D&D 5E L&L December 16th Can you feel it?

[delericho]

My point is that other classes are just as reliant on a single mechanic(weapons, spells)

Except they're really not. You really can't equate the versatility of spells with the Rogue's single option - that's like equating a PC to a fork, because they each only do one thing (it's just that the PC's one thing is "run software").

And the Fighter, despite the weaknesses in the class in 3e, is still more versatile than the Rogue - they might all use 'weapons', but the Fighter built as a two-weapon specialist is very different from the Fighter built as an archer, or the Fighter built as a trip-monkey.

Every Rogue depends on sneak attack as almost his only effective combat option. The same is just not true of the other classes.

But, okay, I'll grant that my absolute "the problem is this" is over-stating it. But I'm not willing to concede that "the problem is that instead" - even if we accept that there should at least be fewer things immune to sneak attack, I'll still argue that the Rogue is still a one-trick pony, and that that should be changed.

 

[TwoSix]

Assuming a violent encounter the rogue might have to get by with a (possible) bonus to hit and regular weapon damage. ( THE HORROR!!)

Alternatively he can sit there and cry like a baby until the mean DM gives him fireball damage on every hit like he is entitled to.

Or you just do the logical thing, and not play characters whose shtick gets trumped by a wide range of encounters. I haven't played a character who sneak attacks in a dozen years, and I've played at least 15 characters in that span.

 

[steeldragons]

I know I am not a stupid person...I do not believe I am deliberately obtuse [but then, who does?]...nor do I think I am incapable of understanding most "design theory concepts." Whether I agree with or like them or not, is not relevant to my understanding them.

But I have read this column two times...slowly, thoroughly...and I can not quite fathom what the point is he is trying to make.

I mean, [I suppose] first of all, what am I missing to the whole "prepared & slots" thing...it's not new! It is the D&D casting mechanic. You have this many slots of this many level of spells per day...you memorize (a.k.a. prepare) the spells you want...

How is this somehow different for the "feel" of the game? It is the feel we have almost always (in the "wizard's" case, always) had.

I am obviously missing something...and I can not for the life of Pi understand what it is.

Can someone elucidate for me please...and where/why anyone would have a problem with this "feel" for D&D? [EDIT] Or believe this is somehow a different/"better"/new/purposely designed "feel" for D&D? Or the backstab thing...or the other examples he presents/points he's trying to make. I'm just not getting it. [/EDIT]

Please and thank you.
Happy Monday all.
--SD

 

[ExploderWizard]

Once again, it depends on who you ask. I assumed you would say that, as would many other people. For me, it isn't.

When I have a player who came to my house who finds their damage reduced from 11d6+4 points of damage to 1d6+4 points of damage against monsters who have 150 hp for the entire session and gets so frustrated that he's not actually contributing anything useful to the group and literally falls asleep and asks everyone to wake him when they get into a fight that isn't immune to sneak attacks, I'd say 3e failed at what it did as well.

To me, fun for the players trumps all other concerns.

If a THIEF player is sleeping until there is a combat you have bigger problems than damage output.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Or you just do the logical thing, and not play characters whose shtick gets trumped by a wide range of encounters. I haven't played a character who sneak attacks in a dozen years, and I've played at least 15 characters in that span.

If the games you are playing are all about combat than I can understand not not wanting to play a character who is relatively weak at it. I wouldn't choose to play a thief in a "series of fights" campaign either. If the exploration parts of the adventure get glossed over in favor of more combat, the thief is indeed a poor choice.

 

[TwoSix]

If the games you are playing are all about combat than I can understand not not wanting to play a character who is relatively weak at it. I wouldn't choose to play a thief in a "series of fights" campaign either. If the exploration parts of the adventure get glossed over in favor of more combat, the thief is indeed a poor choice.

Unfortunately, we don't gloss over the exploration nearly enough for me. I wish we could just fast-forward to the combat, or at least some NPCs to interact with. I find exploration to be terrifically boring.

 

[dmgorgon]

Once again, it depends on who you ask. I assumed you would say that, as would many other people. For me, it isn't.

When I have a player who came to my house who finds their damage reduced from 11d6+4 points of damage to 1d6+4 points of damage against monsters who have 150 hp for the entire session and gets so frustrated that he's not actually contributing anything useful to the group and literally falls asleep and asks everyone to wake him when they get into a fight that isn't immune to sneak attacks, I'd say 3e failed at what it did as well.

To me, fun for the players trumps all other concerns.

Well I'm a 2e player and I can certainly respect your reservations with 3e. As you know, in 2e a rogue's backstab ability was not something that was used during combat that often. Perhaps it might be used once if the rogue was hiding before the encounter began, but for the most part its use was highly situational. In that edition, a backstab was a kill shot. You had to make an effort to put yourself into a situation in which it could be used. Rogues generally didn't engage in direct combat all that much either. Of course, the idea of the rogue being the "out of combat" character became a thing of the past when MMORPG's started to see the rogue as a DPS character.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Unfortunately, we don't gloss over the exploration nearly enough for me. I wish we could just fast-forward to the combat, or at least some NPCs to interact with. I find exploration to be terrifically boring.

I do too when it amounts to little more than DC's and die rolls. ZZZZzzzzzzzzz.............

 

[TwoSix]

Well I'm a 2e player and I can certainly respect your reservations with 3e. As you know, in 2e a rogue's backstab ability was not something that was used during combat that often. Perhaps it might be used once if the rogue was hiding before the encounter began, but for the most part its use was highly situational. In that edition, a backstab was a kill shot. You had to make an effort to put yourself into a situation in which it could be used. Rogues generally didn't engage in direct combat all that much either. Of course, the idea of the rogue being the "out of combat" character became a thing of the past when MMORPG's started to see the rogue as a DPS character.

I'm actually on board with backstab being a much more powerful attack that can only be done before combat starts. It positions the thief and the mage as specializing in encounter nullification. The thief handles single targets and traps, and the mage handles environmental hazards (via spider climb, fly, etc) and large groups of weak enemies (via sleep, fireball, etc). Fighters and clerics are then the clean up crew for when the s*** hits the fan.

 

[TwoSix]

I do too when it amounts to little more than DC's and die rolls. ZZZZzzzzzzzzz.............

Do you have examples of actually interesting exploration? Even in 2e, I never found it much fun. I'm too young to have played 1e.