|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 9:39AM
#1
|
|
|
This is a little early to start this thread but I am done studying and am bored. I had started running two seperate games of Next that share some players between the group but one of the players in both groups (Zago on these forums) volunteered to take over DM duties for one of the games. So I decided I would play a rogue in our Sunday game in order to actually playtest the class before coming down on it.
My character is a Mt. Dwarf Thief Rogue Guide Ambush Specialist.
On paper the rogue needs work so what I will be looking at is as follows:
-with the DCs as they stand is Skill mastery excessive at the cost of a definable combat role?
-sneak attack I can't see anyway that it is acceptable in its current iteration. Even if rogues had access to deadly strike their damage output wouldn't equal a fighters and their comparative fragility in melee definitely further tips the scales. But I will give it the good old college try. I figure I'll play to 4th or 5th level before determining if I want to switch the character to a Fighter.
-how fun is it to play a skill monkey? That's as subjective an answer as can be asked probably and dependent on the DM. I've never played a rogue however. My DnD career has been almost exclusively martial and wizard characters.
So stay tuned as I suss out the rogue!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 09, 2012 - 12:12PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
You know what I think is wrong with the rogue?
I think people really want a fighter that can do the stuff a thief can. The problem is that the classic thief really sucked in combat. They were designed to steal stuff, work as teams of guerrillas, and were necessary to safely delve into dark places full of locks and traps.
When combat came up they found a place to hide and used their sneak attack to augment the fighter and the cleric.
The real issue is that WotC has changed the fundamental purpose of the game by focusing on the combat aspects to the near exclusion of everything else. This has caused the rogue to be less of a thief/trailblazer and turned them into second class fighters. Their sneak attack went from being an attack of stealth and timing to an always on way for the thief to do as much damage as the rest of the party, specifically the fighter
As long as people think the rogue is just another fighter with some skill bonuses then they will never be happy with the class.
How about we return that particular niche to the ranger, give him back his thief abilities and make the rogue the thief, trailblazer he is and not try to turn him into yet another fighting man.
The rogue's identity is that of a conniving trickster or blatant robber or second story man or dungeon delver, but he is not a fighter and has no need to be able to deal damage as if he were one.
Until this truth is made clear the rogue in D&D will fail to fulfill it's role in the game.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 12:46AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2001
|
My favorite way to do things was like Monte did with the Warmain (heavy armored tank fighter) and the Unfettered (swashbuckler duelist light dex fighter) As for the Rogue. He can stay the specialist with the most skills and the best SA damage ect.
Since thats not an option I think people want a dex fighter that feels and plays different from the heavy armor fighter. Next does better with the fighting styles but it's still hard to cover everyones vision. What if I want a duelist with d8 that has six skills and great dodging/parry stuff with an uncanny ability to score critical hits with either uncanny strike or SA. These middle grounds would make the duelist, swashbuckler, protector "fighters" feel differnent and then the rogue could feel different with even more skills, specialties (like . . . oh horror!! . . . bonus feats!!) and SA damage.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 10, 2012 - 12:05PM
#4
|
|
|
It's not at all that I want the Rogue to be a fighter or even do as much damage as a fighter. I would prefer if they had maneuvers that allowed them to apply poison, or reduce mvt., or any number of other debuffs. The question is if skill mastery and extra skills are enough to balance out a lack of any viable combat niche. As it stands I can take a fighter and with the right Background and Skill Specialist make him very similar to a Rogue but with better survivability and combat ability. But before I determine any of that I will play the Rogue to see if the class as is satisfies me.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 6:02AM
#5
|
|
|
It's not at all that I want the Rogue to be a fighter or even do as much damage as a fighter. I would prefer if they had maneuvers that allowed them to apply poison, or reduce mvt., or any number of other debuffs. The question is if skill mastery and extra skills are enough to balance out a lack of any viable combat niche. As it stands I can take a fighter and with the right Background and Skill Specialist make him very similar to a Rogue but with better survivability and combat ability. But before I determine any of that I will play the Rogue to see if the class as is satisfies me.
I agree with what you said and with Tlantl. I think the core of pen & paper RPGs is solving problems and achieving goals. With the last playtest, I found the rogue boring because there was little risk but the minimal "stuff" encouraged me to find ways to achieve my character's goals. Compared to 4E there was no comparison, it was so much more fun. But now by giving the Rogue a list of maneuvers that are all combat focused, the pendulum has swung too far back to 4E rather than that old school feeling. I'm fine with the fighter having a slew of "Double Reach Around Riposte" ways to hit someone with a weapon. It feels like a fighter. But the Rogue really feels like the only class in the game where less is more. There is a place in the game for Ezio-Rogues and Littlefinger-Rogues, they just haven't found a way to get there yet.
DMAIA: DMs Against Immediate Actions - Turning 6 seconds into 15 minutes since 2008.
Vampire Class/Specialty in 2013!
Wizard: I cast Burning Hands.
Rogue: I grab a torch and a can of hairspray.
I prefer Next because 4E players and CharOpers can't find their ass without a grid and a power called "Find Ass."
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 11, 2012 - 2:57PM
#6
|
|
|
So I played my rogue for our session today. Standard caveats apply: I've played him in one game, he's only level two, etc. I am also aware that the devs said they knew this playtest's rogue was nerfed so most of my comments are probably redundant at this point.
Quick recap: I'm playing a mt dwarf rogue guide skill specialist (changed from an ambush specialist).
Thoughts:
Skill Mastery
I like having losts of skills but skill mastery just seems excessive. For the most part I was either succeeding amazingly well or just failing. IE I would succeed well past the DC or roll and not make it at all. I did not keep track of my rolls so it could have been that I was rolling to the extremes on the spectrum. I rolled over 25 several times. It felt like no middle ground. At higher levels it looks like I will be wildly, unnecessarily amazing at the skills I have for the DCs as provided.
Sneak Attack and the other maneuvers
I understand there are fans of the rogue effectively as is who get all twisted up and say a rogue isn't a fighter, so forth and so on. I understand that to a point. However the rogue options as presented effectively only allow for a crappy version of a fighter. I also understand this will change. As it stands now I feel a rogue should be able to contribute in some way to a combat not just with a situational deadly strike. In the fights we got in I rolled average and did some damage but did not have any particularly interesting things I could do. Setting up sneak attack either requires the same activities as in the previous packet, with less payoff, or to stand next to the fighter and hope the DM decides not to have his monsters attack the inferior HP guy.
The argument still stands: a fighter built the same way and with skill specialist could accomplish many of the same tasks but with increased versatility and durability in combat. Lockpicking seems to be the only real counterbalance and that feels like a somewhat arbitrary impediment in that I feel like all characters who take Disable Device should be able to pick locks also.
But I will continue playing this character as is as I really enjoy the character himself. Hopefully future changes to the rogue will make them more interesting in all areas of play.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 7:17PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2012
|
Regardless of people who claim that the rogue should not deal damage and should be relegated to picking locks and tying ropes, the fact remains that as the game progresses the "damage dealing" Fighters and Wizards will be outpaced in DPS and HP by the monsters in encounters designed for them +1. In order to supplement party damage while maintaining some balance, the rogue was given the sneak attack ability.
It's really no one's fault at WotC if people aren't playing their rogues as theives or con artists. I do, mine, but my DMs have always built worlds where I could use disguises or bluff my way out of trouble. Towards the higher levels, as rangers and barbarians become more intimate with their bonus attack and damage rolls, I still rely on reflex saves and sneak attack damage.
Does the rogue get overpowered? In 3.5, not if your DM is doing their job. In Classic and AD&D, definitely not, though backstabbing and sneak attacking and trick attacking in one turn is pretty intense.
Sneak attack is underpowered in Next. There is no check or penalty for a fighter with a bow using deadly strike, nor with a melee weapon of any kind. Rogues, however, have to be in concealment or near an ally. Both classes use the same expertise dice. Both classes need to wait ten turns to use these abilities again.
Fighters get to wear heavier armor, where rogues need to be mindful as to how much noise they make and where they stand in combat.
Fighters get access to better weapons, where rogues don't.
I am a fan of restricting sneak attack to one handed weapons, thrown daggers, and simple missile weapons (rogues need to maintain their balance.) I also agree with some of the people posting on here that the dex modifier should be added to the expertise dice to provide a small damage boost. Melee sneak attacks should also break concealment since it's hard to hide the tip of that shiny rapier. As far as ranged attacks, it's up to the DM whether the enemies are smart enough to figure out where the rogue is hiding.
I'm also looking into whether the highest expertise die being applied to a fighter's deadly strike while a rogue uses all expertise dice for sneak attack will break the game.
|
|
|
