that's not using your head as a weapon, that's using your tongue as a player to game the GM.
i left that BS gameplay by the curb, in the rain, and never looked back long ago. if that's the 5th ed rogue, i'll be thoroughly disappointed.
A feint is a combat maneuver performed for hundreds of years and it's specific properties have been included in the game since 3rd Edition. It's a Bluff check versus Insight, or Charisma versus Wisdom check. You roll a die, he rolls a die, if you're higher, you have the ability to use sneak attack that turn, regardless of no flanking. This has been in the game for YEARS. This is one of my examples.
I'm sorry you don't like the flair for roleplay in the game, but of all my prior examples, the above is the one in the book that cannot be denied, it's defined. There's no playing against your DM, it's in the books.
Besides, if you play AGAINST your DM you are both playing wrong (in my opinion) it's about playing TOGETHER.
Unless it's actually a rule, we're playing Cowboys and Indians and my Indians are of the attack helicopter variety.
Really?
This from the main supporter of a DM fiat rules set. How can you in one place say page 42 solves all improvisation problems exactly like this by letting the DM make it up with some guidlines, and in another place say that it is a bad system if this is allowed to happen (remember when 42 was originally implemented it was used to define entire swaths of game play namely anything that wasn't within the first PHB). That makes no sense. In one place you say it is fine that the rules don't cover everything, and that DM fiat should be used to fill the gaps. In another place you say the rules must cover every single thing, and if they don't it's Cowboys and Indians and you can do anything you want as the adversarial DM. So which is it? Is it okay for the rules to be none to specific about things. To leave it up to the players and DM to make things work, or should the system define everything discreetly and if it isn't defined it isn't possible. Which is it?
Unless it's actually a rule, we're playing Cowboys and Indians and my Indians are of the attack helicopter variety.
Really?
This from the main supporter of a DM fiat rules set. How can you in one place say page 42 solves all improvisation problems exactly like this by letting the DM make it up with some guidlines, and in another place say that it is a bad system if this is allowed to happen (remember when 42 was originally implemented it was used to define entire swaths of game play namely anything that wasn't within the first PHB). That makes no sense. In one place you say it is fine that the rules don't cover everything, and that DM fiat should be used to fill the gaps. In another place you say the rules must cover every single thing, and if they don't it's Cowboys and Indians and you can do anything you want as the adversarial DM. So which is it? Is it okay for the rules to be none to specific about things. To leave it up to the players and DM to make things work, or should the system define everything discreetly and if it isn't defined it isn't possible. Which is it?
It's neither. The system should cover as much as it can, and when you inevitably run up against something it doesn't cover, then you leave it up to DM fiat as a temporary solution so as not to interrupt the flow of game play. Then some time when you're not in the middle of a D&D session, the DM can write up (or you can all discuss and write up together, if you prefer) a more permanent houserule to cover further instances of the same situation.
Right now, as I understand their design going forward to be, they are returning to a more simple set of rules, where the interpretation of a players intended actions are left very much in the DMs hands. That said, there are certain maneuvers in the playbook that are in fact pre-resolved so that should you encounter an adversarial DM (which many people should know by now, I do not support) you have a place as a player than you can point and go "unless you are changing this rule as written, this IS how it works".
What this says to me is that a bad DM is going to be worse, and a good DM is going to be amazing. since you don't always get a choice on who is running the game (for example, at a game store) this is something that I am worried about. There is time for them to remedy this, and more sample data from the masses is needed. The problem with a lot of the playtesting they've done so far, is that it's the same DMs over and over again. You have a control for the behind the screen part as it stands. Having changed the players, they have good sample data for the players perspective, but they always need more. Likely the closed/friends and family playtests would be more along the lines of the control for the players side.
With the open playtest, they'll hopefully get feedback from players with bad DMs and good DMs and also get feedback from DMs with good players and bad (disruptive? there's got to be a better word than "bad") players.
As I've said, I had a DM who ran my playtest multiple times, and I had a terrible terrible experience and my girlfriend refuses to touch the system at present due to it's poor state. It has potential, but as it stands, it needs work, and that's where we all come in. For all the arguing we can do about how much is too much DM Fiat, and how to gain this combat/flanking/bonus for rogues to not feel the need to flee in combat by way of "skill" use, we are really only speculating. Hence the sub-forum title.
Let's see what we get with the playtest. I know I'm going to be doing a great deal of gaming in the test environment when I can, and I hope that we really nail down the root of the problems going forward, and highlight the good things about the new system.
Rogues will feel like Rogues, based on this design goal, and that's the first great big step. Now to just mechanically test it come the 24th (and beyond) and see if it's functional.
What I did say, is that the article explicitely states that the rogue runs away and/or hides when it doesn't have a way to backstab/otherwise take advantage of a disadvantaged enemy.
Which makes sense if hiding is a way to get advantage! Let's see... which prior editions of D&D gave a rogue/thief advantage when they hide. Oh, yes. All of them.
Running away and hiding because the fight has gone a way where you (here using the general you) can't use your ideal tactic
You're making huge assumptions here and you're pointedly not reading that one sentence in the context of the rest of the article. Heck, the article specifically gives as an example of a rogue's advantage, "leaping from an ambush". So hiding is a way to get advantage.
staying and fighting alongside your allies, trying to sway the battle even if you can't quite work at maximum efficacy in these circumstances, is cowardice. Period.
Wow. You're just hellbent on seeing the absolute worst possible interpretation of that sentence, aren't you?
That doesn't need to involve hiding behind the nearest rock, watching instead of fighting, though.
The article doesn't contain those four boldfaced words. That's your invention. You made that up and are now refusing to acknowledge that's not the only way to interpret the article.
The article suggests a playstyle that involves not attacking for a round or more in order to angle for the sneak attack. That, at the very least, is a clear suggestion of the article.
I think the article suggests a "hide, wait, then sneak attack" playstyle for the rogue which I think represents a cowardly character.
I haven't invented anything.
Further, there is a possible inerpretation of the article that is very bad. That possibility should be addressed, and in strong terms, immediately, to insure that it is not the direction in which the rogue ends up going.
So yes, I'm willing to react strongly and quickly, with the risks that entails, to make sure that absolutely horrific ideas like that don't even make it into the playtest.
No, the article explicitely states that the rogue runs away, and/or hides, sometimes not doing anything until an opportunity presents itself.
That is a coward, not a dirty fighter.
No that is someone fighting intelligently, and possibly dirty. If I know I'm not as good in a toe to toe fight as this other guy I'm not going to stand and fight him. I'm going to trick him into beating himself. I'm going to make him over extend and I'm going to hit him where it hurts when he does that. Strategic withdrawl is not cowardice it is fighting intelligently. It is the first point of battle strategy. Don't stand and fight something you know you can't beat, all that does is get people needlessly killed. That is called a meat shield. Retreat and fight them when you have made your own victory all but inevitable, and if that plan is thwarted or is not yet effective enough to put down the enemy that needs putting down feel free to retreat and reengage as you can. That's strategy not cowardice. Yeah the rogue waits and strikes when he can do the most damage, or creates his own opening so that he can do an egregious amount of damage, or someone else makes an opening for them to capitalize on. That sounds like a rogue to me, and it doesn't sound like a coward.
No, it isn't.
And what you describe isn't what the article describes. You're describing real world battle field tactics, not small scale skirmish tactics for an individual. A battle in dnd isn't, generally speaking, war.
Hiding and doing nothing about the fight, while others fight, is cowardice.
Courage doesn't mean you have to stand there and get breathed on by the dragon, though. You're still fighting the dragon, you're just not stupid about it.
Sure, but you're still fighting. You're not hiding and waiting for a safe time to stab something, you actively participating in the battle in some way.
This is part of why I say that the rogue should be able to fluidly switch between range and melee, and be the most mobile person on the field.
No it is the basis of fighting. Freaking boxers and martial artists do it, It's called blocking, feinting, and moving. They do it on a smaller scale, but it is the same deal.
Lol.
Comparing running away and/or hiding from the enemy to blocking, feinting and moving.
This is complete absurdity.
I've been fighting for sport for years, including skirmishes and battles, and I've studied ancient and medieval tactics. Any tactic that involves withdrawal or stealth is constantly wieghed against the cost of letting your enemy rest, and plan.
In a personal fight, that means that a disengage is swiftly followed by re-engagement, or by mutual circling while looking for opportunities.
It's very rarely a good idea to let the enemy keep attacking while you wait for any longer than is necessary, even if your attacks aren't as effective as the one you're looking for an opportunity for.
This is true of every form of fighting I've ever studied, or that I know someone that has studied.
Now, sometimes you have a sniper, and that person's job is to search out the most effective kill, even if it means waiting longer than another member of the unit would, but such a role becomes more rare when you subtract gunpowder from warfare.
The wizard would be a better candidate for that sort of tactical role, honestly.
The rogue should be doing proactive things while looking for that opportunity, ideally things which will lead to the opportunity.
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.
What I did say, is that the article explicitely states that the rogue runs away and/or hides when it doesn't have a way to backstab/otherwise take advantage of a disadvantaged enemy.
Which makes sense if hiding is a way to get advantage! Let's see... which prior editions of D&D gave a rogue/thief advantage when they hide. Oh, yes. All of them.
Running away and hiding because the fight has gone a way where you (here using the general you) can't use your ideal tactic
You're making huge assumptions here and you're pointedly not reading that one sentence in the context of the rest of the article. Heck, the article specifically gives as an example of a rogue's advantage, "leaping from an ambush". So hiding is a way to get advantage.
staying and fighting alongside your allies, trying to sway the battle even if you can't quite work at maximum efficacy in these circumstances, is cowardice. Period.
Wow. You're just hellbent on seeing the absolute worst possible interpretation of that sentence, aren't you?
That doesn't need to involve hiding behind the nearest rock, watching instead of fighting, though.
The article doesn't contain those four boldfaced words. That's your invention. You made that up and are now refusing to acknowledge that's not the only way to interpret the article.
The article suggests a playstyle that involves not attacking for a round or more in order to angle for the sneak attack. That, at the very least, is a clear suggestion of the article.
I think the article suggests a "hide, wait, then sneak attack" playstyle for the rogue which I think represents a cowardly character.
I haven't invented anything.
Further, there is a possible inerpretation of the article that is very bad. That possibility should be addressed, and in strong terms, immediately, to insure that it is not the direction in which the rogue ends up going.
So yes, I'm willing to react strongly and quickly, with the risks that entails, to make sure that absolutely horrific ideas like that don't even make it into the playtest.
No, the article explicitely states that the rogue runs away, and/or hides, sometimes not doing anything until an opportunity presents itself.
That is a coward, not a dirty fighter.
No that is someone fighting intelligently, and possibly dirty. If I know I'm not as good in a toe to toe fight as this other guy I'm not going to stand and fight him. I'm going to trick him into beating himself. I'm going to make him over extend and I'm going to hit him where it hurts when he does that. Strategic withdrawl is not cowardice it is fighting intelligently. It is the first point of battle strategy. Don't stand and fight something you know you can't beat, all that does is get people needlessly killed. That is called a meat shield. Retreat and fight them when you have made your own victory all but inevitable, and if that plan is thwarted or is not yet effective enough to put down the enemy that needs putting down feel free to retreat and reengage as you can. That's strategy not cowardice. Yeah the rogue waits and strikes when he can do the most damage, or creates his own opening so that he can do an egregious amount of damage, or someone else makes an opening for them to capitalize on. That sounds like a rogue to me, and it doesn't sound like a coward.
No, it isn't.
And what you describe isn't what the article describes. You're describing real world battle field tactics, not small scale skirmish tactics for an individual. A battle in dnd isn't, generally speaking, war.
Hiding and doing nothing about the fight, while others fight, is cowardice.
Courage doesn't mean you have to stand there and get breathed on by the dragon, though. You're still fighting the dragon, you're just not stupid about it.
Sure, but you're still fighting. You're not hiding and waiting for a safe time to stab something, you actively participating in the battle in some way.
This is part of why I say that the rogue should be able to fluidly switch between range and melee, and be the most mobile person on the field.
No it is the basis of fighting. Freaking boxers and martial artists do it, It's called blocking, feinting, and moving. They do it on a smaller scale, but it is the same deal.
Lol.
Comparing running away and/or hiding from the enemy to blocking, feinting and moving.
This is complete absurdity.
I've been fighting for sport for years, including skirmishes and battles, and I've studied ancient and medieval tactics. Any tactic that involves withdrawal or stealth is constantly wieghed against the cost of letting your enemy rest, and plan.
In a personal fight, that means that a disengage is swiftly followed by re-engagement, or by mutual circling while looking for opportunities.
It's very rarely a good idea to let the enemy keep attacking while you wait for any longer than is necessary, even if your attacks aren't as effective as the one you're looking for an opportunity for.
This is true of every form of fighting I've ever studied, or that I know someone that has studied.
Now, sometimes you have a sniper, and that person's job is to search out the most effective kill, even if it means waiting longer than another member of the unit would, but such a role becomes more rare when you subtract gunpowder from warfare.
The wizard would be a better candidate for that sort of tactical role, honestly.
The rogue should be doing proactive things while looking for that opportunity, ideally things which will lead to the opportunity.
So basically if they don't stand and attack inefectively while dieing they are cowards. That's what you are going with. They can't duck out of a fight. Even if all they are doing to help is being somewhat of a meat shield. They can't duck out for a second so that they can in fact wait a turn or two to find an opening and actually turn the tide of the battle. Standing and fighting a battle you cannot win, and you know you will ultimately lose in the worst way, isn't bravery it is stupidity. It is especially stupid if you know for a fact that if you alone were to withdraw for just 12 seconds you could turn the tide of the battle to your teams favor with little to no detriment to the rest of the group. Even you say that it is a valid strategy that must be weighed as a possible strategy.
The rogue is the best at executing upon this strategy with such great effect that it's never really able to be outweighed by the opponent resting or continuing to attack. When the rogue drops back in to the fight again he will re-enter to a fanfare of blood and gore spewed from the backs of his enemies. Like I said the rogue doesn't run as a coward the rogue runs as an intelligent combatant that knows when to duck out so as to create an opening that he can capitalize upon for great effect. In my mind it is never a question of, "can we stand to lose the rogues contribution to the fight for a round or two while he repositions for a good attack?", it is, "Okay how are we going to cover the rogue so he can get into position to absolutely ruin this guy?", any insinuation that his withdrawl could result in no effect is on you. I read it and got the rogues will be able to leave combat and drop out of the target pool for two turns because as soon as they come back to the fight they will be target number one for the opponents that weren't able to hit them the round before. Mainly because they have someones kidney on their dagger.
Also you completely ignored the back pocket full of tricks that insinuates that the only time the rogue will actually need to run is when he is caught in a corner with his pants down and has no tricks available to him. Then you will have to revert to hiding and stealth to win the fight anyways. I'm really not seeing your delema here other than not understanding the difference between bravery and stupidity.
Also yes the rogue hiding and attacking with gorilla tactics can be likened to blocking, feinting, and moving.
The rock he is hiding behind is the block. The peble thrown to misdirect and confuse his enemies so that he might remain hidden is the feint, and the movement is self explanatory as rogues have a reputation for being some dodgy and mobile guys. Like I said same basic principle but on a large and different scale.
Also this is fantasy. Your sniper still exists. He even fires bullets. They just come from a sling instead of a high powered rifle.
Warlords and fighters create opportunities, Rogues capitalize on the opportunity.
(sorry for terrible grammar, spelling, and ill formed arguments this is the last post of the night.)
Here's my personal take on it. Rogues have stealth and backstab abilities. They sneak up behind you and stab you when you're not looking, they don't duel with you. Fighters duel. If you want to play a guy who feints, flourishes, and stands toe-to-toe, maybe uses some dirty tricks, play a Fighter and use a rapier or dagger. Play a subclass that has feint and bluff skills that get used in melee. Take feats or themes or backgrounds that let you be a lightly armored dextrous Fighter. If you want to use your class ability to hide, and wait for the chance to use your class ability to backstab, play a Rogue.
edit: Paladins do, in fact, think Rogues fight like cowards. Rogues don't care what Paladins think.
Here's my personal take on it. Rogues have stealth and backstab abilities. They sneak up behind you and stab you when you're not looking, they don't duel with you. Fighters duel. If you want to play a guy who feints, flourishes, and stands toe-to-toe, maybe uses some dirty tricks, play a Fighter and use a rapier or dagger. Play a subclass that has feint and bluff skills that get used in melee. Take feats or themes or backgrounds that let you be a lightly armored dextrous Fighter. If you want to use your class ability to hide, and wait for the chance to use your class ability to backstab, play a Rogue.
