|
7 months ago ::
Oct 30, 2012 - 12:19PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
I'm not a major fan of the new Rogue for much of the same reasons as everyone else as it is a crappy fighter in combat. I slept on it however and then started to play around with some of the mechanics to test it out. In a way they kind of broke the Rogue in 2 ways. Put simply the Rogue is now a strictly worse fighter than a fighter all of the time. Every other edition of D&D has let them have a back stab or sneak attack to situationally get extra damage. The 4th ed Rogue did not do as much damage as the other stirkers and probably some fighter builds but it done a reasonable amount of damage and was good at targetting NADs. I'll make a comparison of the new Rogue in Pathfinder/3.5 rules as it probably makes a bettwer example than 4th ed which used powers. Next doesn't have powers as such and most of the Rogue and fighter ones are identical or simial enough that on 2-3 of the Rogue ones stand out and one of them is skill mastery.
In 3.5/PF terms they have powered the fighter up. He would get.
4 skills not two.
can pick any skills
1d6 deadly strike every two levels. Doesn't need to flank or win initiative though. Rogue still does.
Rogue gets
Sneak attack when flanking/flat footed
+4 skill points
Can disable traps (via class exclusive thieves tools).
THe fighter is strictly better 100% of the time as a rogue at combat. The Rogue cannot come close unless the fighter does not use sneak attack. Its broken in the Fighters favour. However some games involve less combat. Around 3 sessions ago I ran a session for the PCs around interacting with nobles. They attended a ball and won the Annual Magnimar Yacheting Regatta. One of the PCs had a few skill points in Profession:Sailor. He wasn't a great sailor but they had one advantage.
They cheated their **** off.
Their friends in the city watch arrested some members of the competing crews and an alchemist provided laxatives to dose some of the opposing crews with. They also sabotaged some of the other ships by cutting ropes, sails, rudders and the like. THey also had to defend their own ship from similar accts of Sabotage. The nobles of Magnimar are a corrupt bunch what can I say. This involved a wide selection of skills from Profession:Sailor for the race through to diplomacy, athletic checks for swimming, and even a untrained profession carpentry check. Most of the DCs were suitably low because its not that hard to cut a rudder or a rope- even I can do it IRL without a single rank in any of the relevent skills.
Anyway this leaves the Rogues skill master thing me jig. They can use their dice on skill checks. Roll 3d10 keep the highest at level 10. Reminds me of Vampire the Masquerade d10 system and I hated that system. I vaguely recalled 3d10 keep the highest was a reasonably powerful vampire as the most powerful ones had 5d10 IIRC. I rolled the 3d10 10 times to see what my results would be. I was going to do it 100 times but couldn't be bothered- I am a gamer after all and that invloves effort.
9
8
8
9
10
9
9
8
10
10
Lowest was an 8. It similar to advanatage I suppose but you roll 3 dice keep the best one. In D&D next however skill DCs are alot lower. A DC 40 3rd ed check is DC 25 in this system. Going back to my 3.5/PF Rogue example from earlier he also gets skill focus in all of his skills at level 1 (1d4 average 2.5 rounds up to 3= skill focus sort of). +3 is more like +5 so its skill focus 4th ed/Saga style in a 3.5 based game. But in the mid levels the lowest I tried out was a +8. Thats more or less a class ability that is +12 on all his trained skills. Even in D&D Nexts lowe DC world a +8 modifer is insane as it stacks with the Rogue being trained and ability score modifications. A Rogue will have a large amount of dex based skills as well and gets at least another +7 off them. If a Rogue can take 10 for any reason he auto succeeds on DC 25 skill checks although it is remotely possable he rolls less than 7 on his 3d10. The annual Magnimar Yachet race doped with laxatives would have been a non event had the PCs had a D&DN Rogue along. To balance the Rogue out as written around half of a session would have to be non combat related which is fine as I'm not going to tell people how to run their games (personally I try for 1/3rd combat/RP world building/ skills) with the ocasional session being 100% combat or none at all. Out of combat the Rogue is kinda broken when compared to everyone else. Overall its a badly designed class as even if the Rogue is shining everyone else is going to be bored or sucking. Even in 3.5 with the much mocked fighter he was at least good at beating on things and had some skills the Rogue wouldn't be trained in. The D&DN Rogue may as well take feats that grant him extra skills or be an elf as there is only a few skils in the game and he can be trained in most of them by level 6 or so. Rather than spending feats to try and catch up to a fighter who has feats as well might as well get really good at the one thing they are good at. Then the Rogue can rub everyone elses face in the ground for every skill check in the game even if he has an 8 in the relevent ability score.
Overall a big meh from me on the Rogue class. It sucks completely at combat (always kinda has but has been but no relevent situational modifier anymore or niche like the 4th ed Rogue), and its broken outside of combat from early in the game.
The Rogue is to good at doping nobles with laxatives. True story. And drugs are bad m'kay kiddies. In ye good old days someone would have to take one for the team and be the heal bot. Now its take one for the team and be the skill bot.Everyone else is better off sitting around twiddling their thumbs while the super Rogue does it all.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 30, 2012 - 12:27PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
An interesting note: while the rogue is superior to the fighter outside of combat, unlike in combat (when the rogue always sucks), once in a while, outside of combat, the fighter will now get the chance to shine over the rogue. Mighty Exertion works just like Skill Mastery, except it works on any Strength based check instead of any Trained Skill. There will be times when the rogue cannot apply Skill Mastery, the fighter can apply Mighty Exertion, and as a result the fighter will shine... outside of combat.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 30, 2012 - 12:29PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Yeah thats wh the Rogue is best served at being trained in multiple skills but the fihgter will beat him most of the time in strength based skills if the fihgter takes that manuveur. Fighter is best served taking somehting else and getting the rogue to pickup as many skills as possable.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 30, 2012 - 5:14PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
And outside combat, if a player keeps an honorable reputation for his fighter and don't create him with a Charisma lower than 9, the fighter is accepted in more social circles for what they are than a rogue, and without cheating.
And discussing with NPCs without rolling Sense Motive checks at the end of any sentence is something possible.
Lack of skills is a problem when you want to gain control over everything, and i saw a lot of player being anxious when they do not control absolutly all the parameters they can.
Skills are not enough important to make the skill mastery a balance for the crappy combat addition a rogue offers to an adventuring group.
• Fighter brings skills, higher resistance, damage and offensive combat maneuvers, option to protect fragile members of the group, high physical abilities helping untrained checks related to them, more attacks per rounds (more dps by itself, and twice the chance to apply expertise dice, so even more dps). He can specialize in skills through feats.
• Wizard brings skills, utility effects (that have the most OP potential of the game if the devs forget a detail in the description), some interesting combat options including AoE, one or two useful high mental abilities helping untrained checks related to them. He can specialize in skills through feats.
• Cleric brings skills, higher resistance, group resistance increase, offensive group buffing, influencial gang membership, Some high mental and/or physical ability scores helping untrained checks related to them. He can specialize in skills through feats.
• Rogues brings twice the skills the others have, solo defensive abilities, lowest offensive combat potential, bonus (1-6) on untrained skills (if he sacrifices his offense or defense). He can specialize in skills through feats.
So rogues have +3 on four more skills (but still gain 1 point/2 levels like everyone).
If they take skill mastery as one of their maneuvers, they can make untrained skill with a bonus. That's where it becomes funny !
At 1st level, the average bonus is 2.5
At second level, the average bonus is… 3.5 ! Better than these trained skills he will never augment ! So having more trained skill is actually a penalty, as he can't augment them like untrained checks.
At tenth level, instead of being able to roll 3d10 (keep the highest) for a skill check, the rogue will have to roll some trained skills with a poor +3 bonus.
Maybe I get something wrong, but I really that rogues are a crappy choice for any group.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 30, 2012 - 5:43PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I agree that the rogue lacks that situational advantage that it needs. I also think it needs to go a step further and be given a few ways to force that situation to occur. My biggest issue with this rogue is I don't really see any situation where I would want to play the field and work with tactics to get the upper hand. To me, that should be what I automatically want to do when I roll up a rogue.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 30, 2012 - 6:01PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2007
|
I ran a computer simulation with 1 million trials. Average for dice taking the highest value only 3d10 = 7.96 2d8 = 5.8 2d6 = 4.47
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 30, 2012 - 6:25PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
I figure the average of 3d10 keep the highest would be 7. 7.96 is more like an 8 but w/e.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 30, 2012 - 6:36PM
#8
|
|
|
At level 1, the rogue is pretty good. You don't get the fighter's combat power, but you get a pile of skills instead, and your expertise applies to any of them. That's not a bad trade. Skill monkeys would love it. Rogue level 1 is a great choice.
The REAL real problem is that the rogue gets nothing else for the rest of its life.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 30, 2012 - 6:41PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
I think what we're seeing is the basic failure of the underlying assumption that "best at one pillar" equals "viable class."
In order to make the fighter 'best at combat,' they're forced to make the rogue suck out loud at it. That's not viable in typical, combat-heavy, D&D games, even if they're also pretty exploration-heavy.
Casters, OTOH, get spells that out-do the fighter at sweeping away foes in combat, or out-do the rogue at out of combat tricks, 'balanced' by the fact that each spell can only be used once. Even when that 'balance' is working, a caster might shine in each of the three pillars in the course of a day (that includes all three), all he has to do is have one really good combat spell, one really good interaction spell, and one really good exploration ritual in reserve. Casters are, so far, the majority of classes, and if most classes have the potential to shine in all three pillars, why do the fighter and rogue have to be shoved into one? At least give 'em two, and at least make it possible for the poor rogue to choose to make combat one of them...
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 30, 2012 - 6:58PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
If you actually work out all the permutations and take the average (hurrah for excel):
3d10: 7.975
2d8: 5.778
2d6: 4.429
Which means, at level 10, the rogue is as good at a skill with 0 modifier and no extra points than someone else is at a stat of 20 and a +6 skill bonus. In other words, if a wizard really really tries to be as awesome as he can be at lore, he can know ever so slightly more about exactly one thing than the rogue, who can outknowledge him on 7 other subjects. 9 if he goes skill specialist, which he'd be crazy not to given that even if he spends every last feat he's got to maximize his combat ability he's still going to be worse than the fighter in every way and every situation.
You know what the real problem with the rogue is, at its very heart? It's the fighter. Someone got it into their heads that a class named after fighting should be the master of fighting. Sounds logical, but D&D is a game about fighting. Sure there's other stuff going on, but a huge part of the game is about fighting. Wizards and clerics got around it because they got spells, so when they have really awesome combat spells nobody complains that they're stepping on the fighter's toes (until they get so awesome that they've hedged the fighter out of the game altogether). But anytime someone tries to give the rogue something to contribute in combat, the "fighter should be king" types ask why the fighter shouldn't be able to do it too? It's about fighting, and he's the fighter, so he should be able to do it! And do it better, too, because he's the king of combat.
Let me tell you something folks, this is a lie. A dirty lie born of an unimaginative name with no conceptual integrity to it. Making fighters "the king of combat" is incompatible with having any sort of non-fighter, martial class worth playing. It makes it impossible to carve out any conceptual combat space for them, which forces them into the "like fighters, only worse in combat but with some kind of non-combat abilities to make up for it" box, which in turn forces fighters into the "useless outside of combat" box, or makes it the only martial class worth playing. The fighter's concept needs to be narrowed so that it stops swallowing up everyone elses's niche.
|
|
|
