|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 3:07PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2012
|
As of the 1/28 test packet, only the wizard has no martial damage dice. This is getting out of control.
Understanding that the class system dictates the player's function in the party, can we please acknowledge that the Rogue is the skillful character and should be based on accentuating what its focuses are?
People play the rogue differently. Some are assassins, some (like me) are con artists. Change the martial dice back into a skill dice that is used in the context of the character's focus. For instance, in place of the typical ckill die system the Rogue will use the leveled martial die as listed in The Rogue class chart, page 23 of Classes.pdf or, at least, an abbreviated version that scales against the skill die system in Backgrounds_and_Skills.pdf.
Characters who choose a Rogue scheme that focuses on combat will apply the dice to sneak attacks, special maneuvers, and scheme-appropriate skills. The non-combat focused rogues will use the dice to enhance challenged rolls or increase the likelihood of performing a skill under stress (similar to the concentration checks of yore.)
But seriously, we don't need that many combat-capable classes.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 3:26PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2011
|
He gets bonus skills and has an advantage-like mechanism on his skill dice, not to mention skill tricks. You can even pick up feats to boost skills even further. What more do you need?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 4:03PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2012
|
Great point. Let's get rid of the Rogue's damage dice altogether.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 4:37PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2010
|
There were many discussions a couple months back about the combat abilities of rogues. Some agreed with what you suggest, others were quite adamant about allowing rogues "good, spiky" damage, similar to the 3e and 4e rogues.
Many see them as you do, and still others would prefer the rogues have the option to do good damage in combat, but without the ability to stand toe-to-toe with the enemy (that's a fighter's forte).
I must say I'm more in the latter camp, myself. With combat being so big in these systems, all classes should be able to meaningfully contribute to it, in a mechanical way. And in the end, there is nothing preventing a houserule for getting rid of them. But for the more "these are the rules" type of players/DMs, the damage dice should be in there.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 6:39AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2012
|
There were many discussions a couple months back about the combat abilities of rogues. Some agreed with what you suggest, others were quite adamant about allowing rogues "good, spiky" damage, similar to the 3e and 4e rogues.
Many see them as you do, and still others would prefer the rogues have the option to do good damage in combat, but without the ability to stand toe-to-toe with the enemy (that's a fighter's forte).
I must say I'm more in the latter camp, myself. With combat being so big in these systems, all classes should be able to meaningfully contribute to it, in a mechanical way. And in the end, there is nothing preventing a houserule for getting rid of them. But for the more "these are the rules" type of players/DMs, the damage dice should be in there.
Can you consider it spiky damage if the dice are always available for use?
Like I said, reallocate the damage dice to use with abilities such as sneak attack, poisoning, etc.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 7:07AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2011
|
Combat expertise, in some form or another, is probably going to become part of every class. It's the Basic Attack Bonus of this system. Attack bonus is bounded, but hit points and damage are intended to rise over time. That way even a contingent of first-level archers can meaningfully contribute in the fight against a dragon without needing to roll 20s on every attack (one breath weapon will knock them all out, however).
Without bonus damage on every attack, any martial melee/ranged class (like the rogue) would fall far behind the other classes. Right now, not every rogue chooses sneak attack, so a default bonus damage mechanic (combat expertise) fills in the gap.
I'd like to see the rogue's abilities reorganized too. But I think the basic idea that everyone is good at combat in some way is here to stay.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 3:44PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2010
|
Can you consider it spiky damage if the dice are always available for use?
Like I said, reallocate the damage dice to use with abilities such as sneak attack, poisoning, etc.
I would only consider it spiky if they took sneak attack - where the rogue can normally do about the same damage as the fighter, but it would spike under the sneak attack conditions. If I understand you correctly, you mean to say to only allow rogues to use the MDD if they get a sneak attack off (i.e. have Advantage or some other condition)? If that is what you mean, then there is an issue with that. If it's not, then I would need a further explanation of what you mean.
They tried a system like that with the pre-12172012 packet, where the rogue could do the same damage as the fighter, but only under specific circumstances. That was the problem people had with it - rogues had abilities that were (and I am quoting several players) "strictly worse than fighters." This caused a great deal of uproar. I don't know how this could be made better with the MDD system being part of the martial classes as they stand.
Keying the MDD only off the rogue's sneak attack would bring it back to the "strictly worse than fighters" stage, where only under certain conditions can they do the same damage as a fighter could do every round. Right now, sneak attack doubles the MDD damage, and can cause the rogue to do more than a fighter under certain circumstances (the aforementioned "spikiness"). This can end in rogues doing more damage than the fighter over the course of the encounter. I don't know how acceptible this is, but this assumes a rogue even takes sneak attack (as Veggie-sama mentioned)...there are other abilities that are quite nice for them (Artful Dodger comes to mind).
I am certainly not against changing this. As you and Veggie have mentioned, I too would like to see some difference here, but not at the expense of having the option to do "in the ballpark of a fighter/monk/barbarian" damage. Maybe rogues could, in addition to what they can do, be allowed to spend MDD on class-specific things each round. Like, they could be spending X dice to apply a variety of poisons to a weapon per round (as I believe you mentioned), or something like that. I like that idea. Right now, rogues don't have anything to use with their MDD other than damage, so it can seem a bit out-of-hand.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 5:24PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 20, 2012
|
I'm on board with this idea. Mostly because I think the MDD should be fighter only to give them an advantage in combat. I don't mind the rogue being able to deal substanial amounts of damage, but it shouldn't be a constant like it is now. As it stands, the rogue and the fighter have roughly equal damage potential; neither stands out in this respect.
Then again, with combat expertise becoming bizarrely common, maybe we should look at the unique aspects of each class as the defining features and MDD as just something everybody has for no reason. Regardless, I advocate other means for class other than the fighter to increase their damage.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 2:01AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
As of the 1/28 test packet, only the wizard has no martial damage dice. This is getting out of control.
Understanding that the class system dictates the player's function in the party, can we please acknowledge that the Rogue is the skillful character and should be based on accentuating what its focuses are?
.
Based on prior threads - no, 'we' apparently cannot acknowledge that. It appears many players do not want the focus of the rogue to be skills. (Personally, I"m not among them. I think it makes a good way to distinguish the rogue and a lightly armored fighter. But that's not a universal opinion).
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 8:24AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2012
|
@Landale3 No, I mean exactly what you thought I meant. Rogues should use martial damage dice to enhance their special abilities. Sneak attack, and even advantage are a good way to apply the modifier. I was around for the packet you mentioned - and the "uproar" - and none of those people mentioned that the rogue IS weaker than the fighter. The most damage it can do from a base weapon is 1d6 + damage dice. The fighter has access to 1d12 weapons. Trying to balance the rogue against the fighter in combat is missing the point of the class.
@Indra22 Yes, the only way a fighter, and now a barbarian, can outpace the damage of the rogue is by using a two-handed weapon and/or maneuvers that allow them to deal damage on misses.
@Carl So it seems. People want debonnaire, Jason Bourne-like rogues who can sneak all over the place and shoot - aherm - stab baddies with the same effectiveness as a fighter. Only now the background system allows players to make stealthy fighters.
The root of the egregious logical fallacies on this site, to include the gift-that-keeps-on-giving "The Fighter is not a class" thread, is that somehow the classes need to be able to keep pace with each other's damage output in combat. To paraphrase a friend of mine, "It's like all the MMO players are playing D&D and expect to be uber from level one on."
I thought it was an interesting comparison since contemporary MMO design is all about making Damage, Armor, and Healing among player classes balance out when D&D has traditionally been a very unbalanced game in that respect. Fighters always had the most hit points, highest armor class, and the best weapon damage. Rogues were always skillful and, while they could stand toe-to-toe with certain enemies, they were never as effective as fighters. They shouldn't be, because the fighter couldn't pick locks, or sneak, or be reliable at persuading others or the myriad other tricks the rogue had that gave it a place in the party.
I guess that I'm just afraid that people have lost sight of how to play a role playing game, much less how to make one. Understanding that the kids like to roll dice, adding extra rolls only complicates the system. If extra rolls have to be added, does it need to be every round? Does it really need to function like a mana pool, also? I can spend a certain ability as a reflex if I didn't use my damage dice? Really?
Really?
Turning the rogue's damage dice into a contextually based action serves to simplify the game, play to the character's role, and otherwise make the game more interesting.
|
|
|
