D&D Next August 2, 2013 playtest issues

Hey there, I thought I would start by noting that the Rogues Trap Expertise as it is noted on page 43 of the classes pdf is partially redundant when compared to the effects described of Expertise on page 42.  Expertise states that you can use your expertise die whenever you make a Dexterity check, and Trap Expertise states that you can use one whenever you make a check to find or disarm traps.  Essentially the only thing new that Trap Expertise grants a rogue is that he/she can now use an expertise die to locate traps.

Is that what WotC was going for? If so, level 2 seems a bit underdeveloped for the Rogue at level 2 compared to other classes of the same level. Sure Rogues' Cant is an interesting RP element, but unless you are busy in an urban environment and making a point to be interacting with a thieves guild frequently, it will have little effect on a rogue.  Also taking into account that Trap Expertise only gives you a boon to finding traps - traps that only pop up once and a while - it seems that these two abilities can only be used under very specialized campaign settings.  It’s not that these abilities are bad, just that they seem a little underdeveloped at this point.  Not looking for a god-send ability at level 2, but if we are giving the rogue a trap finding ability, it should probably be a tad bit better since traps can royally screw you and also considering the frequency of which traps show up in published and unpublished campaigns.

I would also like to point out that considering the mage has a d6 hit die, a rogue should probably be upgraded to a d8.  As it is, they are a partial combative role who also has to get right up to a trap to disarm it.  I find that having them as squishy as a mage seems to put me in the mindset that I am just as vulnerable as a mage - though I don't have shield to reactively negate damage completely.

Would it also be considered to allow a Rogue the choice between Dexterity and Intelligence for applying the Expertise die in a similar manner to the Monk?  I don't know if this would be as great or that most Rogue's would take it, but I am just wondering if the option is a valid one.

Also: A feat with the Taunt ability needs to be reintroduced, that ability was tight.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/17.jpg)


Hey there, I thought I would start by noting that the Rogues Trap Expertise as it is noted on page 43 of the classes pdf is partially redundant when compared to the effects described of Expertise on page 42.  Expertise states that you can use your expertise die whenever you make a Dexterity check, and Trap Expertise states that you can use one whenever you make a check to find or disarm traps.  Essentially the only thing new that Trap Expertise grants a rogue is that he/she can now use an expertise die to locate traps.

Is that what WotC was going for? If so, level 2 seems a bit underdeveloped for the Rogue at level 2 compared to other classes of the same level. Sure Rogues' Cant is an interesting RP element, but unless you are busy in an urban environment and making a point to be interacting with a thieves guild frequently, it will have little effect on a rogue.  Also taking into account that Trap Expertise only gives you a boon to finding traps - traps that only pop up once and a while - it seems that these two abilities can only be used under very specialized campaign settings.  It’s not that these abilities are bad, just that they seem a little underdeveloped at this point.  Not looking for a god-send ability at level 2, but if we are giving the rogue a trap finding ability, it should probably be a tad bit better since traps can royally screw you and also considering the frequency of which traps show up in published and unpublished campaigns.

I would also like to point out that considering the mage has a d6 hit die, a rogue should probably be upgraded to a d8.  As it is, they are a partial combative role who also has to get right up to a trap to disarm it.  I find that having them as squishy as a mage seems to put me in the mindset that I am just as vulnerable as a mage - though I don't have shield to reactively negate damage completely.

Would it also be considered to allow a Rogue the choice between Dexterity and Intelligence for applying the Expertise die in a similar manner to the Monk?  I don't know if this would be as great or that most Rogue's would take it, but I am just wondering if the option is a valid one.

Also: A feat with the Taunt ability needs to be reintroduced, that ability was tight.


Good catch. They do need to clear that expertise ruling up.

I also agree about the rogue getting 1d8 instead of 1d6. Either that, or make mage 1d4 again (I know...tons of people hate the vulnerable mage...not me).

I'd love the rogue to be able to choose between Dex or Intel. That would allow for more variety.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

Thinking on it a little bit more, it could be possible if Intelligence wouldn't work for an option, to have Charisma - there are not that many class that use charisma, and unless they throw a few more out there having a rogue tree dedicated to charisma could be rather itneresting.

Another question that I have since asked is this: if you have lowlight vision already, and take the stealthy Feat, do you gain any additional benefit in regards to "You gain lowlight vision"?  I was thinking about having my gnome rogue take this feat, but since 1/3 of the feat doesn't work for him, I am wondering if its worth a different feat or that 2+ ability score.  Granting a creature that already ahs lowlight vision dark vision 30/60 sounds kind cood to me, but I am not too sure what the repercutions would be to the game as a whole. 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/17.jpg)

I also agree with the hp of a rogue vs a wizard.  It's not even that a rogue should have more hp... it's just that a physically diverse character like a rogue should not be at the same squishy level as that of a bookworm.  To make it worse, mages can wear any type of armor and cast spells without issue.  Our groups has a Mountain Dwarf Wizard.  It has 1d8 hps and 17 AC due to scale mail.  That just seems a little silly.

Agree with Popoion on just about every point.
I noticed that I had made this thread on the DM Response, not a player.

Here is a link to where I am going to post my remarks for the time being (if anyone is interested in where I go with ideas/thoughts):

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

Darn link doesn't seem to want to boot up here.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/17.jpg)

Oh wait, it does! Silly me

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/17.jpg)

I also agree with the hp of a rogue vs a wizard.  It's not even that a rogue should have more hp... it's just that a physically diverse character like a rogue should not be at the same squishy level as that of a bookworm.  To make it worse, mages can wear any type of armor and cast spells without issue.  Our groups has a Mountain Dwarf Wizard.  It has 1d8 hps and 17 AC due to scale mail.  That just seems a little silly.


I can't see them keeping the ability for mages to wear armor in the final product.  It's just way to OP.  I am also a little confused by the fact that the Dwarves get armor proficiency in their race stat.  In the Equipment section it says that your ability to use armor is determined by your class, yet in the Race section of the Dwarves, there it is.  Under Mage it says Armor proficiency: none.  I am pretty sure they will clear this up in the final product.

I can't see them keeping the ability for mages to wear armor in the final product.  It's just way to OP.  I am also a little confused by the fact that the Dwarves get armor proficiency in their race stat.  In the Equipment section it says that your ability to use armor is determined by your class, yet in the Race section of the Dwarves, there it is.  Under Mage it says Armor proficiency: none.  I am pretty sure they will clear this up in the final product.


In regards to dwarf proficiency: I never found that staggering just because in the editions I have used (3.5 and Pathfinder only ;P) it has been explained that certain races hold the art of of handling weapons as somethign that all must be included in.  In this case, instead of weapons it is armor.  Should it be changed for game mechanics?  Maybe.  But story wise it never crossed me as odd.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/17.jpg)