What exactly is the rogue gimping when he gets loads of skill points?
UMD is one of the best skills in the game because it is so universal. A rogue can actually use it to enhance his own abilities plus the abilties of everyone else.
He gives up absolutely nothing to achieve this.
Probably because the returns for the investment of UMD don't show up until much later in character progression. A 1st level rogue can only put 4 rnaks into UMD and most rogues don't come out of character creation with a Intelligence modifier higher than +2, espically when you use Point Buy. So with the 1st level rogue who pours 4 ranks into that skill with say....a +2 bonus means that he gets +6 to UMD. To use a scroll or a wand is a DC 20 (or 20 + caster level for scrolls) which has approx 70% to 75% failure rate. Jump to 5th level (1/4 your character progression) and the failure rate becomes approx 50% to 55%. Jump to 10th level and it drops to approx 25% failure rate.
So for almost half your chracter progression you have been dumping full ranks into a skill that not only doesn't work all the time (or more) but requires a standard action to use and if you still fail, it spends double the charges for a wand or uses up the scroll with no effect. Which now also cost money. Sure, it's great at mid-to high levels of play and if I were starting out at 12th, 14th, or 17th level I'd have that thing maxed out, but it's not worth the time until approx 10th level or so.
Additionally, there are times when people don't play their characters straight 1-20 levels. If a campaign is designed for say.....3rd thru 7th (as the Sons of Gruumsh is) then that investment is completely wasted.
Calling Strikers a trap choice is... a unique perspective. It's the most stackable role in the group, adding a second defender, leader or controller adds less with each than the one before, in contrast each additional striker adds more than the previous.
That has not been true in my experience. For me, it's like this:
Character A deals 100 DPR consistently on his own.
Character B has the most HP, Surges, and Defenses, and either deals 90 DPR or dictates the actions of the enemy while dealing 80 DPR.
Character C deals 75 DPR himself, but can also heal, enable Character B to dictate enemy actions more efficiently, and add 10 DPR to character A, 15 to character C, and/or 20 to Character B.
I'm sorry, but the extra damage is just not worth it. It's not like Strikers are doubling or even "50% more"ing Defenders or Leaders.
I also don't think the presence of multiple Defenders or Leaders have significantly diminishing returns. Each Defender decides how another enemy or two will act each turn, or put out enough extra damage to almost equal a Striker (or as a Swordmage, reduces enemy damage by a similar amount). And yes, while the Healing from additional leaders has diminishing returns, the buffs and enabling absolutely do not.
Some of the groups that felt strongest in 4e for me and my group was something like Warlord (leader focused on enabling not healing), controller (keep some of them busy), a damage focused defender and 2+ strikers.
The strongest groups I saw all had two leaders and one or two defenders. I never saw a party without a Striker because I have one player with a near phobic fear/hatred of responsibility, but, while providing excellent damage, she basically functioned outside of the party. Her enabled attacks sucked (until the Slayer and Barbarian, Striker basic attacks were terrible, and generally couldn't trigger their bonus striker damage anyway), for example, so the best way to increase party damage didn't really work with her. The only thing Strikers add to a party is damage--I just don't think they bring enough extra damage to justify not taking another Leader or Defender.
Some strikers were like that, not so good. The vampire springing immediately to mind, or the seeker at print.
Every other striker had either unbelievable DPR, large area attacks or omgwheredidhego nova potential. The last is the one that was usually strongest in play.
A Nova striker could blow away an even level solo with good reliability. This would be a ranger, barbarian, rogue or the like.
A DPR striker could pretty much kill 1 even level normal monster every round. This would be the avenger, and also the ranger after he used his omgburst.
An area striker wouldn't hit nearly as hard, and usually not nova that well. But they did do very good damage to 2-4 targets a turn. This would be the Sorcerer and Monk.
The strongest tended to be nova strikers. They turned a 5v5 into 5v4 on the first turn and picked which enemy died. When you're almost always fighting a group of enemies that have some sort of leader, artillery or the like that's extremely handy. Most fights in 4e were won on the first or second turn. Sure it could take another 2-3 to grind the last enemy or two down with at will if they wouldn't surrender but the fight was over long before. Often when the threat died in the first turn...
Leaders and contollers that were any good at there job were terrible for damage. You could build a defender that was relatively close to low/mid striker damage but that often counted on enemies violating your mark, which they shouldn't. It also lacked the strength at defending that more sticky/defensive defenders.
OK, so the rogue that is spending his points on UMD and taking some feats and whatever he needs in order to use UMD is also just as good at picking locks, finding traps, spot/listen, hide, etc as the rogue who spends his resources on those, eh? I'm kinda confused about exactly what rules set you play with Xun...
I don't claim to be any kind of 3.x expert, but I HAVE played the game. Clearly a rogue that spends his skill points on one thing can't also be as good as a rogue that spends them on another thing. UMD is a decent thing, but it isn't totally reliable, requires you to have an item that UMD applies to, and is rather more expensive than most things to get really good at (as you need to take a couple feats in addition to just spending skill points as I recall).
Hide, Sneak, search, disable device, open locks, climb, jump, UMD. 8 skills all maxed out had a decent intelligence or you are human and you can add in more, all maxed out. 3.5 may have narrowed the list down a bit so you would even have more options. It really was not hard to get a rogue built with 11ish skills all maxed out. Some did not need to be maxed out which added even more skill diversity. I'm not a big UMD or 3e fan, but the rogues skill set came in handy in all the games we played.
One worry I have about Next is the notion of team play being built into the system like it was in 4th edition.
I would rather Next leave it up to the players to initiate team play. It's almost like 4th edition was built with the idea that only complete strangers would be gaming together so they needed to build the game where team play was forced.
In our group the spellcasters didn't try and take over by attempting to do it all by themselves. Buffing the melee classes always proved to be a wiser choice than trying to go at it alone.
The 15 minute work day was never a problem in our group because the DM always saw to it that it was a bad idea and he wouldn't even give us a chance to have the 15 minute work day. Now it did happen at times but it never proved to be a problem.
Now I'm honestly not sure how Next would be able to do both but I hope they leave it open for players to decide how they want to do team play.
There is no choice at the player level here. The game is built so that you have teamwork [such as flanking, leaders granting bonuses, etc, or the the party is just 5 people who happen to be on the battlefield at the same time. The game is just built one way or the other. And teamwork is the superior way.
Would you say that "EVERY" D&D session from 1974 to right now defined the use of 4E's roles in the same way?
"Realizing it" - is exactly why an alternative should now be used.
Before - it may (or may not) have been organic. Now it's simply a game construct.
Yes, they used the same roles because the roles are actually pretty organic. I'd note that a Von Clausewitz or a Sun Tzu would recognize them as basic fundamental tactical constructs. The roles are actually EMERGENT from the game's basic tactical constructs. Gary and Dave were certainly well aware of basic tactical concepts. The core 4 classes of D&D fundamentally embody the same concepts. Where there are issues pre-4e you can actually trace them to role failure. Wizards are a bit overpowered because 'striking' and 'controlling' are both put on their heads. Some classes like the 1e Monk or the 2e Bard generally fail because they simply don't embody any specific role very well. The AD&D thief was another one where combat role wasn't paid enough attention to, the results were rather anemic. Notice that the 3e rogue fixed that.
There is no alternative because again the roles are NOT arbitrary constructs, they arise out of basic tactical principles like firepower, and mobility. Study some tactical theory, you'll see what I mean. You can't simply make up arbitrary roles that sound good and they will mean anything when a fight breaks out. The functions in that fight that the PCs will be filling are the natural roles, any artificial ones will simply not matter or make sense and PCs built around them will function despite them not because of them.
The game construct is simply a guide to design and play of different classes, nothing more. Look at 4e, it is the ONLY edition of D&D in which every class is a solid functional design. That isn't just random chance. It is because every class was built around a role concept as well as a narrative concept. It works. Likewise you can build a party by paying attention to which roles are present and in what amounts. It is certainly a game construct, but it is a GOOD game construct.
This.
Seriously. Roles are about as arbitrary as having swords be useful weapons. Actually, no. Roles are less arbitrary than that.
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.
I never felt that role meant to imply you had to have one of each no matter what, it was just a way of making sure every class actually had something useful to do.
Every edition of D&D has had this. Now every person sees "something useful" differently and I see that is where the biggest divide is.
Our group sees "being useful" as a person contributing "anything" to the campaign, not a certain amount of DPS or a certain skill check amount. We let people create what ever type of character they want using what ever type of concept that person wants to come up with. This is why 3rd edition and Pathfinder are our games of choice because they allow us to do this. If a PC is fantastic at using Diplomacy but absolutely stinks at combat and spends most of their time missing is still okay with us.
how is that any different from 4e, exactly?
lol forum opinions are the game rules. You get that, right? You can fun that sort of party just fine in 4e. Like every edition, you're going to have abillities that just sit there not doing anything, because classes are built to some extent for combat in every edition, but that doesn't mean you can't play a character that sucks in combat and rules social encounters.
My experience is that a striker, say a bow ranger (which is dead simple and has no tactical issues to even think about, so we can ignore any player skill basically) if the PC is even moderately well built will have an 18 DEX and wield a longbow at the very least, probably with bow expertise. Basic Twin Strike you're talking about at level 1 a character that is on the higher end of accuracy and makes 2 good ranged attacks plus HQ damage virtually every round, and that's just with a basic at-will, your encounter and daily power will be correspondingly better. An 18 STR great weapon fighter will be making one attack at maybe 1d12 with about the same attack bonus (but getting STR on damage and lets say some miss damage probably from Reaping Strike). The ranger's damage at this point is only maybe 50% ahead of the most strikerish fighter build, but the gap will quickly grow.
By 5th level you have reaction attacks, minor action attack options, a stance that can let you OA practically anyone anywhere that moves at all, etc. I haven't seen the "kill an elite in one round on average" level of performance at low levels that other people talk about, but by level 3 the ranger in our current party COULD kill a standard in a single round with a bit of luck or come close to killing an elite using an AP and etc. and then counting an off-turn attack. I did see this character at level 1 kill 2 standard monsters in round 1 using an AP, a daily, and getting a couple of crits.
Both BS and AD rogues I've seen in lots of action and they can do equally well. The AD rogue in our current group is scary good. A 40+ damage round for him is pretty sub-par at 6th level. I'm sure he's not near optimized, but the player has definitely put some thought into making him deadly.
So, yeah, strikers are DEFINITELY worthy of their place in the party. I'd also note that like any other PC they will have secondary role capabilities as well that are useful and can be important. Most rogues can do a bit of control or defense, etc. The key is to know when to do what. There's an ideal moment for something like Blinding Barrage or whatever.
Absolutely.
I have a rogue|monk right now. He exists in that state in spite of it being strictly less powerful than a pure rogue, because it makes more sense for the character.
Anyway, the character has a couple powers, even at level 5, that make him frightening. First, light blades are powerful. My lvl 3 encounter power is a minor action attack, 1[w]+dex(and all those stacking damage bonuses), slide the target one and slow it+STR if flanking. Lvl one daily, encounter long abillity to do imm interrupt 1[w]+dex attack each time anyone hits or misses me. Lvl 5 daily, interrupt 3d10+dex, slide target two squares and knock prone, with a +2 to the attack and extra 1d10 damage if the target was charging me.
That's dependent on targets attacking me, but that's just going to happen, so it's fine. Other builds are less situational, and have more damage output.
But this non optimized striker puts down targets quickly enough that it's hard for the rest of the group to outshine him.
A normal rogue or ranger blows him out of the water. The number of attacks per turn either class can get, the ranger at low levels, is just mad. If the striker can rush in and take out the scariest thing on the board in round one, it's earned it's place, even if it goes and takes a nap after that.
And if the controller or leader is focusing on damage, it's being less of a good leader or controller. The controller should be laying down hard control, which is conditions that make it harder for monsters to act. big damage powers are only useful for times where you have a decent chance of killing multiple small targets in one go, or when they have effect riders that are useful. If you can reduce the kill time of a group of enemies by one with a fireball, because the leader and defender have just enough damage output, great, but if you're doing that instead of using hard action denial against the same targets, you're not acting optimally.
Leaders should be buffing, debuffing and enabling (in ways other than buffing, which is often a type of enabling).
The striker should easily be doing over half again the damage of anyone else in the party, with the defender maybe coming close sometimes, and the striker doing twice or more the damage in a single round at least once an encounter.
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.
Yeah the idea that 4e classes are some how more limited than their 3e counterparts is not gonna hold up except in the case of the classes like wizard or druid that were vastly OP in 3e.
You can make a party of all melee weapon users in 4e and take on most any dungeon, most 3e dungeons required a caster or at least a healer to get through ina timely manner if the party was anywhere near the suggested level.
Quite true, like a number of other points raised in this thread. However, you do realize who you guys are arguing with, right?
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
When I hear the term "mechanics forced team play" I envision a number of Feats from 4E that almost seem to benefit the party more than the individual who has them. There is an Axe feat that allows every party member an OA if you crit, as an example. Frost Cheese also has aspects of this. While "mere" Combat Advantage is fine, an optimized 4E group seems like it cannot be a group of people who met at first level, but rather a near military trained cohesive unit. I am not trying to Edition War here, I am simply pointing out the edition that took this to what for me was an uncomfortable extreme.
While I have issues with Roles and seeing D&D as a "tactical roleplaying game" (and I'm not trying to restart those discussions), I am fine with mechanics that encourage team play as long as they do not go quite to the extreme I feel like 4E went. I would like to feel like my choices as a character are for enhancing me AND my role within the party, rather than basing my choices on specific synergies with other people's choices to create a third "mega-choice".
This is the second thread like this that I have seen.
The other one was in the 4e general discussion forum.
This one seems to have the same problem.
The OP hates defined roles because he want's to do "something different" with his character. But the only example is fighter and the "something different" is nothing but more defender and striker stuff.
So the real problem is a lack of understanding roles, not the roles themselves.
Because you like something, it does not mean it is good. Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth. Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus.
Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.
When I hear the term "mechanics forced team play" I envision a number of Feats from 4E that almost seem to benefit the party more than the individual who has them. There is an Axe feat that allows every party member an OA if you crit, as an example. Frost Cheese also has aspects of this. While "mere" Combat Advantage is fine, an optimized 4E group seems like it cannot be a group of people who met at first level, but rather a near military trained cohesive unit. I am not trying to Edition War here, I am simply pointing out the edition that took this to what for me was an uncomfortable extreme.
While I have issues with Roles and seeing D&D as a "tactical roleplaying game" (and I'm not trying to restart those discussions), I am fine with mechanics that encourage team play as long as they do not go quite to the extreme I feel like 4E went. I would like to feel like my choices as a character are for enhancing me AND my role within the party, rather than basing my choices on specific synergies with other people's choices to create a third "mega-choice".
Were you required to take those feats that made you uncomfortable? Were they prereqs for other feats that you wanted? Were they required for you to keep up with the math (feat taxes, as it were)? I ask these questions with all due seriousness because those kinds feats should exist for those who want them but they shouldn't be foisted on those who don't.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
