Rogue Design goals . L&L May 7th
FitzTheRuke
Legend
I love playing rogues. All this sounds good so far, but one really can't tell what he's talking about until we get the playtest rules.
Can't wait for the 24th, and I look forward to offering constructive feedback.
Can't wait for the 24th, and I look forward to offering constructive feedback.
Incenjucar
Legend
Sneaky rogue easy mode: Give rogues the ability to trade a standard action for "charging" their sneak attack so that they can spend a round getting into a better position rather than having to attack every single round to keep their DPR up.
Thalionalfirin
First Post
I love playing thieves/rogues as well.
I'm certainly liking what I'm seeing. Looks like they're going back to rogues dealing spikey damage.
I'm certainly liking what I'm seeing. Looks like they're going back to rogues dealing spikey damage.
1) I like it. Rogues are scheming tricksters that either cheat or run.
2) Seems like rogues get bonus skills on top of backgrounds.
3) High level rogues are almost magical in nature and transcend the mundane. Good.
4) What does this mean? Rogues auto-succeed skills too?
2) Seems like rogues get bonus skills on top of backgrounds.
3) High level rogues are almost magical in nature and transcend the mundane. Good.
4) What does this mean? Rogues auto-succeed skills too?
thecasualoblivion
First Post
Not real big on the whole cowardly/running away part.
Point 4 is interesting. I want rogues to be skilled, but its so...yawn...if thats all they are. When their capabilities transcend simple probability that everyone else is locked into, well, the rgoue becomes far more interesting.
Point 1 will be the hotly debated one though. If there is one thing that has a divide in the target audience its whether a rogue is a skill utility class or a Dex/Combatant. I like what they have said, it reflects my image of the rogues contribution in combat (though I sorely hope we dont end up with a bunch of "martially badged" powers to do so), but I suspect a bit of debate will arise.
Point 1 will be the hotly debated one though. If there is one thing that has a divide in the target audience its whether a rogue is a skill utility class or a Dex/Combatant. I like what they have said, it reflects my image of the rogues contribution in combat (though I sorely hope we dont end up with a bunch of "martially badged" powers to do so), but I suspect a bit of debate will arise.
Iosue
Legend
Mearls never used the word "cowardly". Running away to avoid a direct confrontation with superior power is not cowardly; it's the foundation of smart warfare.
Herremann the Wise
First Post
I like that Mearls differentiated between a King tricked by a rogue and a King enchanted by magic with the former being significantly more reliable. This captures the occasional strength of mundane measures over the magical and tells me that the D&DN designers will both attempt to reign in the dominance of magic while at the same time keeping magic's important variety and specialness.
Magic will remain special but it can be easily unravelled where as mundane methods are far more reliable. I like that!
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
Magic will remain special but it can be easily unravelled where as mundane methods are far more reliable. I like that!
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
patrick y.
First Post
I think this one tells us less than either the cleric or fighter writeup, but there are a couple interesting possibilities suggested from points 3 and 4.
Point 3 is mostly interesting because it reinforces the idea touched on in the fighter writeup, that mundane skill in a fantasy world is not mundane by the standards of the real world. Acknowledging this mechanically can go a long ways toward ensuring that it's better because it's magic! doesn't poison the well.
Point 4 is interesting because it implies they're taking a sensible approach to overcoming one of the big problems inherent in playing a "mundane" class: massive dependence on chains of successful rolls to accomplish anything.
Point 3 is mostly interesting because it reinforces the idea touched on in the fighter writeup, that mundane skill in a fantasy world is not mundane by the standards of the real world. Acknowledging this mechanically can go a long ways toward ensuring that it's better because it's magic! doesn't poison the well.
Point 4 is interesting because it implies they're taking a sensible approach to overcoming one of the big problems inherent in playing a "mundane" class: massive dependence on chains of successful rolls to accomplish anything.
