D&D 5E I hate expertise dice as a universal mechanic.

[DEFCON 1]

Everybody's calling the Rogue a "Fighter light!", but guess what? In combat, a Rogue *is* a "Fighter light." They are not going to be as strong as Fighters. End of story. But the Rogue isn't about combat. It's about skill use. And THAT hasn't changed. The Rogue still gets twice as many skills as any other class and has all manner of ways to increase and modify their skill use. So in two of the three pillars, the Rogue still retains its power and speciality... but in combat, it plays second-fiddle to the Fighter. Which as it should be.

What I suspect of course is that those who don't want Rogues to be Fighter-lights are looking for a combat experience that probably less than half of all players really want for their Rogues and only half of Rogue characters ever participate in-- the "stealth assassin" archetype. The Rogues (like the old Thief) who barely participates in combat, spends the entire fight on the outskirts of it... and pops in on rarest occasions to deliver massive amounts of hurt before popping back out again. And they want the Rogue's combat mechanics to facilitate and highlight that. So it's not just MOWR POWAR! in terms of Sneak Attack... it's how the class actually is run during combat, and the unique mechanics used to accomplish it.

But the problem is... I think those players are really the minority in how they want Rogues to participate in combat. That kind of Rogue doesn't really participate as part of the group. It does it's own thing every round completely outside of the attack-defend paradigm that the other classes do... and only shows up at the most opportune time to go nova on somebody, and then is completely spent until he goes through the entire process again.

However... I think the majority of Rogue players want to be able to do something every round of combat-- whether that's standing toe-to-toe in melee alongside the DEX-Fighters... or do the sneaking around thing while delivering Sneak Attacks at least every other round. And when that is the case... the Rogues HAVE to be Fighter-lights, in order to keep Fighters the masters of combat, and also to balance the fact of the superiority the Rogues get in the other two pillars of the game.

At the end of the day... I do not believe the game is going to be balanced around the "stealth assassin" paradigm of the Rogue and the game mechanics for that class built around that paradigm. But rather the class will have mechanics designed to facilitate the Sneak Attack "operate as part of the group" combat Rogue they have been for the past two editions. Of which... Expertise Dice is just as valid of a concept as any other one they might try and introduce. Because more players want their Rogues that way, and it continues the design principals they have always put forth these last many years, which is that no one should EVER be put on the sideline completely as a default part of the game. Everyone should get to be an active participant if they so choose as part of the basic design in all aspects of the game.

And those who want the "stealth assassin"? You're probably going to either have to hope there's a module or end up creating and balancing those rules yourself.

 

[ren1999]

Funny how I get mostly criticism for wanting multiple actions per round when experience dice is mostly multiple actions per round.

I like experience dice but I don't understand it's inclusion when it was the original intent of the designers to speed up the game by allowing only 1 action per turn. Now the player will roll an attack roll, then roll several dice and apply the highest value, or add the dice to existing damage, reduce damage, enhance ability and skill rolls, attack more than one opponent, etc. Sure, all that is good. But it is going to extend the time each player takes to finish his or her turn.

Players can also react out of turn once. I really like that. I don't want it changed. But it also makes it necessary to speed up the player's turn.

 

[Mallus]

I really like that the two principle martial classes get their own version of Expertise dice. Good call, design team.

Then again, I'm not overly concerned with niche protection. I accept a fair amount of overlap in class abilities. I see it as unavoidable given the common set of core adventuring activities.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well, a point against it. As a fighter exclusive mechanic it feels good, granting the fighter a mechanical niche. On the rogue it feels interesting, but at the same time it has watered him down. Being forced to follow the fighter rules, has given us a very weakened sneak attack (one that doesn't even feel familiar due to using different sized die).

Don't get me wrong, it seems fine when used for non-combat stuff, but we could have managed a similar effect with a different mechanic, one based on d6s that couldn't be used on combat except for sneak attack or backstab. However now rogues have become "like a weak fighter just with 4 more skills".

Also worrying that when rangers and paladins show up they will end up inheriting the mechanic too, causing fighters to become a weak class again.

This sums it up better than I ever could.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Everybody's calling the Rogue a "Fighter light!", but guess what? In combat, a Rogue *is* a "Fighter light." They are not going to be as strong as Fighters. End of story. ...

... the Rogues HAVE to be Fighter-lights, in order to keep Fighters the masters of combat, and also to balance the fact of the superiority the Rogues get in the other two pillars of the game.

I actually don't agree with you when it comes to what sort of role the Rogue should have in combat. To me it sounds like you want the Rogue to have less hp, less ac and do less damage than the fighter and return be better at skills.

What I think is sub-optimal with the current Rogue is that they have just as good AC as a Fighter, but lower hp and lower damage (worse weapons, worse to-hit). I think they should lower the AC of the Rogue so it gets 2-3 points below the Fighter and instead give them some fun, circumstancial big damage boosts.

A fighter is in my eyes more than just a damage dealer, he is the character that can handle the most punishment and do good consistent damage. That is the schtick I think he should be superior at.

 

[Bungo_Underhill]

I like the concept that others have skirted around in this thread of the possibility of a fighter having a consistent pool that refreshes every round, making them consistently good in a fight. But the rogue could have a growing pool - which starts smaller than the fighters, but can be saved up over rounds to enable a 1 turn overshadowing of the fighter (damage wise at least).

So in a fight against a Necromancer and his Zombies for example the fighter can wade through the horde using his dice every round to deal with the high HP creatures lined up against him. The rogue however sneaks around the room in the shadows missing 2 rounds of attacks completely, but "banking" his expertise dice. So when he jumps out of the shadows to attack the Necro he can dump all the dice in on Nova attack, potentially taking the guy down (or producing some other effect, stun/daze) before skulking back off again.

This way in a straight up fight the Fighter is better as he gets more dice per round and can always use them for more damage, but any dice unused by the end of the turn are gone. The rogue gets less dice per round and has to work to be able to use them for damage - but he can save his dice up across rounds, so he is better at making that 1 vital attack at the right time - assuming he can set it up correctly...

 

[tuxgeo]

I hope I'm not derailing this thread too far with this:

Regardless of Expertise Dice, I would like to see the rogue have the ability to contribute to combat equally well without attacking as he or she could contribute by attacking. If using Expertise Dice, there should be rogue maneuvers that use up a whole action by themselves, and that have as much effect on combat as an attack would have.

Call them Stunts: Overturn that table! Cut down that curtain! Douse that brazier to make it smoke! Throw that MacGuffin out the window! Topple that barrel and roll it at somebody. Take off your cape and toss it over the head of an opponent, to temporarily blind it. You're not doing any damage with any of these actions, but you're changing the dynamic of the fight.

The trick, of course, would be to systematize that sort of maneuver so any random rogue would be able to do useful things in lots of different situations. Alas, I don't know how to do that; but then, I'm not a professional game designer. It may not be possible, because the design space is so wide open, as acknowledged on p. 42 of 4E's DMG1. (Maybe stunting could be encouraged among rogues by giving special bonuses or extra movement when they stunt, that other classes don't get?)

If that's not possible, it still might be possible to borrow the "Rogue Tricks" from the 4E Essentials Thief -- special abilities tied to movement.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I really agree with the two posters above - the Rogue should have combat abilities that makes the Rogue feel unique, not a fighter light.

Maybe the Rogue should get ways of generating his own expertise dice instead of getting them automatically every round? They can keep the generic spend-a-dice-to-do-action format, but change the generation and in my opinion they should change the available maneuvers.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I actually don't agree with you when it comes to what sort of role the Rogue should have in combat. To me it sounds like you want the Rogue to have less hp, less ac and do less damage than the fighter and return be better at skills.

What I think is sub-optimal with the current Rogue is that they have just as good AC as a Fighter, but lower hp and lower damage (worse weapons, worse to-hit). I think they should lower the AC of the Rogue so it gets 2-3 points below the Fighter and instead give them some fun, circumstancial big damage boosts.

A fighter is in my eyes more than just a damage dealer, he is the character that can handle the most punishment and do good consistent damage. That is the schtick I think he should be superior at.

Oh no... I have no problems with what you suggest with lowering Rogue AC and increasing HP or damage. It doesn't really matter to me where the Rogue lands on the HP/damage/defense triple-axis... so long as they are still viable participants with whatever battle they get involved with but still on the whole are behind the Fighter in total effectiveness (since the remainder of the Rogue's schtick comes on the exploration and interaction pillars).

My main point was that it was the "do not participate in any of the combat for most of the combat except for one or two nova bursts" idea that I do not think is a viable default for the Rogue. Because my guess is that it is a combat identity (or lack thereof) that most players would not want... and it makes balancing that lack of participation much more difficult. It's like the concept of the "Healbot" Cleric... sure there are a small amount of players who want to play it exactly that way... but the majority would rather have something more middle of the road and then CHOOSE to go further out to those kinds of extremes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm wondering if we don't need multiple martial systems like we need multiple magic systems.

Then, we can have expertise rogues for those who grew up on 3e/4e stabbitty death ninjas, and we can have rogues who just plunk away with daggers but who do more interesting things elsewhere.