And D&D puts Combat on this high pillar and it makes the problem.
If you can figure out a low-stakes version of "two groups of people trying to kill each other" feel free.
DnD doesn't put combat on a pedestal. Combat is the way to resolve irreconcilable differences in literature, reflected by the long-standing human issue of "we kill people who disagree with us so we have more power"
What DnD DOES do is make sure that combat is detailed. It does this because combat is high-stakes, and because just declaring "I block your unblockable spear with my shield that blocks everything" is a terrible way to resolve anything.
I'm an Old School Player, I don't really know all the buzz words...and even more so the "new spin" on everything.
Well, if you are going to comment on the modern design of the rogue, perhaps it would help if you knew concepts that were proposed at least 12 years ago, if not longer. I know over a decade is still shiny and new to some people, but you aren't going to convince people that your position is better than theirs if they have to also teach you what their position even means. If you don't understand the game design, how can I be sure your proposals have any merit?
Well, just give everyone "Add 1d6" per level to all rolls and that should cover it, right?
No, it wouldn't. Sure, it would brute force higher numbers, but "make numbers higher" isn't always the goal.
It works the other way too. The combat lovers are just the loudest voices. Other players like other things. And some players don't like combat at all.
And none of that means that it is a good design to purposefully exclude classes from an entire pillar of play. It doesn't matter if some people like combat and other people like social skills. Every class should have the capability of interacting with both combat and social challenges. Then, if a player doesn't WANT to participate, it is a personal choice, not a requirement of the system.
After all, some of us like the entire game, not just parts of it.
I'm sure I said that Han is a fighter multiclass.
You did not
Han Solo sure is no fighter, and sure is not a front line striker.
Right? James Bond is shown...in most movies...a the "peak" of his career. And that is high level super spy...he does not gain much in abilities even when he rarely levels up. And that he often loose fights proves my point: James Bond is a Rogue/Fighter, something like 10/5. He can fight, and hold his own sometimes...but any 'pure' fighter will out match him.
Mr. Hinx is just a strong man, he died and had his neck broken by a few barrels being tossed out of a moving train. Please educate me on what you expect him to do against a shapeshifting giant swinging a massive blade capable of cutting a horse in half with a single swing, and can swing it twice. Oh, also the giant can turn invisible at will and send out a massive cone of freezing magic that can engulf a medium sized house and freeze a tiger solid.
The monster I am describing is a CR 7 Oni. A man who died to "this barrel is heavy and I can't lift it", whose most notable feat is being stabbed once and shot once is doing nothing against this monstrosity. So, by even the smallest of margins, Hinx is sub-CR 7. James Bond is not level 15, if he can only take out a sub-CR 7 threat with aid, through an environmental trigger.
We really and truly need to stop associating "peak of their career" with "high level in DnD". Those two things are not the same.
Well, each IP is it's own universe, so you can't really compare. The vast majority of fictional characters are "high level" because: it's cool. And most fiction follows the Rule of Cool.
No, that isn't how it works when you compare characters from different IPs. If it did, then you would have to state that Indiana Jones is equally strong to Neo who is equally strong to "the reincarnation of all of reality given human form".
Guess that depends on most people? I'd much rather have a spell that can copy a secret scroll then just jump into combat to do damage. The spy is the one sneaking into the backroom, getting in the safe and coping that secret scroll. The spy is not jumping on the back of a dragon to stab it with the massive damage attack!
Yeah, and your mage spy can explode a room or shoot the dragon with a disintegration beam, while also turning invisible and copying the scroll.
Maybe it is possible to have skills, like Stealth, while ALSO being capable in combat. I mean, the mage can do it, so why can't the rogue? Why must the rogue decide they are either capable of hiding and sneaking through a building OR capable of making a single powerful attack against an enemy? This is purely a false dichotomy
Well, you said she was all experienced and powerful, right? The game? is not a Zero to Hero game right?
I described some of the actions you take in the game. That does not mean she is all powerful or all experienced. She isn't a zero, she is not some scrub teenager from some random school who has no skills whatsoever, but she also isn't a hero, and by the end of the game, you could say she is a hero, but she has only just finished part 1 of 3 of her origin story.
And AGAIN the point is that characters from literature do not allows fit neatly into DnD class structures. And if you define rogues as "people who cannot fight" then ignore any rogue archetype who CAN fight as being something other than a rogue... well, you kind of have a problem. Because you have defined the counter-examples away.
