 


That seems a little extreme doesn't it?



No. I can't stand these types of abilities. One of the very few things I hated about fourth. I'd rather have 4th reprinted than the rogue as it is currently.



Stop and read what you just wrote.  You can't stand these abilities.  This is your problem, and your solution is that nobody should have them?  Yes, that's extreme. 


As long as the goal is to get my money I would prefer mundane magical abilities to not be in the game, and Yes I want a rogue I'd actually allow in a game so that people can play the rogue. 



So let me get this straight.  You are so hidebound that, presented with a fantasy setting where fantastic things should happen on a regular basis, characters in this fantasy setting that aren't defined as specifically using magic should be limited to real physics?  Is anyone else noting a bit of hypocrisy here, 'cus I'm not about to let this guy anywhere near a D&D book in the near future.



Yes I like my mundane parts of the game to be realistic within a reasonable level. Rogue just goes over that reasonable level. Pretty much any ability that makes another character act a specific way does.

Then what is keeping the rogue from taunting him to doing somethign else? (Besides there not being a skill trick to do so?) Further why can't a fighter taunt someone as well?


Both can.  Opposed Charisma checks.  May be able to talk the DM into allowing Bluff.


If you allow any skills to be added you completely destroy the rogue having it as a skill trick as the rogue won't gain anything from having it.



You get to automatically say the opponent charges you with a successful skill trick Taunt.  You are at the mercy of the DM's judgment with the mundane opposed Charisma check - like shoot you with a crossbow from a safe distance.
D'you gut half the nonhumanoid monsters, too?  'Cus that seems like the next logical step. Undecided
So let me get this straight.  You are so hidebound that, presented with a fantasy setting where fantastic things should happen on a regular basis, characters in this fantasy setting that aren't defined as specifically using magic should be limited to real physics?  Is anyone else noting a bit of hypocrisy here, 'cus I'm not about to let this guy anywhere near a D&D book in the near future.

Just because it's a setting where fantastic things can happen doesn't mean we want to make them less special by letting them come from non-magic.

Let magic be magic, and let reality reign except where noted.  It's not that hard.

The metagame is not the game.

Then what is keeping the rogue from taunting him to doing somethign else? (Besides there not being a skill trick to do so?) Further why can't a fighter taunt someone as well?

The lack of the skill trick to do so.  The fighter can't do it because he doesn't have the skill trick, the same way the rogue can't wear heavy armor.

It's like asking why Ray of Frost is a cantrip, but not Fireball.  What reason is there beyond Fireball not being a cantrip?

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So let me get this straight.  You are so hidebound that, presented with a fantasy setting where fantastic things should happen on a regular basis, characters in this fantasy setting that aren't defined as specifically using magic should be limited to real physics?  Is anyone else noting a bit of hypocrisy here, 'cus I'm not about to let this guy anywhere near a D&D book in the near future.

Just because it's a setting where fantastic things can happen doesn't mean we want to make them less special by letting them come from non-magic.

Let magic be magic, and let reality reign except where noted.  It's not that hard.




I am letting magic be magic.  Not everything supernatural is magic.
I am letting magic be magic.  Not everything supernatural is magic.

This isn't even supernatural.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

Then what is keeping the rogue from taunting him to doing somethign else? (Besides there not being a skill trick to do so?) Further why can't a fighter taunt someone as well?


Both can.  Opposed Charisma checks.  May be able to talk the DM into allowing Bluff.


If you allow any skills to be added you completely destroy the rogue having it as a skill trick as the rogue won't gain anything from having it.



You get to automatically say the opponent charges you with a successful skill trick Taunt.  You are at the mercy of the DM's judgment with the mundane opposed Charisma check - like shoot you with a crossbow from a safe distance.



The fact you actually used the word Mundane when referring to other characters doing the same action, I think makes my point very clear.
I am letting magic be magic.  Not everything supernatural is magic.

This isn't even supernatural.



Sorry, could've been clearer:  Not everything fantastic is magic. Tongue Out