Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Building a better Rogue
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7192129" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>Although futile, I know (not because of you, but because I'm just not going to change the internet...), could we refrain from statements like "any rational gamer?" I get it, from an optimizer's point of view, there is only one rational choice. But if the goal isn't to optimize, there are plenty of rational reasons why a character might be something other than optimal. I just bugs me. Stepping off my soapbox...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So here's the thing, if you approach combat as a real person, in a world where 0 hit points = death (which it does to practically every single creature except the PCs), and you accept that the dying rules are a necessary evil in design to prevent characters from dying too much, as opposed to a rule in a game to be exploited, and since the average person can't expect to ever be resurrected (and isn't even convinced it's a real thing), then the PCs feel the same, then you don't need a whole lot of "incentives" to enter melee combat.</p><p></p><p>Combat is a risk/reward scenario. And if the risk is death, people don't approach it lightly. If a rogue (or any character) can reduce the risk by using ranged attacks, they will naturally do so. Even if they could potentially cause more damage in melee. However, if the circumstances change, that is, a companion might die unless you can find a way to help defeat their opponents, and the extra damage caused by your melee attacks, and the potential extra attack due to an opportunity attack will conceivably save them, then your self-preservation may be ignored and you'll enter melee combat.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I don't think it needs to be any more than that. But that's because we play characters as people who are afraid of death and dying.</p><p></p><p>If you want to find a rule to exploit better, then address the fact that a rogue can use a sneak attack twice in a round, on their turn, and as an opportunity attack. Then find ways for other players to provoke those opportunity attacks. Such as a fighter using a pushing attack.</p><p></p><p>I think an option that provides opportunities for characters to work together, and provide regular opportunity attacks for a rogue would be great. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would assume the D&D default is to use the APs. That's the easiest path to play. So the amount of combat can be quantified fairly easily.</p><p></p><p>Like the "rational gamer" tag, I (and probably others) would engage more willingly without statements like "the default (combat-heavy) game" and reduce it to simply "combat-heavy" game. I know I've made the same mistake as well, and I'm trying not to do so anymore. If anything, since the design of 5e went through an extensive amount of play-testing, and this is the ruleset that resulted from that, I suspect the focus on combat and optimization is lower than you think. Either way I don't think it matters - I think there are enough gamers that like a combat-heavy game that it's worth discussing. Just like I think there are enough role-playing focused games to maintain that consideration too.</p><p></p><p>I get that you are quite focused on optimizing for combat. Fair enough. But unless you're playing in a group that is all focused on optimizing (and you might be), I think the theory of which is better and worse is quite different from the actual practice in a game. Moreover, I have a lot of issues with the idea that a melee rogue is a "liability" to their party. Back off the soapbox...</p><p></p><p>With their special abilities, I think the rogue is designed fairly well for survivability as a skirmisher - move in, attack, move out. However, as I've stated, I'm not a fan of allowing sneak attack with bows and crossbows. Remove those as options, and they can use their ranged options to soften up the opponent before moving in (and out) for melee. Improving their chances for opportunity attacks will alter things more.</p><p></p><p>Since I'm not the optimizer type, would anybody care to do the math if you eliminated bows and crossbows from sneak attack, and assumed that a rogue will get to make an opportunity attack every other round? Does that move things in the right direction?</p><p></p><p>What if we make it so a rogue gains an opportunity attack when somebody is knocked prone, grappled or restrained? Not when they are suffering the conditions, but the point where the condition is applied. How would that affect things?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7192129, member: 6778044"] Although futile, I know (not because of you, but because I'm just not going to change the internet...), could we refrain from statements like "any rational gamer?" I get it, from an optimizer's point of view, there is only one rational choice. But if the goal isn't to optimize, there are plenty of rational reasons why a character might be something other than optimal. I just bugs me. Stepping off my soapbox... So here's the thing, if you approach combat as a real person, in a world where 0 hit points = death (which it does to practically every single creature except the PCs), and you accept that the dying rules are a necessary evil in design to prevent characters from dying too much, as opposed to a rule in a game to be exploited, and since the average person can't expect to ever be resurrected (and isn't even convinced it's a real thing), then the PCs feel the same, then you don't need a whole lot of "incentives" to enter melee combat. Combat is a risk/reward scenario. And if the risk is death, people don't approach it lightly. If a rogue (or any character) can reduce the risk by using ranged attacks, they will naturally do so. Even if they could potentially cause more damage in melee. However, if the circumstances change, that is, a companion might die unless you can find a way to help defeat their opponents, and the extra damage caused by your melee attacks, and the potential extra attack due to an opportunity attack will conceivably save them, then your self-preservation may be ignored and you'll enter melee combat. Personally, I don't think it needs to be any more than that. But that's because we play characters as people who are afraid of death and dying. If you want to find a rule to exploit better, then address the fact that a rogue can use a sneak attack twice in a round, on their turn, and as an opportunity attack. Then find ways for other players to provoke those opportunity attacks. Such as a fighter using a pushing attack. I think an option that provides opportunities for characters to work together, and provide regular opportunity attacks for a rogue would be great. I would assume the D&D default is to use the APs. That's the easiest path to play. So the amount of combat can be quantified fairly easily. Like the "rational gamer" tag, I (and probably others) would engage more willingly without statements like "the default (combat-heavy) game" and reduce it to simply "combat-heavy" game. I know I've made the same mistake as well, and I'm trying not to do so anymore. If anything, since the design of 5e went through an extensive amount of play-testing, and this is the ruleset that resulted from that, I suspect the focus on combat and optimization is lower than you think. Either way I don't think it matters - I think there are enough gamers that like a combat-heavy game that it's worth discussing. Just like I think there are enough role-playing focused games to maintain that consideration too. I get that you are quite focused on optimizing for combat. Fair enough. But unless you're playing in a group that is all focused on optimizing (and you might be), I think the theory of which is better and worse is quite different from the actual practice in a game. Moreover, I have a lot of issues with the idea that a melee rogue is a "liability" to their party. Back off the soapbox... With their special abilities, I think the rogue is designed fairly well for survivability as a skirmisher - move in, attack, move out. However, as I've stated, I'm not a fan of allowing sneak attack with bows and crossbows. Remove those as options, and they can use their ranged options to soften up the opponent before moving in (and out) for melee. Improving their chances for opportunity attacks will alter things more. Since I'm not the optimizer type, would anybody care to do the math if you eliminated bows and crossbows from sneak attack, and assumed that a rogue will get to make an opportunity attack every other round? Does that move things in the right direction? What if we make it so a rogue gains an opportunity attack when somebody is knocked prone, grappled or restrained? Not when they are suffering the conditions, but the point where the condition is applied. How would that affect things? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Building a better Rogue
Top