Hey wait a minute...

Have we been bait and switched on rogues? 

Mearls and co. said that they didn't want 'sneak attack' to define the Rogue's combat abilities. So now they give us a rogue who always gets his sneak attack (MDD) along with the Fighter's accuracy (weapon attack bonus) and two talents (sneak attack and assassinate) to make them even better (potentially) heavy hitters.

Hmmm. 
Have we been bait and switched on rogues? 

Mearls and co. said that they didn't want 'sneak attack' to define the Rogue's combat abilities. So now they give us a rogue who always gets his sneak attack (MDD) along with the Fighter's accuracy (weapon attack bonus) and two talents (sneak attack and assassinate) to make them even better (potentially) heavy hitters.

Hmmm. 



Hmmm indeed.

I kind of take the "we don't want Sneak Attack to define the Rogue's combat" to mean "we don't want the rogue to be reduced to sneaking/hiding/flanking/etc in combat in order to be effective."  You don't have to do that stuff to get the MDD damage bonus, right?  And those two talents are optional.
My understanding was somewhat different (that they actually wanted the rogue to be exploration primary with combat as, at best, a secondary priority with a 'sneak attack' option for people who, like me, prefer to play rogue's as damage dealers. Instead, we get a serviceable combatant who can, depending on player option preference, also cover a lot of exploration and interaction pillar play.)

 
Have we been bait and switched on rogues? 

Mearls and co. said that they didn't want 'sneak attack' to define the Rogue's combat abilities. So now they give us a rogue who always gets his sneak attack (MDD) along with the Fighter's accuracy (weapon attack bonus) and two talents (sneak attack and assassinate) to make them even better (potentially) heavy hitters.

Hmmm. 



Hmmm indeed.

I kind of take the "we don't want Sneak Attack to define the Rogue's combat" to mean "we don't want the rogue to be reduced to sneaking/hiding/flanking/etc in combat in order to be effective."  You don't have to do that stuff to get the MDD damage bonus, right?  And those two talents are optional.


More or less this.

What MDD seemed to have done is allow rogues to deal damage, without having the "sneak attack" style of combat dominate the class. While it is still an option, you can also use assassinate and other skill tricks that greatly change the way you play the rogue, but not radically change the damage.

If I want to play the classic sneak attack rogue, I can. But I can also play a more melee focused rogue, a more "charming" rogue, and etc in combat without fearing losing too much damage.

We did lose the requirement of sneak attack, but that does not have to mean we lose all the damage associated with it. Sneak attack is now an option, not a requirement, just like they said.  
My two copper.
 I must have entirely misunderstood what I thought Mike had written.
 I must have entirely misunderstood what I thought Mike had written.



Also, don't assume that everything a designer does is what they intended to do. These designers don't analyze the function of their mechanics before implementing them in the playtests so they might very well make a class feature that does something entirely different from what they really want.
My understanding was somewhat different (that they actually wanted the rogue to be exploration primary with combat as, at best, a secondary priority with a 'sneak attack' option for people who, like me, prefer to play rogue's as damage dealers. Instead, we get a serviceable combatant who can, depending on player option preference, also cover a lot of exploration and interaction pillar play.)

 



Honestly, I'm not sure the rogue isn't exactly that. They're great exploration characters, with decent combat abillities, unless you put a lot of your resources into killing stuff, in which case they become good damage dealers, and still remain good exploration characters.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome

I must have entirely misunderstood what I thought Mike had written.

Also, don't assume that everything a designer does is what they intended to do. These designers don't analyze the function of their mechanics before implementing them in the playtests so they might very well make a class feature that does something entirely different from what they really want.

Yeah this is very true. We only know what we're told and can only assume there's a link between the two. Course I said that in another thread and was told that it meant Mearls & Co don't have any credibility because of it. I don't see it that way.
My understanding was somewhat different (that they actually wanted the rogue to be exploration primary with combat as, at best, a secondary priority with a 'sneak attack' option for people who, like me, prefer to play rogue's as damage dealers. Instead, we get a serviceable combatant who can, depending on player option preference, also cover a lot of exploration and interaction pillar play.)

 





The tried the 'rogues suck at combat and are totally awesome at exploration' in a packet and it bombed hard.   It turns out people actually want their rogues to be useful in a fight.


Carl 
That may have been the packet I was to depressed to open (the one that had the paladin in it?). Of course, I didn't like the Rogue in the packet before that to and I love my rogues. I was building sneaky fighters and defendery clerics for a bit.
That may have been the packet I was to depressed to open (the one that had the paladin in it?). Of course, I didn't like the Rogue in the packet before that to and I love my rogues. I was building sneaky fighters and defendery clerics for a bit.

I didn't think that there was a packet with a Paladin. Did I miss one?
Mr Mearls wanted a different, trickster, rogue, and we have it : a sneak attacking trickster rogue, lol.

I gave up on rogues. It seems that rogues will stay highly trained military sneaky light fighters. Just another fighter build turned into its own class.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

That may have been the packet I was to depressed to open (the one that had the paladin in it?). Of course, I didn't like the Rogue in the packet before that to and I love my rogues. I was building sneaky fighters and defendery clerics for a bit.

I didn't think that there was a packet with a Paladin. Did I miss one?



Uh, whoops, that may have been when I had access to Friends and family material. I thought I saw discussion about it while I wasn't reading packets though...
That may have been the packet I was to depressed to open (the one that had the paladin in it?). Of course, I didn't like the Rogue in the packet before that to and I love my rogues. I was building sneaky fighters and defendery clerics for a bit.

I didn't think that there was a packet with a Paladin. Did I miss one?



Uh, whoops, that may have been when I had access to Friends and family material. I thought I saw discussion about it while I wasn't reading packets though...



Hey, that's just teasing
No, I really thought there was a packet I didn't open that had a paladin in it.
No, I really thought there was a packet I didn't open that had a paladin in it.



Trust me, I am a hardcore paladin fan. To miss a packet containing the paladin class would be 
an insult to my dedication as a fan of the paladin. 

It turns out people actually want their rogues to be useful in a fight.

Carl 


As a person who loves to play rogues, that is hitting the nail right on the head.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

well,yeah.

*edit*
No, I really thought there was a packet I didn't open that had a paladin in it.

 

Trust me, I am a hardcore paladin fan. To miss a packet containing the paladin class would be 
an insult to my dedication as a fan of the paladin. 




I guess I was wrong then.
I have no problems wit the rogue being good in a fight but right now it is a fighter light. They need to shave of +1 or +2 to hit over 20 levels and buff the fighter or nerf some of the rogues toys. You do not actually need a fighter in DD&N and that is only with 6 classses. The Barbarian and Rogue have basically made them obsolete already. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I have no problems wit the rogue being good in a fight but right now it is a fighter light. They need to shave of +1 or +2 to hit over 20 levels and buff the fighter or nerf some of the rogues toys. You do not actually need a fighter in DD&N and that is only with 6 classses. The Barbarian and Rogue have basically made them obsolete already. 


Ideally, you shouldn't need any one specific class.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

True but I emant another class should not make a class obsolete at its own thing. Party full of Rogues +1 cleric and you will baisally murder everything in your way.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

True but I emant another class should not make a class obsolete at its own thing. Party full of Rogues +1 cleric and you will baisally murder everything in your way.


Ideally, yes, but the problem with that is that there is really more than one class that does the "combat thing."  Monk, rogue, and barbarian generally all make the fighter obsolete; and I have a suspicion that the paladin and the ranger will be the same way.  Of course, that's nothing new.  The "fighter plus" classes have been overshadowing the fighter for quite some time.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Was it like that in 4th ed as I was aware strkers tended to overshadow defneders but AFAIK the fighter was still kind of a big dumb beat stick. I liked the 2nd ed Fighter, SWSE Soldier and homebrewed 3.XYZ fighters (4 skill points, revised skill list, and some 4th ed/Saga powers/talents as feat options).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Was it like that in 4th ed as I was aware strkers tended to overshadow defneders but AFAIK the fighter was still kind of a big dumb beat stick. I liked the 2nd ed Fighter, SWSE Soldier and homebrewed 3.XYZ fighters (4 skill points, revised skill list, and some 4th ed/Saga powers/talents as feat options).


4e didn't so much tie the fighter to the highest damage output as it did to their stickiness.  You could play against that role without being totally gimped, but you lost out on the effectiveness that you would have had if you'd had striker class features to back you up.  Now (full disclosure), I've never used the slayer from essentials, so I can't speak about how well it did at damage output.  Of course, I was excited to see a full-striker version of the fighter because I had hoped that it would open up more subclasses for all the classes, so we could have greater role flexibility.  Unfortunately, that didn't pan out.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Was it like that in 4th ed as I was aware strkers tended to overshadow defneders but AFAIK the fighter was still kind of a big dumb beat stick. I liked the 2nd ed Fighter, SWSE Soldier and homebrewed 3.XYZ fighters (4 skill points, revised skill list, and some 4th ed/Saga powers/talents as feat options).


4e didn't so much tie the fighter to the highest damage output as it did to their stickiness.  You could play against that role without being totally gimped, but you lost out on the effectiveness that you would have had if you'd had striker class features to back you up.  Now (full disclosure), I've never used the slayer from essentials, so I can't speak about how well it did at damage output.  Of course, I was excited to see a full-striker version of the fighter because I had hoped that it would open up more subclasses for all the classes, so we could have greater role flexibility.  Unfortunately, that didn't pan out.



Eh, the 2handed talent Fighter is pretty nasty in their own right. They aren't a top tier striker, but they're not too far off. Enemies really know when they connect, and they're very accurate. Not to mention they're tough as nails.
Was it like that in 4th ed as I was aware strkers tended to overshadow defneders but AFAIK the fighter was still kind of a big dumb beat stick.



No I think the fighter actually overshadowed the Paladin ... the easiest to actually compare since they are similar roles..

A fighter with his I can be a defender and if the DM has the enemy draw the punishment still also dish like a striker while being tougher than strikers.. is not easily overshadowed... unless all you like is big numbers. The ranger eventually becomes potentially king of big numbers.

The classes over all seem close enough within a role that players dramatics and presentation seem to be more significant as far as lime light is concerned.  (Though I have consistant amounts of not much optimization at my house) 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Our Pladin seemed to do alrught in 4th ed except when the player was almost asleep at the table and his PC wandered over to the far side of the room to whack a minon. They used the CharOp boards to build them though in early 4th ed adventures so it was kind of easy for them.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Our Pladin seemed to do alrught in 4th ed except when the player was almost asleep at the table and his PC wandered over to the far side of the room to whack a minon. They used the CharOp boards to build them though in early 4th ed adventures so it was kind of easy for them.



Impressive. Early 4e Paladins were hard to save, even with CharOp. Especially if they were STR based, lol. :P
You know Eric The Cavalier from that D&D Cartoon Show?

That's my paladin in a nutshell. Carries no weapon and only holding a shield.
He is a merciful paladin who protects his friends and allies. 

Now in 5e, if I can trade that Smite Evil for Regenerate Healing, that would be sweet. 
I wasn't kidding when I say I want to Tank. I want to Tank so hard that the enemy would
stop fighting me out of boredom. 

 
I think the next packet may reduce this overshadowing of the Fighter. From what they've been saying it will be regaining maneuvers that don't reduce damage, and a few more rather cool things which should really push it back up there - and make it interesting to play.

A not so related note:

It tends to get to this point before a new packet release where a lot of the things brought up have already been covered and the designers have already heard it. We've seen enough evidence since the last major release that the fighter will be getting some cool stuff again, so all we really have to do is wait for it. 
Our Pladin seemed to do alrught in 4th ed except when the player was almost asleep at the table and his PC wandered over to the far side of the room to whack a minon. They used the CharOp boards to build them though in early 4th ed adventures so it was kind of easy for them.



Impressive. Early 4e Paladins were hard to save, even with CharOp. Especially if they were STR based, lol. :P



 Other way around. Mid edition 4th ed paladins vs early 4th ed adventures and by the book encounters.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I have no problems wit the rogue being good in a fight but right now it is a fighter light. They need to shave of +1 or +2 to hit over 20 levels and buff the fighter or nerf some of the rogues toys. You do not actually need a fighter in DD&N and that is only with 6 classses. The Barbarian and Rogue have basically made them obsolete already. 



Good.

 Now we need to not need the wizard, cleric or fighter, either.

The fighter is still a useful member of a team that also has a rogue and a barbarian, so...what's the complaint?
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Our Pladin seemed to do alrught in 4th ed except when the player was almost asleep at the table and his PC wandered over to the far side of the room to whack a minon. They used the CharOp boards to build them though in early 4th ed adventures so it was kind of easy for them.



Impressive. Early 4e Paladins were hard to save, even with CharOp. Especially if they were STR based, lol. :P



 Other way around. Mid edition 4th ed paladins vs early 4th ed adventures and by the book encounters.



Ahh, after Divine Power, Paladins became very nice. Their ability to protect their allies against multiple foes is very impressive since the implementation of Divine Sanction.
I have no problems wit the rogue being good in a fight but right now it is a fighter light. They need to shave of +1 or +2 to hit over 20 levels and buff the fighter or nerf some of the rogues toys. You do not actually need a fighter in DD&N and that is only with 6 classses. The Barbarian and Rogue have basically made them obsolete already. 



Good.

 Now we need to not need the wizard, cleric or fighter, either.

The fighter is still a useful member of a team that also has a rogue and a barbarian, so...what's the complaint?



Pretty much this. If you need any one specific class, then there is a problem.
I have no problems wit the rogue being good in a fight but right now it is a fighter light. They need to shave of +1 or +2 to hit over 20 levels and buff the fighter or nerf some of the rogues toys. You do not actually need a fighter in DD&N and that is only with 6 classses. The Barbarian and Rogue have basically made them obsolete already. 



Good.

 Now we need to not need the wizard, cleric or fighter, either.

The fighter is still a useful member of a team that also has a rogue and a barbarian, so...what's the complaint?



Pretty much this.




Pretty much not (usually always), this gang-culture has got to stop.



What gang culture? The statement is saying that you shouldn't "need" any class.


What gang culture? The statement is saying that you shouldn't "need" any class.




For some reason, I immediately had a mental image of roving gangs of ticked off D&D nerds, wielding bags of dice with pots on their heads, ready to beat down anyone who dared rise up against them. I need to get some sleep.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
No class should be essential, if you wanna play 4 fighters you should have every reasonable expectation of being able to tackle a given adventure/encounter for 4 pcs that's level appropriate.

 That said no class should be rendered entirely superfluos  the way the fighter has been by the monk, barbarian, and rogue.
Our Pladin seemed to do alrught in 4th ed except when the player was almost asleep at the table



Well as I said lime-light being a bit player driven.

The Swordmage we had was doing nice in that regards and he wasnt even the sheilding swordmage (he liked blinking to the rescue as well as vividly describing his moves). He seemed more front and center to play than the Archer Ranger at the same table.

 They used the CharOp boards to build them though in early 4th ed adventures so it was kind of easy for them.



I get that some folk like that ... and I seem to do parts of 4e CharOp decision making fairly automatically. Our group however considers attributes below 12 to be  seriously, meh.. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I have no problems wit the rogue being good in a fight but right now it is a fighter light. They need to shave of +1 or +2 to hit over 20 levels and buff the fighter or nerf some of the rogues toys. You do not actually need a fighter in DD&N and that is only with 6 classses. The Barbarian and Rogue have basically made them obsolete already. 



Good.

 Now we need to not need the wizard, cleric or fighter, either.

The fighter is still a useful member of a team that also has a rogue and a barbarian, so...what's the complaint?



Pretty much this.




Pretty much not (usually always), this gang-culture has got to stop.



lolwut?
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Our Pladin seemed to do alrught in 4th ed except when the player was almost asleep at the table



Well as I said lime-light being a bit player driven.

The Swordmage we had was doing nice in that regards and he wasnt even the sheilding swordmage (he liked blinking to the rescue as well as vividly describing his moves). He seemed more front and center to play than the Archer Ranger at the same table.

 They used the CharOp boards to build them though in early 4th ed adventures so it was kind of easy for them.



I get that some folk like that ... and I seem to do parts of 4e CharOp decision making fairly automatically. Our group however considers attributes below 12 to be  seriously, meh.. 



You know, I actually like seeing lower stats.  I keep wondering if DDN shouldn't reign them in.  I mean with Bounded Accuracy, stats are more important than ever.  Never before has half of your hit bonus or skill bonus come solely from ability modifiers.  Progression and dead levels also being an issue, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to do more stat bumps  throughout the leveling process with lower starting stats.

Maybe each character could start with 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 then get racial bonuses, and then get +1 to 2 different stats on every even level with a big bump of +1 to all stats at level 10.
Ultimately, you would have level 10 characters with 19, 18, 12, 11, 10, 9
And level 20 characters with 20, 20, 17, 12, 10, 10
All tthat without racial/class bonuses

I dunno, just a thought.  I think that a more steady pace of secondary progression would be good with the current system.  (ignore the poorly thought out details that I filled in.  That sort of thing is secondary to the main point:  Lower starting stats + more stat bumps from  leveling)
Sign In to post comments