|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 8:15AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2008
|
So advantage on the attack, rather than bonus damage? But because they have Sneak Attack available to them every round, are you suggesting they get advantage on all attacks?
Sort of going in an avenger/crit-fisher direction. Hmmm. Interesting...
Rogue must have Advantage to Sneak Attack. Rogues are not straight forward Fighters. Fighters should do more Damage unless they create a Encounter or Daily Back Stab otherwise play a Fighter with a Thug Background..
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 8:21AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2012
|
They aren't straight forward fighters, so when the conditions for sneak attack are met, it should be powerful. If improvements aren't made, I think you will see exactly that. You will see many fighters with a thug background and few rogues
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 8:25AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
It is clear that Chris Carlson just likes to argue and make others feel stupid.
I can't make you feel anything. I am defending my observations on the class against a slew of rogue fanboys bent on world domination! You try being outnumbered in a thread as see how it goes...
Rogue has always been a DPR in combat while fighters have been the uber DPR since they have very little other story purpose than to bash things.
To paraphrase Inigo, I do not think DPR means what you think it means.
Sneak Attack has always been a Rogues primary purpose in combat.
Well, when it was called Backstab, in the olden days, it was nigh impossible to trigger because the target had to be completely unaware. Sneak Attack, as applied in the last few editions, was very spiky damage that had far more restrictions than this current version.
It is a shame if that is no longer their greatest combat purpose.
I don't think it is a shame that rogues no longer do the best damage. Didn't you just get saying above that it should be fighters, since that's their only shtick?
And finally, I don't know what kinds of encounters he plays, but gaining combat advantage is not always easy.
You no longer need advantage. You can also manage it by simply have an ally within reach of the target. Something much easier to do now than the Sneak Attacks of yore.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 8:27AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
They aren't straight forward fighters, so when the conditions for sneak attack are met, it should be powerful. If improvements aren't made, I think you will see exactly that. You will see many fighters with a thug background and few rogues
If Sneak Attack is rewritten to do more damage than Deadly Strike, the exact opposite complaint will rise up. All of a sudden, its stupid that all fighters will need a level of rogue to compete with their spiky damage. Is that the solution?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 8:49AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
They aren't straight forward fighters, so when the conditions for sneak attack are met, it should be powerful. If improvements aren't made, I think you will see exactly that. You will see many fighters with a thug background and few rogues
If Sneak Attack is rewritten to do more damage than Deadly Strike, the exact opposite complaint will rise up. All of a sudden, its stupid that all fighters will need a level of rogue to compete with their spiky damage. Is that the solution?
If a rogue's damage is spiky, and its spikes result in hits that do more damage than a fighter but happen infrequently enough that a rogue's damage, overall, will still be lower than a fighter's (by about 20-25%), then we have achieved balance.
Multiclassing is something we will have to deal with when we come to it, but the key will be to make sure that multiclassing into another class does not give you too easy access to their signature abilities. If it does, then given the current mechanics every fighter will do what you "fear" anyway. Everyone with any concept of game design who wants to play a rogue like character will play a fighter, pick the thug or thief background, maybe take a few skill related feats, and then dip one level into rogue for proficiency in thieves tools. By the way, speaking of “strawman” arguments, calling everyone in this thread who is a proponent of keeping the game balanced a “rogue fanboi” or “rogue uberist” is actually a strawman fallacy (as well as an ad-hominem). Like I said, you should look it up…
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 9:00AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2012
|
They aren't straight forward fighters, so when the conditions for sneak attack are met, it should be powerful. If improvements aren't made, I think you will see exactly that. You will see many fighters with a thug background and few rogues
If Sneak Attack is rewritten to do more damage than Deadly Strike, the exact opposite complaint will rise up. All of a sudden, its stupid that all fighters will need a level of rogue to compete with their spiky damage. Is that the solution?
I don't see that as inevitable. I am not advocating increasing sneak attack far beyond that of deadly strike. Doing slightly more damage than deadly strike would not break the fighter, especially if there is a progressive component added to sneak attack that increases modestly with level(really liking Kali-mada's idea now). This would guard a bit against min/maxing, although...
It is kind of ironic that you are commenting on how the multi-class system is going to work out. It is almost like me commenting on how classes not yet implimented will contribute to game balance.
That said, when specialization of a character becomes more possible with more advanced maneuvers and feats, then fighters that spec primarily offensively should not be left in the dust to the average rogue. I would not approve of that. Should a rogue that specs all out in maximizing damage(if such an option is available) do slightly superior damage in some situations to an offensively speced fighter? Probably...because even when situational damage does send that rogue over the top(shouldn't happen most of the time though), the fighter still is better in ways that a rogue will never be. Then, again...this paragraph has little to do with the current state of the playtest and more about ideals and vision
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 9:07AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
...then we have achieved balance ... Everyone with any concept of game design...
By the way, speaking of “strawman” arguments, calling everyone in this thread who is a proponent of keeping the game balanced a “rogue fanboi” or “rogue uberist” is actually a strawman fallacy (as well as an ad-hominem).
You mean like continually implying that anyone who doesn't agree with you just doesn't understand game design? Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 9:09AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
It is kind of ironic that you are commenting on how the multi-class system is going to work out. It is almost like me commenting on how classes not yet implimented will contribute to game balance.
Yeah. Not irony at all. Actually, I was playing by your rules. You open the debate up to speculating on future rules. Not me. But I guess I'm not allowed to do so? That's a right reserved for you guys who "better understand game design", as CD would say...
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 9:55AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
...then we have achieved balance ... Everyone with any concept of game design...
By the way, speaking of “strawman” arguments, calling everyone in this thread who is a proponent of keeping the game balanced a “rogue fanboi” or “rogue uberist” is actually a strawman fallacy (as well as an ad-hominem).
You mean like continually implying that anyone who doesn't agree with you just doesn't understand game design? Hmmm...
That is not a strawman. Again, you need to look up what a strawman actually is. I don't think you understand what the term means. That, by the way, is not an ad-hominem either. I am not saying your argument fails because you don't understand what a strawman means. Your argument fails because it is illogical, and I have explained why. In this case, my comment about the way you use the term strawman is a parenthetical observation about the way you are using that term.
At most, you can argue that the quote was an implied ad-hominem. In truth, I would argue it is not even that. It doesn't take much to understand that the ability to add X is better than the ability to add X when Y. Further, it doesn't take much to understand that 2 > 1. Taking a package that grants X and 2, and then multiclassing to get Z, results in X, 2, and Z. It is not brain science to figure out that that is better than X when Y, 1, and Z. Not being able to see that amounts to not understanding something. Saying as much isn't an ad-hominem. And, seeing as I didn't accuse anyone of that specifically, I didn't really level my argument at a particular poster instead of at a particular argument. In fact, my argument is pretty simple: X when Y, 1, and Z doesn't balance out to X, 2, and Z/2. That becomes obvious when this theoretical multiclassing gets added to the game, and someone can just dip into rogue to get all of Z.
Still, if you think that X when Y, 1, and Z is equal to X, 2, and Z, I can understand why you took that statement as an ad-hominem. I apologize for any insult you may have felt. Still, X when Y, 1, and Z is worse than X, 2, and Z.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 9:58AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2012
|
Never did I claim that I understood game design better than you. I merely stated my opinion, which is in direct contradiction to your own. You said your piece, I said mine, and we agree to disagree. I actually have no problem with you bringing up possible multi-class rules if you don't have a problem with me bringing up how our current classes will most likely interact with classes that are not yet released that inevitably will.
The multi-class discussion is an interesting one and one I am concerned with as well. Back in 3rd edition, fighter/rogues were much greater than the sum of their parts due to creative min/maxing. You could start as a rogue and get a load of skill points, go to the fighter class to bolster durability, take rogue levels periodically to up skills important to you not on the fighter list while getting sneak attack bonuses so many odd levels, getting weapon specialization, power attack, and pretty much all the great feats a fighter has to offer from taking fighter levels. We had one player do this and specialize in the scythe which had a x4 crit modifier...anyways to the point: they need to guard against this sort of thing. The new critical rules are an improvement, but I digress...4e seemed a little better at stopping powergaming but only to an extent, not perfectly, and at the expense of player freedom. There is still imbalance, though...
We really don't know how they are going to approach the multi-class situation. This is perhaps a bit murkier than contemplating what unreleased classes may bring, but not outside the bounds of speculation. I seriously hope they come up with a solution different from just get whatever you'd get from being a fighter and a level of rogue. Can't say I really know what that would be...Some sort of subclass that slides over your class like a coat? I really don't know...
|
|
|
