D&D 5E Can an elf rogue be a decent archer in (Basic) D&D 5th edition?

[Mistwell]

But then I started running 4E, and we had Page 42 (do you know what that is?) and the general "Feel free to make it up!" attitude (rather than 3E's "We've got a rule for THAT!" attitude), and before the end of the first adventure I had players trying "Fastball Specials" and the like! Ever since we've had tons and tons 2E-style antics, only all the PCs are involved in it in 4E, whereas only the non-casters were in 2E!

So my experience is starkly contradictory, like, opposite-land, to yours, when it comes to 4E. And I've played it regularly since release, which I'm guessing you've not (am I wrong?).

You are wrong. I am a fan of 4e, and played it regularly from day one as well. Indeed, I was held up sometimes as a poster-child for 4e fandom at EnWorld's sister-board, CircvsMaximvs. I am of course aware of Page 42, and I did not have your experience with it. Page 42 is for the DM to adjudicate something and not on the player's character sheets. In my experience players looked at their cards and decided what to do most turns, and usually didn't think outside those cards unless prodded to do so by the DM. There were just so many options the players could choose from based on their character sheets that the thought of considering yet more options outside their character sheets far too often didn't occur to them. Glad your experienced differed, but it was not my experience with 4e.

It's also not the point of my post though. I've never been a basher of any edition of D&D, and nothing I said implied anyone needs to defend 4e in this respect. I loved 4e, and I think overall it was a great game, and this was not some hidden agenda of mine to trigger defensiveness over 4e in anyone. I was just explaining a change in our games from 4e to 5e, which reminded me of 1e and 2e and B/X games from long ago.

So when you say this has "changed", with 5E, that seems really weird. 5E seems to similar to 4E, except for the fact that it doesn't actively encourage making rules up (as per the playtest anyway, DMG may well!). How do you account for this, given you're talking about how important actual experience is?

I think it does actively encourage making rules up. And if you look on this board, on the WOTC boards, on RPG.net, and on TheRPGSite, you will find one very consistent, very common praise of 5e is the very thing I am talking about - that the players and DM feel less contained by the rules and more free to choose options based on their imagination. If that is not your experience playing 5e (and I tried to ask you what your experience was and you got offended, I am not sure why) then I am sorry. But, I don't think I am alone in saying that.

Is it really so offensive that I ask you "Have you played a rogue much with the current playtest rules"? I don't think that's an offensive thing to ask at all. I am noting a change between how the game plays in reality, and what you can easily factor based on math. It's a fair question to ask a person's experience with the former, when commenting on that very thing.

 

[Sadras]

@Ruin Explorer I have to echo @Mistwell's post.
Both 4e groups I was involved in (I was DM for one) found 4e too restrictive due to the power structure and generally the entire system - one group went the Pathfinder route the other has gone 5e.

From our Players' Perspective
My experience with roleplaying games in general has been that less detail on the character sheet encourages characters to be more creative, because they are not "programmed" to follow the same list or formula of actions on their character sheet for every combat. For us 5e has less on the character sheet than 4e - so I find PCs in our group are far more innovative than they were when playing 4e.

From a DM Perspective
The fact that the core is so simple with the ability to tack on modules as one wishes - indicates to me that the game is rather flexible as a whole, and therefore open to house rules or "house-modules" if you will.

1. A character wants to try an unlisted manoeuvre:
We quickly determine a DC and a roll is made the DM adjudicates the result (5e)
Have to worry if this is equivalent to an at-will, encounter or daily action due to all the necessary balance that must be maintained (4e).

2. A character who doesn't have a *trip* power wants to trip:
Determine DC and let the character roll (5e)
Have to ensure that if the character succeeds in *tripping*, the result I as DM allow must not supersede another character's official *trip* power. (4e)

3. A character wants to attempt to *trip* again:
Sure, make a roll, perhaps now the opponent is more aware, the DC is higher or you have disadvantage... whatever (5e)
I might have to worry about the fact that the character doesn't have another *trip* power or can only perform one *trip* in an encounter (4e).

The list goes on. IMO, 5e is just so much easier to manage, house rules are easier to insert, the DM has greater say - given that the system is looser than (3.x and 4e) and as a result the characters have a lot more say on the actions they would like to perform. Its fast, its free and its fun.

 

[Uller]

Since Extra Attack very explicitly gives you two extra attacks per turn starting at level 11, and Flurry of Blows just as explicitly lets you spend a ki point to get a third attack, this can't be right. Got a link?

I'm guessing it's a limit of one additional action per turn, not one extra attack.

I think you are right. Here is a link:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20140131

Third question references what I'm talking about but it's pretty vague because it refers to a youtube Q&A session or possibly a podcast. I remember watching or listening to it but I can't find it.

The Q&A from the week prior explicitly asks about action surge and extra atks and Rodney confirms that action surge lets you double up your attacks. Still, the one I linked to indicates that they realized there are too many ways to stack up attacks and that takes away from the fun of other players. The thought of a 5th level TWF getting 6 attacks in one round fills me, as a DM, with dread. Just looking at how long it takes some of my players to resolve _two_ attacks makes me think that this way lies folly.

My table experience with D&D Next has been levels 1-5 (mostly 3-5) with the following classes: Rogue (thief and assassin), wizard (evoker and illusionist), bard, ranger, barbarian, monk and cleric. The classes that have probably shined the most have been barbarian, assassin and wizard but the ones that haven't stood out have primarily not done so because of inexperienced players forgetting or not understand abilities (for example, our tanky dwarf cleric of war has only a 12 STR and a 17 CHA and he forgets to use Divine Favor or other spells to boost his attacks).

Looking at the martial classes (barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger) I see that only the fighter gets extra attacks beyond 5th level or any other ability to grant extra attaks. The others all get interesting features to boost damage or chance to hit, but not outright extra attacks (I could be missing something). This all doesn't matter much to me because the last time I played a D&D game beyond 10th level was in 3e and that was just a one shot (the Iron Fortress module). However, I think I would argue it isn't the rogue that is out of balance, but probably the fighter. It appears to me, for instance, the typical GW barbarian maxes out at 2 attacks that pretty much always have advantage, do extra damage on a crit and gets extra damage from raging...compared to the fighter's possible 16 attacks in two rounds that seems pretty tame. I could be wrong.

It seems to me, compared to all the classes other than the fighter, the rogue does very good damage, very consistantly and the assassin does even better. I could see rogues maybe getting a small boost in SA damage or perhaps something else interesting to do besides damage. Still...I wouldn't hesitate to play a rogue as it stands. The idea of an elf/rogue/archer seems to me to be a very good one that would be a lot of fun to play assuming you've got a tanky character or two standing out front. You'll have a lot of fun sniping enemies from a distance in combat (and sometimes sticking them when they get close), sneaking about, scouting, etc. Maybe take two levels of fighter to get action surge... A fighter archer on the other hand would be very effective in combat but would require some RP skill on the part of the player to be fun beyond combat.

Perhaps instead of action surge, the fighter should get an extra feat or access to some non-combat related skills or some such. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, though.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Double-post!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You are wrong. I am a fan of 4e, and played it regularly from day one as well. Indeed, I was held up sometimes as a poster-child for 4e fandom at EnWorld's sister-board, CircvsMaximvs. I am of course aware of Page 42, and I did not have your experience with it. Page 42 is for the DM to adjudicate something and not on the player's character sheets. In my experience players looked at their cards and decided what to do most turns, and usually didn't think outside those cards unless prodded to do so by the DM. There were just so many options the players could choose from based on their character sheets that the thought of considering yet more options outside their character sheets far too often didn't occur to them. Glad your experienced differed, but it was not my experience with 4e.

I accept my wrongness there, then!

My players have never just gone by what's on their sheets.

3E beat into them that they shouldn't try anything clever, not because it wasn't on their sheets, but 3E's rules made them fail - this is because anything clever in 3E inevitably involved multiple checks - and with the high randomness of d20 rolls, it was very likely one of those checks would fail, ruining the whole action. Whereas Page 42 made it very clear that one shouldn't do that, one should make it one or two checks at most. So when they started trying clever , because they didn't know if they could or couldn't, this being a new edition, and found it worked, they kept doing it.

I can see, I guess, how an even more beaten-down-by-3E group wouldn't even try - or if unlucky rolls made them fail the first few times - or worse, if their DM made up all sorts of strange rules about how Page 42-type stuff works, like Sadras' or his DM apparently did (see below).

It's also not the point of my post though. I've never been a basher of any edition of D&D, and nothing I said implied anyone needs to defend 4e in this respect. I loved 4e, and I think overall it was a great game, and this was not some hidden agenda of mine to trigger defensiveness over 4e in anyone. I was just explaining a change in our games from 4e to 5e, which reminded me of 1e and 2e and B/X games from long ago.

Yes and that is genuinely interesting, because I saw the precise same change going from 3E to 4E - if you think I am in any way lying or exaggerating here, feel free to go back and examine my posts on RPG.net on the d20 forum from the months after 4E was released - I mentioned this a bunch of times.

I think it does actively encourage making rules up. And if you look on this board, on the WOTC boards, on RPG.net, and on TheRPGSite, you will find one very consistent, very common praise of 5e is the very thing I am talking about - that the players and DM feel less contained by the rules and more free to choose options based on their imagination. If that is not your experience playing 5e (and I tried to ask you what your experience was and you got offended, I am not sure why) then I am sorry. But, I don't think I am alone in saying that.

Nor am I alone in saying the same about 4E - so you understand how this is not a change for me. Compared to 3E, though, I agree, 5E encourages making stuff up. Compared to 4E, I think it's a wash, but YMMV.

As for my experience, well, my players really disliked a couple of things about 5E - the return of semi-Vancian casting, which two of them had never even experienced before, have started in 4E, and which they thought was really tremendously stupid - and the removal of tactical combat and roles, which they had liked. They liked the much faster combats, and, interestingly, that minions were gone (I like that too), but eventually the stuff they didn't like wound them up so much they stopped being willing to do 5E playtests - that was a long time before October, to be sure.

Is it really so offensive that I ask you "Have you played a rogue much with the current playtest rules"? I don't think that's an offensive thing to ask at all. I am noting a change between how the game plays in reality, and what you can easily factor based on math. It's a fair question to ask a person's experience with the former, when commenting on that very thing.

Dude, you know what you had typed originally, it's still in my Inbox, from before you edited it! That's what offended me.

I was also offended by how you appear to be suggesting (and I say appear, because I'm not sure you mean it), that there are only two states of knowledge about an RPG - "Playtested it in it's precise current incarnation" and "Wild Theorycrafting Based On Nothing". I've run and designed RPGs for decades. I know a lot about how games are likely to run. I do miss things, to be sure, and your and Dausuul's posts have been the ones which have pointed out the most stuff I've missed - I actually meant to ask you about the "hit and run" with the Rogue earlier - that's an interesting tactic, and not one that would have worked well in most editions (though hilariously the Rogue in my 4E game used it last session, I've never seen him do that before!). I am quite willing to listen to interesting accounts of stuff that happened, which I may not have expected - so long as you don't suggest I can't possibly understand unless I've played this precise exact playtest (especially as that goalpost is easy to move, and even if YOU don't move it, other people will - "Oh, you only played THREE sessions, you'll need to play five!" (then when I get to five, it's inevitably not enough...). I promise to avoid calling you "wrong" about experiences!

I will say one thing - 4E's math scared the hell out of some people - see Sadras' post which is full of untrue things about 4E's rules and what you "have" to do, but which seems propelled by a fear that he might somehow break the math (which is hilarious, as 4E math is hard to break), and for those people yeah, 5E's looser math is going to be less threatening. I think that's aesthetics, but aesthetics can matter.

Further, something I note about 4E is that as more abilities accrete on the character sheets, people do try fancy stuff in combat less - it's still really common, but not as constant as it was. It'll be interesting to see, if, at higher levels, 5E has the same issue - I don't think it will, but it might.

@Ruin Explorer I have to echo @Mistwell's post.
Both 4e groups I was involved in (I was DM for one) found 4e too restrictive due to the power structure and generally the entire system - one group went the Pathfinder route the other has gone 5e.

PF is as or more fiddly than 4E, so I honestly don't think it can have been the rules there.

From our Players' Perspective
My experience with roleplaying games in general has been that less detail on the character sheet encourages characters to be more creative, because they are not "programmed" to follow the same list or formula of actions on their character sheet for every combat. For us 5e has less on the character sheet than 4e - so I find PCs in our group are far more innovative than they were when playing 4e.

That's nice for you, but my experience is not uncommon. There was a big thread on it at RPG.net a long while back.

From a DM Perspective
The fact that the core is so simple with the ability to tack on modules as one wishes - indicates to me that the game is rather flexible as a whole, and therefore open to house rules or "house-modules" if you will.

Again, that's nice, but only if you need the house rules - I didn't really need any serious ones for 4E - this was a first for me in D&D-style RPGs (actually, I didn't need any in Earthdawn, either, I guess).

1. A character wants to try an unlisted manoeuvre:
We quickly determine a DC and a roll is made the DM adjudicates the result (5e)
Have to worry if this is equivalent to an at-will, encounter or daily action due to all the necessary balance that must be maintained (4e).

That's not how 4E works, sorry. 4E works the way you claim 5E does. This is made explicit repeatedly in 4E, not least on page 42 of the DMG. The bolded bit is something your group made up. It is not in the rules. If you think it is, please cite the page.

2. A character who doesn't have a *trip* power wants to trip:
Determine DC and let the character roll (5e)
Have to ensure that if the character succeeds in *tripping*, the result I as DM allow must not supersede another character's official *trip* power. (4e)

Again, nope. That's not 4E's actual rules, that's something your group made up. If you want to play that way, great, don't blame 4E's rules for it, that's just weird!

3. A character wants to attempt to *trip* again:
Sure, make a roll, perhaps now the opponent is more aware, the DC is higher or you have disadvantage... whatever (5e)
I might have to worry about the fact that the character doesn't have another *trip* power or can only perform one *trip* in an encounter (4e).

No, dude, do you understand that I actually DM 4E, and thus you repeatedly making stuff up and saying "That's how 4E does it!", is just really obviously untrue. Again, cite the page or even the general rule, because this is not something that is in 4E, this is something that is in Sadras' group.

The list goes on. IMO, 5e is just so much easier to manage, house rules are easier to insert, the DM has greater say - given that the system is looser than (3.x and 4e) and as a result the characters have a lot more say on the actions they would like to perform. Its fast, its free and its fun.

So far your list consists solely of things that were not rules in 4E, so no, you can't claim any of that. Seriously - none of what you have claimed is "how 4E does it" is a fact or a rule or a real thing at all - you may think they are - but they are not, and you will not be able to cite them (OR WILL YOU? Dun dun DUUUUUUN!).

 

[Sadras]

PF is as or more fiddly than 4E, so I honestly don't think it can have been the rules there.

I can agree with you that PF certainly is more fiddly, but your experiences with 3.x are not the same as I have seen throughout these boards. Our 3.x groups actually liked the options and all other actions one could perform - trip, bull's rush...etc They actually succeeded on their checks and the system helped them out with which ones they wanted to be specialised in with feats, so I'm puzzled why your group had such difficulty performing them.
But yes it was the rules that made them switch - the rules are the ones that turn a combat into a grind.

Again, that's nice, but only if you need the house rules - I didn't really need any serious ones for 4E - this was a first for me in D&D-style RPGs (actually, I didn't need any in Earthdawn, either, I guess).

Lets just take 4e for example...and these are preferences for style of play which assist in play immersion
1. Our group prefers the ol' Vancian style of spell casting (house rule made)
Once you begin messing with rate of powers, it starts affecting balance, which is a critical component of 4e (more house rules)

2. Our group prefers the cleric as the actual healer (house rule made)
Now you start having problems with screaming people to a state of awake and healthy, other "healing" related powers need to be looked at. (more house rules)

3. Optimisation (of ability scores) is almost a necessary evil, it wasnt too our liking (house rule made)
Again you messing with a core element of the system - its affects monsters, DC checks....(more house rules)

the list goes on...

Thing is, making house rules for style of play preferrences in 4e wasnt as easy as it was in 3.x or as it is in 5e, because 4e was a tight working complete system, pull one cog out here and you affect a myriad of other components. That was our experience with it, its great that you didnt feel the need to make house rules, but for those that did because they didnt want to be forced into a magic-everything world, it was a pain.

So far your list consists solely of things that were not rules in 4E, so no, you can't claim any of that. Seriously - none of what you have claimed is "how 4E does it" is a fact or a rule or a real thing at all - you may think they are - but they are not, and you will not be able to cite them (OR WILL YOU? Dun dun DUUUUUUN!).

Powers were essentially manoeuvres a character was specialised in that had a variable refresh rate. If you felt that anyone could do anything (martial at least) at any time with no thought as to if the result of their action was better than someone who was specialised in certain power, then sure you dont have to account for where balance breaks down. It is a free-fall system. It probably would have made a better game for us, if we had scratched power restrictions completely like you seem to have done.
It certainly would have helped to know that a Fighter could have made the Spinning Sweep manoeuvre more than once per encounter (I mean all it does is 1[W]+ str dam mod + knock target prone)
According to you, using page 42 - the wizard, rogue and leprechaun characters could do the same thing multiple times, but the Fighter, using the rules, could only use that power once in an encounter. Hell and then you tack on other "conditions" with those moves and combat goes wild. It certainly would have been more fun, I grant you that

 

[Starfox]

That's not how 4E works, sorry. 4E works the way you claim 5E does. This is made explicit repeatedly in 4E, not least on page 42 of the DMG. The bolded bit is something your group made up. It is not in the rules. If you think it is, please cite the page.

I have the same experience as Sadras here. The guidelines on page 42 could be summarized as "don't do this, it sucks", and there was a very strong implications that any free-form "stunt" you did could not approach an official power in strength. I once had a rogue player protest when a bard tried to do with Acrobatics something a lot less impressive than the rogue could do with an encounter power. Niche protection was strong, and enforced through powers.

So the 4E rules might not explicitly say stunts are restricted to obscurity, but this is still an emergent quality of the rules that both I and Sadras noted.

 

[Blackwarder]

I have the same experience as Sadras here. The guidelines on page 42 could be summarized as "don't do this, it sucks", and there was a very strong implications that any free-form "stunt" you did could not approach an official power in strength. I once had a rogue player protest when a bard tried to do with Acrobatics something a lot less impressive than the rogue could do with an encounter power. Niche protection was strong, and enforced through powers.

So the 4E rules might not explicitly say stunts are restricted to obscurity, but this is still an emergent quality of the rules that both I and Sadras noted.

I also had the same experience both you and Sadras, nich protection and having so much on the character sheets restricted my players choices, that's one of the main reasons why we love 5e.

Warder

 

[Jack99]

Our barbarian is doing a crazy amount of damage and as for House Rules we have quite a few as it is - I can't begin to explain how I appreciate how flexible 5e is.

Aye. The barbarian is just brutal. The combination of high damage and perma-advantage is a bit too good. I am hoping for the nerf-bat to hit it, before release.

 

[Remathilis]

I also had the same experience both you and Sadras, nich protection and having so much on the character sheets restricted my players choices, that's one of the main reasons why we love 5e.

Warder

I'll fourth here. (HA!) I even printed Page 42 out for my players and GAVE them a copy, and they still ended up "Encounter, Encounter, At-Will x infinity, OH $#!+ Daily!" nearly every combat. Additionally, Early Skill Challenges also meant "pick your highest skill and spam it until successful, if your highest skill isn't applicable, aid another".

Afterthought:

I remember a combat that played out in late 2008. We had a human fighter, an eladrin wizard, a warforged cleric, a dragonborn warlord, and a tiefling warlock fighting a solo young white dragon in a dining hall. (The group was lowish level). At one point, the cleric (who was getting frustrated at his lack of doing anything but healing word and lazers) tried to climb on the dragon's back. We did a grab check, followed by opposed strength to hold on, and he was on the dragon's back. Cinematic, right?

Response from the group. "Don't do that! We need your +2 to hit from Lance of Faith! Now I just missed my Encounter power! You're the cleric, stay back and heal us so we don't die!"

So he got off (well, was thrown off; the dice weren't agreeing with anyone that game). But that moment sticks out in my mind as to how much a group of awesome players got mired up in the numbers/stacking/powers system.