Community

Sep 10, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Emerikol wrote:

Sep 10, 2012 -- 9:10AM, Daganev wrote:

Sep 10, 2012 -- 6:46AM, Emerikol wrote:

I think a rogue should have a set of "rogue" skills where his mastery applies but it should not apply to every skill in the book.

 

Which skills do you think are so obviously not rogue skills that the skill shouldn't apply?

Cause I bet you I can describe a rogue focusing on those abilities to define their "rogueness" 

Well just because you have some skills that are rogue oriented doesn't mean he doesn't have the others.  But I would think things like stealth, thievery, etc....  I'd guess that athletics or diplomacy aren't.  I'm using 4e skills not 5e as I don't have it in front of me.

Another idea might be to allow some backgrounds to give you skill mastery in something.   

Athletics = Thief that climbs buildings and roof tops
Diplomacy = The Spy that Shagged me. 

Sep 10, 2012 -- 1:39PM, Teancum wrote:

My issue with this is the way it limits adventure design. That is, if I have a rogue in my party and want to use a trap, it has to be at the 'very hard' level to even have a chance of going undetected and actually mattering. At level 1 it seems like I should be able to use a 'moderate' or maybe 'hard' to detect trap. In my world it may not make sense for a band of kobolds to be expert trap-makers, but I still want them to use traps. If there is no rogue in my party, go for it. If there is a rogue, why bother? Locking a door? Only if you have masterwork locks, or no rogue in the party. I think there needs to be a better solution. Maybe it is as simple as using 5 instead of 10. Make that number increase a little faster than it does currently. Maybe every other level (at least up to level 10) would work. A level 1 rogue auto-succeeding on an easy task (5(minimum) + 6(training + 3) = 11) ? Sounds good. By level 5 maybe he can auto succeed on a moderate task (7 + 6 = 13), by level 10 on a difficult task (assuming either an ability score bump or 1 additional skill point in the skill) (9 + 7 = 16).

Actually if I'm a rogue I want to feel useful,  if I'm good at finding and disarming traps, I want traps for me to disarm.  Not just disarm I actually like to rewire traps to hurt the enemy.  For instance in the orc lair of the playtest I altered the net trap to fall in a different square and placed the trigger in a different square.  It was alot of fun for me and the party, also it didn't take alot of time.  I asked the gm if I could do this, or what options I would have for changing the trap up, asked if I needed to make a check and used Knack on the harder roll, it was quick and fun.  Just because a trained rogue can find and disarm traps doesn't make them any less fun.  I would not propose making it a 5 instead of a 10.  But I wouldn't mind if it was a 5 and you also got advantage and a reroll or something.  I don't mind it changed, but I don't want it nerfed (made weaker).

I also like that it isn't limited to a set of skills that people think are rogue skills.  I also feel that any skill could be a rogue skill.  I also wouldn't mind if other classes had some access to this, either by multiclassing or specialty possibly a feat to make one skill mastered.

Sep 9, 2012 -- 6:57PM, Cyber-Dave wrote:

Making it a reroll instead of calling it advantage would work. But, the rest seems overly complicated Ryan.

Complicated?  It's not complicated at all.

SKILL MASTERY
A Rogue has Advantage on Trained Skills.

A Rogue's Trained skills provide a +5 bonus, instead of +3.

A Rogue ignores negative modifiers on Skill checks.

NEW UNIVERSAL SKILL RULES
All Skill modifiers (the sum total, including ability modifiers) max out at +10. 

If the character has maxed out a Skill, they may begin Training in a new Skill.

So, the first packet's Rogue would have:

+5 and Advantage on all Find Traps checks, despite the 8 Wisdom.  This is better than the Cleric of Pelor's +4 without Advantage.

+8 and Advantage on all Open Locks/Stealth checks.

Nothing too complicated about that, is there?

 

Sep 10, 2012 -- 4:18AM, Daganev wrote:

Sep 10, 2012 -- 3:19AM, lokiare wrote:

Sep 10, 2012 -- 2:50AM, Daganev wrote:

Sep 10, 2012 -- 2:38AM, lokiare wrote:

Sep 10, 2012 -- 2:14AM, Daganev wrote:

Sep 10, 2012 -- 1:48AM, lokiare wrote:

Sep 10, 2012 -- 1:44AM, Daganev wrote:

Sep 9, 2012 -- 8:14PM, Philip wrote:

I play a rogue in the playtest and I really like it, it allows me to scout ahead and not slow the game down with a bunch of rolls.  In previous games the rogue was always afraid to get too far ahead of the party for fear of the dice.  This makes a rogue be able to fulfill a roll, otherwise hard to do with the wonkiness of a 20 sided dice.

Exactly.

At our table we found it really nice, and it gave the rogue the need to do more daring and creative stuff, which elicited a dice roll. 

Would having one reroll on anything under a 10 make it a funner experience? They get to roll dice and they have a chance to succeed greater or still fail. If they have advantage they can roll it with both rolls so it multiplies the effectiveness of the roll...

It would certainly take more time. Don't know if it would be more fun.

If this mechanic is so great why not let the fighter take 10 on their attack rolls if they roll under 10? Because that's exactly what this mechanic is doing for Rogues. It lets them totally dominate the exploration pillar and if they pick the right background the social pillar. heck it allows them to just about auto-succeed at stealth checks. Then to add insult to injury they can reroll 2 'checks' at level 2. So even if they don't have social skills they can reroll them...

It's impossible to "auto-succeed" at stealth checks, since it's basically a contest, not a straight up skill check.

Same thing with the social sphere.  Social is mostly contests.


The truth is, that the minimum of 10 in skill mastery fits nicely with the rules to the DM regarding how and when to make checks and social interactions in the first place.

The leeway given to the DM for checks and social interactions is explicitly removed when it comes to combat.

Leeway? Yeah, the skill section also talks about not being rigid with attack rolls, so guess what? it applies equally there...

"As a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws. When you ask a player to make a check, an attack, or a saving throw, you first should focus on engaging the players’ imaginations."

Yes rarely in the social pillar the DM will roll a 17-20 and beat the 1st level rogues skill mastery roll of 10. That happens what 20% of the time. So the Rogue beats 80% of checks that are easy to super human in difficulty. That's not counting the chance for the Rogue to roll above 10, that makes it even worse. For checks that aren't opposed the suggestion is to set the DC to easy medium or hard. The Rogue will always succeed on those three (10, 13, 16). It even says you could run the whole game like that. So for the whole game the Rogue can just take '1' and succeed at every trained check they have and for the rare untrained check they can use their 'Knack' feature at level 2.

You seem to have this habit of not reading up on terms that are defined.  

" engaging the players’ imaginations.""
 
This then leads to the section entitled: Engaging the Players:


Under "attacks and Saving throws it says"

"Attacks and Saving Throws: A colorful description is nice for attacks and saving throws, but should rarely be the avenue to gaining a concrete game benefit, since it is too easy to abuse such an approach. You might have players endlessly describing how they resist a mind flayer’s mind blast or trying to narrate every detail of a sword blow. In most cases, spells and special abilities serve to grant characters advantage on their attacks and saving throws. That said, if you feel the situation warrants it, use advantage to grant a character a well-earned edge. Disadvantage: Not every idea is a good one. A character might try to win the prince’s favor by bragging about all the bandits he slew, not realizing that the prince is an avowed pacifist. If an idea backfires on a player, apply disadvantage to the check or attack.

In other words treat them all equally. Grant advantage or disadvantage based on fancy or clever descriptions of what their characters do. Yeah, still not seeing this leeway you are talking about...