Rogue Design goals . L&L May 7th

[Gryph]

And the community won't be fractured by a rigid system that says this is the only way to play D&D? It would probably retain the old school, but the new school would just walk away. It seems to me the more customizable it is, the more it has a chance to unite people. Building exactly the character I want, is something D&D needs to be able to do. If customization is what's fracturing the community, we are doomed to be fractured.

Lets keep my qoute in the context of who I was replying to.

If your expectation is that you can pick any class and then make a character of that class be as good as any other character at anything you want to do (i.e. a thief being as good a face to face fighter as the fighter); and WoTC tries to accomadate that expectation through deep customization then, yes, it will fracture the base more than a rigid class based system where you can tailor your character within the rubric of the classes strengths.

The more bloated and complex D&D gets over the life of a version the more players it sheds. D20 and the OGL brought a lot of new blood to the gaming table. And over time it sent a lot of that new blood to non-D&D games. Maybe its simply the greener pastures effect or wanting something new, but my, admittedly anecdotal, experiences have been the feature creep and bloat in the system are very much the root of the reason.

Lets face it, if WoTC is going to lose one of us over this point, well, I'd rather it was you.

 

[Mengu]

Lets face it, if WoTC is going to lose one of us over this point, well, I'd rather it was you.

Yeah, that's quite likely to be the case anyway. I'm not on board with the unequal in combat mentality. I think I should be able to build a rogue that can go toe to toe with a fighter, and have a 50% chance of success. I throw sand in his eyes, kick him in the jimmy, taunt him with insults, trip him on his face as he tries to charge me half blind, and raise my hands to the crowd in confidence, as they are booing and throwing rotten tomatoes at me. He probably just shakes it off and gets up, since he's a bag of hit points, and the crowds cheer for the big guy, but I wouldn't want to put the rogue's chances to anything less than a fair chance in this fight.

And I'm not just favoring the rogue, I'd say the same, if it was a paladin, ranger, cleric, druid, or whoever gets to stand in that arena.

In principle, I don't agree with broad sweeping statements like "fighters are the best fighters", "Rogues can reach a higher level of expertise in skills than other characters", or "clerics are healers". I want to be able to make a fighter who is as good a climber as a rogue, a rogue who can fight as well as a fighter, and a cleric who doesn't heal. I know... it's not likely to happen in 5e.

 

[Gryph]

Yeah, that's quite likely to be the case anyway. I'm not on board with the unequal in combat mentality. I think I should be able to build a rogue that can go toe to toe with a fighter, and have a 50% chance of success. I throw sand in his eyes, kick him in the jimmy, taunt him with insults, trip him on his face as he tries to charge me half blind, and raise my hands to the crowd in confidence, as they are booing and throwing rotten tomatoes at me. He probably just shakes it off and gets up, since he's a bag of hit points, and the crowds cheer for the big guy, but I wouldn't want to put the rogue's chances to anything less than a fair chance in this fight.

And I'm not just favoring the rogue, I'd say the same, if it was a paladin, ranger, cleric, druid, or whoever gets to stand in that arena.

In principle, I don't agree with broad sweeping statements like "fighters are the best fighters", "Rogues can reach a higher level of expertise in skills than other characters", or "clerics are healers". I want to be able to make a fighter who is as good a climber as a rogue, a rogue who can fight as well as a fighter, and a cleric who doesn't heal. I know... it's not likely to happen in 5e.

Despite the tone of my posts, I do have some sympathy for this position. I stopped playing D&D shortly after 2ed was released and didn't start playing again with any frequency until 4e. I played a weekly campaign of 3.5 for 6 months and refuse to touch it again.

During that time I played games that allowed me to build characters in pieces and parts (Hero System and DragonQuest mostly). I like the style of game that lets you build a very exact character. D&D, or any class based game, is simply a poor basis for that approach, ime.

For me, if your class doesn't describe the very core of your characters abilities, than I don't want classes in the game. Nor do I want to see a non-class based D&D.

I mean this in a totally friendly way, there are some really good games out there that meet your desires for what a character is and can do. Might be worth checking some of them out rather than hoping D&D will continue to move away from a tight class based system.

 

[BobTheNob]

In principle, I don't agree with broad sweeping statements like "fighters are the best fighters", "Rogues can reach a higher level of expertise in skills than other characters", or "clerics are healers". I want to be able to make a fighter who is as good a climber as a rogue, a rogue who can fight as well as a fighter, and a cleric who doesn't heal. I know... it's not likely to happen in 5e.

If I was to make an observation, this is probably one of the biggest divides in the community right now. Im completely on the polar opposite from you. To me, Fighters ARE the best in a fight, rogues ARE the most skilled yada yada.

The thing we are not hearing alot from WOTC on is multi-classing. Done well, I think that is what will come to the rescue.

Want a rogue thats good in a fight or a highly skilled fighter = fighter/theif. Want a fighter who can heal = fighter cleric.

If multi classing is done right, both camps can get what they want.

 

[Felon]

In principle, I don't agree with broad sweeping statements like "fighters are the best fighters", "Rogues can reach a higher level of expertise in skills than other characters", or "clerics are healers". I want to be able to make a fighter who is as good a climber as a rogue, a rogue who can fight as well as a fighter, and a cleric who doesn't heal. I know... it's not likely to happen in 5e.

There's a good point in these comments. I think one of 4e's greatest accomplishments was the inception of rituals. They very neatly parsed the combat element of spellcasting from the noncombat elements that facilitate exploration, information gathering, travel, etc.

Why then embrace the idea that combat abilities should be heaped in with noncombat abilities? Why is picking a lock or disarming a trap or climbing a cliffside drawing from the same well as those that are purely for combat performance?

 

[SkidAce]

Yeah, that's quite likely to be the case anyway. I'm not on board with the unequal in combat mentality. I think I should be able to build a rogue that can go toe to toe with a fighter, and have a 50% chance of success. I throw sand in his eyes, kick him in the jimmy, taunt him with insults, trip him on his face as he tries to charge me half blind, and raise my hands to the crowd in confidence, as they are booing and throwing rotten tomatoes at me. He probably just shakes it off and gets up, since he's a bag of hit points, and the crowds cheer for the big guy, but I wouldn't want to put the rogue's chances to anything less than a fair chance in this fight.

Understandable. But in the campaign context you can have a rogue who hands the fighter his butt in hand to hand combat.

It just may be a 10th level rogue versus a 7th level fighter.

I think we tend to leave out the affect of "relativity" when we always compare equal level versus equal level.

I have several rogues that played in our campaigns who have on occasion called out a pompous overbearing fighter (NPC*) and kicked their butt. I said it in another thread I think, when taken in context, some of the "X class wins one on one every time concerns go away.

BL: An experienced rogue can beat the fighter consistently as in your example. But as equally experienced combatants, I expect the fighter to have an edge.






*after all, NPCs are who we are fighting yes?

 

[FireLance]

I was going to post something about an excluded middle when it dawned upon me that there is no middle to exclude.

Part of the discussion so far has focused on two elements that I agree are undesirable in an RPG. The first is a lack of distinctiveness amongst the PCs. The second is player non-participation. That said, there is no middle to exclude because they are not opposites of each other. You do not have to choose whichever you view to be the lesser of the two evils. You are able to choose neither.

However, you can choose how much distinctiveness you want. At the most basic level, characters are distinguished only by flavor: one character may be decribed as an archer and another as a wizard, but they both make ranged attacks that have the same chance of hitting and deal the same amount of damage. At the second level, there are mechanical differences between the characters, but they are still approximately as effective as each other: one might have a 50% chance of hitting, and another always hits, but the one that has a 50% chance of hitting deals twice as much damage as the other. Finally, characters may also have varying levels of effectiveness, but even in this situation, the characters might all be in the same ballpark (if the best is a 10, the others range from 9 to 7), there might be middling differences (if the best is a 10, the worst ranges from 6 to 4), or there might be overwhelming differences (if the best is a 10, the worst ranges from 3 to 0). Only in the "overwhelming differences" case do you run the risk of player non-participation.

And yes, I would argue that player non-participation should be avoided whenever possible. Yes, shortening the periods of non-particiation makes it more tolerable. And yes, players should be mature enough not to complain if they were unable to participate due to their own choices and patient enough to wait for an oppotunity to get involved with the game again. However, none of the above turns a bug into a feature.

So you don't have to choose between either identical PCs or not being able to participate in certain aspects of the game. You can choose PCs that are able to contribute to all aspects of the game, but in different ways and at different levels of effectiveness.

 

[Minigiant]

As I look at the last goal, I think skill rolls are current a choice between certain options

Roll 1d20 + Ability Mod

Roll 1d20 + Ability Mod +2 (Must have a bonus to skill/Training)

Take 10 (Must not be distracted or threatened)

Take 15 (Must have a bonus to skill/Training and rogue)

Take Ability Score (Must not be distracted or threatened)

Take 20 (Takes 20 times longer and assumes at least 1 failure)

So you have a 14 INT cleric-thief with Disarm Trap training, A 10 INT 16 STR fighter, and a 12 INT rogue with Disarm Trap training.

They meet a trap.

The cleric has the best roll but can fall.
The fighter is best when they have no stress and the trap can be broken with raw strength.
But if the trap triggers, the rogue should shut it off.

 

[Goonalan]

It's odd this thing we do here- argue over the fact that if WOTC does this then I'm gone, if they do that then...

Is that the case, really?

I've played every addition of D&D, by which I grew up with it- I'm old skool. There's nothing that can't be fixed, and I'm not talking about six days of maths to get the grail of game balance or whatever.

I mean six adults sitting around with beers going- scrap the so-and-so, we'll use the 4e version of...

Fifteen minutes later

Okay let's game... what you playing- I'm a Druid but I'm a kleptomaniac- I keep stealing people's stuff, you?

Funny that I'm a Rogue but I love nature... look at the little baa-lambsy!

And so the game goes on, and on... and the combat 3d8, or 5d12 + surprise round- yeah we'll get to that, figure something out- but most of the time we'll just be having fun, y'know... roleplaying and that.

You can be any class you like, you can try anything you want- it's a fantasy thing, more or less anything goes- providing it seems vaguely plausible, oh and its fun.

 

[abel_marko]

Ooops. Nothing to see here.