Good points, but that's exactly why I just have the player roll dex check. I assume that the creature is trying to turn/track the attacker. If the attacker beats the check, he beats the turnaround (facing). After the attack, the defender can choose to face the attacker regardless of hit or miss. (Unless the attacker remains undetected...sneak attack...skulker ability, etc.)
At that point, it becomes almost facile for rogues to get in behind an opponent, because their DEX checks are going to be phenomenal. It also goes against the current design model whereby Advantage typically costs an action to gain.
It is the intent of the designers that a rogue only attacks every other round, spending the alternate rounds hiding.
This may be true with the core rules that we've seen so far, but we don't know what the tactical options will be in the future. For all we know, they may just decide that advantage is granted if any creature or PC attacks from behind (or when flanking, or when attacking from high ground). WotC needs to flesh out the conditions for advantage, or we'll all be granting it whenever we feel like it.
As for the ease in which a rogue can do this maneuver, it won't be so much greater than the others, and since there will be an ability cap, it doesn't seem that the bonuses will escalate. Dex 18 (+4)....Roll a 9 to make the maneuver vs. DC 13 (the rogue will be able to move behind a foe 60%). Maybe the 10+bonus of foe check is too low. Maybe it should be DC 13+bonus. When I gave the rogue in my game a chance to move behind the Ogre (and I set the DC to 13), he failed...so the Ogre turned with him. It didn't work so badly.
Because then he/she is not a Rogue anymore. It is the difference between a class and a theme (or kit, or background, etc.). If the class of Rogue gives all the rogue abilities and just as good at fighter abilities, what is the point of the fighter? Anyone can be a "thief" as a theme - all you have to do is steal stuff and any character class can do that. Just like any character class can be an assassin - all you have to do is kill for money (or some other goal). In your example, the Brigand, Highwayman and/or Ruffian are fighters as a class. Because they steal for money, they are theives in theme (at least at the time they are robbing you - perhaps they are trying to feed starving kids, ala Robin Hood ).
I disagree. I made no mention of giving the rogue all their abilities plus the abilities of the fighter, I merely suggested that the rogue could have several schemes to choose from and that one of them could be a more "dirty fighter" approach rather than a "hide and backstab" one.
Following your logic then rangers are fighters too, but with a wilderness theme, and paladins are clerics with the new guardian theme. And I guess sorcerers and wizards should just be one class now since they both use arcane magic.
D&D, being a "class" system is very limited in that regard. I am afraid what you are looking for is just not D&D. It has been done, and done quite well, in other systems that do not have classes, but rather your characters abilities are defined by skill selection and point-based abilities.
In D&D, a class defines a pre-set selection of skills - fighters are already good with a host of weapons and have proficiency in armors - and know how to use them. Rogues bring to the table a pre-set selection of skills revolving around subterfuge and they can be just as deadly - given the right situation (as backstab has been in the game since 1E), but just not an "every round" kind of lethality. Otherwise, they are simply fighters with a cool move.
That's a limitation you're placing on the D&D class system. The pre-set selection of skills you mention can easily be replaced with a pre-set selection of options that would allow for some character customization independent of themes and backgrounds.
There were things that I disliked about 4E, but one thing they got right was that most of classes had character defining choice points built into their design. I'm not referring to the AW-E-D mechanic either, using the rogue as an example at release you could select "artful dodger" or "brutal scoundrel" which gave some set bonuses, added tweaks to other selections the player could make and allowed for two rogues to be created that looked and played differently while still utilizing the same basic class mechanics.
This is what I think D&D Next is lacking (for the rogue, some what for the wizard and even more so for the fighter). My apologies if this sounds combative, its not meant to be - I'm just passionate about this topic, but its this kind of attitude (classes must be pre-set) that could limit what the game becomes.
Because then he/she is not a Rogue anymore. It is the difference between a class and a theme (or kit, or background, etc.). If the class of Rogue gives all the rogue abilities and just as good at fighter abilities, what is the point of the fighter? Anyone can be a "thief" as a theme - all you have to do is steal stuff and any character class can do that. Just like any character class can be an assassin - all you have to do is kill for money (or some other goal). In your example, the Brigand, Highwayman and/or Ruffian are fighters as a class. Because they steal for money, they are theives in theme (at least at the time they are robbing you - perhaps they are trying to feed starving kids, ala Robin Hood ).
I disagree. I made no mention of giving the rogue all their abilities plus the abilities of the fighter, I merely suggested that the rogue could have several schemes to choose from and that one of them could be a more "dirty fighter" approach rather than a "hide and backstab" one.
Following your logic then rangers are fighters too, but with a wilderness theme, and paladins are clerics with the new guardian theme. And I guess sorcerers and wizards should just be one class now since they both use arcane magic.
D&D, being a "class" system is very limited in that regard. I am afraid what you are looking for is just not D&D. It has been done, and done quite well, in other systems that do not have classes, but rather your characters abilities are defined by skill selection and point-based abilities.
In D&D, a class defines a pre-set selection of skills - fighters are already good with a host of weapons and have proficiency in armors - and know how to use them. Rogues bring to the table a pre-set selection of skills revolving around subterfuge and they can be just as deadly - given the right situation (as backstab has been in the game since 1E), but just not an "every round" kind of lethality. Otherwise, they are simply fighters with a cool move.
That's a limitation you're placing on the D&D class system. The pre-set selection of skills you mention can easily be replaced with a pre-set selection of options that would allow for some character customization independent of themes and backgrounds.
There were things that I disliked about 4E, but one thing they got right was that most of classes had character defining choice points built into their design. I'm not referring to the AW-E-D mechanic either, using the rogue as an example at release you could select "artful dodger" or "brutal scoundrel" which gave some set bonuses, added tweaks to other selections the player could make and allowed for two rogues to be created that looked and played differently while still utilizing the same basic class mechanics.
This is what I think D&D Next is lacking (for the rogue, some what for the wizard and even more so for the fighter). My apologies if this sounds combative, its not meant to be - I'm just passionate about this topic, but its this kind of attitude (classes must be pre-set) that could limit what the game becomes.
D&D Next needs to evolve, not devolve.
Alpha-dork: I do not take your different opinion as combative and think that well-mannered discussions on the game we all enjoy can only be a positive to the final result.
Regarding Rangers and Palandins, while they do have extra abilities, none of them are better fighters than fighters from a built-in game-mechanic perspective. I have no problem with your idea on different styles of Rogues, such as your "dirty fighter," the problem I have is when in the game, the 3rd level dirty-fighter rogue is, mechanically, a better fighter than the fighter. If WotC then adds ANY additional Rogue abilities, the character has SOME rogue abilities AND is better at combat than a fighter. I am just worried that a HUGE game imbalance will follow.
I like all the differentiation. I also like the structure set up in other editions, such as 2E (don't get me wrong, 2E had its problems - ahem: I'm looking at you combat), but I did like the concept of organizing the various classes into groups for game mechanic purposes. It made sense to my mind (YMMV) in that Warriors, Priests, Mages and Rogues all shared SOME common themes, inside their respective groups. However, it is that shared common theme that is the limitation of the class system, because it does not allow the complete level of diversity you could get from a point-buy system.
Regarding the evolution of the game, I do think that, perhaps, the rules could get so complicated as to turn away players. In any event, though, the playtest release is so far from complete, that I have a suspicion you will get what you want with character creation; at least to some extent.
I disagree. I made no mention of giving the rogue all their abilities plus the abilities of the fighter, I merely suggested that the rogue could have several schemes to choose from and that one of them could be a more "dirty fighter" approach rather than a "hide and backstab" one.
Following your logic then rangers are fighters too, but with a wilderness theme, and paladins are clerics with the new guardian theme. And I guess sorcerers and wizards should just be one class now since they both use arcane magic.
Hide and backstab somebody is about the dirtiest fighting method there is...
@Carbonfiber07 - Why must an alternate version of the rogue be better than the fighter. Here's an example of a different Rogue scheme using the template as presented in the playest materials.
Rogue Scheme: Thief gives Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps and Stealth skills at +3, Thieves Cant and Thief Hiding (can attempt to hide when lightly obscured)
We could have the Rogue Scheme: Duelist and give the skills Insight, Acrobatics and Bluff at +3 and add Duelist Feint (standard action to make a Bluff check to gain advantage the following round).
The base mechanics of the class remain the same - spend one round to set up advantage the next - but the Thief plays like someone that lurks in the shadows wheres as the duelist is more of the "dashing rogue".
Again, D&D Next need not limit itself because it chooses a class based system, offering options and choices (even simple ones) for players to make is the first step in establishing viable and balanced customization.
Thanks for the reasonable discussion.
@Whisspered1 - perhaps "dirty fighter" was a poor choices of words - I'd like to see the rogue class have options to player the skulking thief, dashing rogue, hard edged street tough, etc built into the base class design. I'd also like to see some simple options built into the base fighter class as well - even something as basic as the choice between a more offensive or a more defensive approach.
The cleric in the playest materials has shown that Wotc can provide straight forward class design with "baked in" options.
I totally agree with you. Non-arcane/divine characters need more options. According to Mike Mearls who was answering questions on reddit this morning they're working on a full out combat maneuvers system akin to 7seas that all players will be able to use but will be made in such a way that fighters will obviously be better at then most other characters. This will be on top of "special attacks" like Cleave and Reap.
I have to say, I really like where 5E is going so far.
It is the intent of the designers that a rogue only attacks every other round, spending the alternate rounds hiding.
Which one of them said that?
Works for Lurkers, anyway. Lurkers in the Monster Vault and the ones used in the last few season of encounters tend to work that way. They have some hide or disapear, or become invulnerable power that they use as a standard action, then they get a big damage bonus the next round. One attack for about double the usual monster damage every other round. It can bloody and sometimes drop PCs in one attack, typically, the PCs all pounce on and kill the lurker the next round that it's attackable. I suppose monsters might react similarly, once they realize how deadly the rogue is, they all jump him the next time he shows himself. If they're not too busy trying to get the wizard, or the cleric so he'll stop healing everyone....
The his Wisdom is 5 above the DC of the Wisdom check for the trap. See Ability Threshold on page 3 of the DM Guidelines.
Apologies for interrupting the very interesting conversation about the rogue class. I wanted to come back and check on this.
The thresholds are under "Options for Checks", i.e. you don't have to use them (I didn't - in fact, I didn't really take in this bit of the rules, so thanks for mentioning it!).
So if I understand the rule correctly, anyone with 5 over the DC automatically detects the trap when they are checking for it. I'm not sure I'd describe this as auto-detect though? Don't they have to be keeping an eye out for the trap? A trap should be easier to find if you are actively looking for it than if you are just wandering by.
Still, assuming they are looking for traps, it would make sense that the party has the cleric of Pelor to look, since he can auto-detect this one when looking, with his WIS 18. If you didn't want this to be the case, you could decide not to use the Ability Threshold option. Then he gets +4 to his roll in checking for the trap. This gives him a roll of 5-24, vs the thief's roll (-1 WIS, +3 Find Traps, minimum die roll 10) of 12-22. So the theif will find it 10 times out of 11 if he is searching, while the cleric will only find it 12 times out of 20.
In other words, if I'm getting this, if you're looking for traps, the cleric automatically detects it, and the thief will find it more than 90% of the time, using the threshold option. Without that option, the thief is the same but the cleric doesn't have the threshold advantage of his special wisdom, and drops to finding it 60% of the time.
If I've got that wrong, please straighten me out. If it's right... well, it's pretty complicated to see through the consequences of your choice about the Threshold Ability option. I would say that on the whole I don't like it - I think I'd opt out. However, it's good that it's there for people who like it - and of course it simplifies things in the sense that it's one less roll.
Is there anything in the rules about checking for traps vs just wandering by, or is this a house rules thing?
@Carbonfiber07 - Why must an alternate version of the rogue be better than the fighter. Here's an example of a different Rogue scheme using the template as presented in the playest materials.
Rogue Scheme: Thief gives Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps and Stealth skills at +3, Thieves Cant and Thief Hiding (can attempt to hide when lightly obscured)
We could have the Rogue Scheme: Duelist and give the skills Insight, Acrobatics and Bluff at +3 and add Duelist Feint (standard action to make a Bluff check to gain advantage the following round).
The base mechanics of the class remain the same - spend one round to set up advantage the next - but the Thief plays like someone that lurks in the shadows wheres as the duelist is more of the "dashing rogue".
Again, D&D Next need not limit itself because it chooses a class based system, offering options and choices (even simple ones) for players to make is the first step in establishing viable and balanced customization.
Thanks for the reasonable discussion.
The more options the better. As a fan of 2E (although I play a lot of 3.5 now and enjoy it), I purchased many of the splat books with tons of options for different characters. All the various "kits" as they were called, allowed for much of the variety you are discussing. I like it. It is good for the game.
What I am concerned about, though, is that the "Rogue" class can do some strange amount of massive damage every other round from a game mechanic being applied in standard open field combat. Now, situationally, I have no problem with a rogue sneaking up on an unaware person and causing huge amounts of destruction in a single blow. This is situational and plays into the rogue class.
What I do not like is if a rogue can, during an open combat, in a field, in full daylight, pop into and out of combat (game mechanic) and do massive amounts of damage every other round. If the amount of damage scales every level, then at some point, mathmatically, that will outstrip the fighter on a per round basis of damage dealt and it is in that analysis that I complain.
I think this discussion falls in line with the other one in this thread regarding the cleric being able to spot traps better than the rogue. It seems strange to me that one character can be better than another character at the other character's core function. A rogue dealing more damage per round over time (not just a one shot situational attack) than a fighter is odd to me. A cleric being better at spotting traps than a rogue is odd to me.
).
