Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 6069060" data-attributes="member: 115">I don't disagree that the basic mechanics should work the same.&nbsp; The mechanical concepts aren't what's wrong with the Rogue, and I've even come around somewhat on them having (specifically) ED/Maneuvers.&nbsp; Like you said, the fundamental mechanics should be generally interchangeable - it's (kind of) worked for Wizards and Clerics, so why not Fighters and Rogues?The answer is that the problem (which IMO WotC has missed) isn't with the mechanics.&nbsp; The problem is with the fundamental identity of what a Rogue is that is different than a Fighter.How do we define the Rogue?&nbsp; Especially, how do we define their role (if any) in combat?&nbsp; A skirmisher... a mobile combatant?&nbsp; A tactical combatant?&nbsp; Once in a while doing a lot of damage?&nbsp; Is there any reason that a Fighter couldn't be any of these things?&nbsp; The answer is that there isn't a reason for it, especially if you're billing the Fighter as the best at combat.&nbsp; The bleed through of common lists (be it feats, maneuvers, or whatever) further dilutes the identity of the Rogue.&nbsp; That's not through any fault of common lists.&nbsp; It's because the Rogue doesn't really have a strong identity in the first place.&nbsp; Go back to the Wizard and Cleric. How do we define the Wizard?&nbsp; Lightning Bolt, Fireball, and Wish.&nbsp; How&nbsp; do we define the Cleric?&nbsp; Cure Wounds, Turn Undead, and Ressurection.&nbsp;&nbsp; What defines them is what is exclusive to them.&nbsp; You can hardly make the Rogue exclusive at &quot;hitting things.&quot;Look at the <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120507" target="_blank">design goals</a> for the Rogue.&nbsp; Only one of those goals even talks about combat, and it basically says Rogues kind of suck at it.&nbsp; The Rogue isn't stand-out in a fight.&nbsp; Only one of the Schemes (Rake) even suggests a strong combat personality to me.&nbsp; Nothing that Next has done thus far suggests that to me.&nbsp; I do think Rogues need stuff to do in combat; combat is a big part of the game.&nbsp; However, making them Fighter-light is the wrong approach, and does a disservice to the class identity.&nbsp; If the Rogue is supposed to be skillful and sneaky and tactical, give them stuff that facilitates that identity.Going back to the design goals, where would I go from that as a starting point?&nbsp; Why is the Rogue dancing with the enemy at all?&nbsp; The Rogue is there for support, using their skills to help everyone else kill faster.&nbsp; Sure, dart in for a backstab once in a while, when the opportunity is right.&nbsp; Overall, you might be better throwing down some caltrops to slow or trip an opponent.&nbsp; Snipe from the shadows.&nbsp; Play dead and hamstring someone.&nbsp; Distract them with some theatrics.&nbsp; Instead of cutting their purse, cut their sword belt.&nbsp; Blind them with some sand in the eyes.&nbsp; Don't fight fair.&nbsp; Let the Fighter do the heavy lifting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LightPhoenix, post: 6069060, member: 115"] I don't disagree that the basic mechanics should work the same. The mechanical concepts aren't what's wrong with the Rogue, and I've even come around somewhat on them having (specifically) ED/Maneuvers. Like you said, the fundamental mechanics should be generally interchangeable - it's (kind of) worked for Wizards and Clerics, so why not Fighters and Rogues? The answer is that the problem (which IMO WotC has missed) isn't with the mechanics. The problem is with the fundamental identity of what a Rogue is that is different than a Fighter. How do we define the Rogue? Especially, how do we define their role (if any) in combat? A skirmisher... a mobile combatant? A tactical combatant? Once in a while doing a lot of damage? Is there any reason that a Fighter couldn't be any of these things? The answer is that there isn't a reason for it, especially if you're billing the Fighter as the best at combat. The bleed through of common lists (be it feats, maneuvers, or whatever) further dilutes the identity of the Rogue. That's not through any fault of common lists. It's because the Rogue doesn't really have a strong identity in the first place. Go back to the Wizard and Cleric. How do we define the Wizard? Lightning Bolt, Fireball, and Wish. How do we define the Cleric? Cure Wounds, Turn Undead, and Ressurection. What defines them is what is exclusive to them. You can hardly make the Rogue exclusive at "hitting things." Look at the [URL="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120507"]design goals[/URL] for the Rogue. Only one of those goals even talks about combat, and it basically says Rogues kind of suck at it. The Rogue isn't stand-out in a fight. Only one of the Schemes (Rake) even suggests a strong combat personality to me. Nothing that Next has done thus far suggests that to me. I do think Rogues need stuff to do in combat; combat is a big part of the game. However, making them Fighter-light is the wrong approach, and does a disservice to the class identity. If the Rogue is supposed to be skillful and sneaky and tactical, give them stuff that facilitates that identity. Going back to the design goals, where would I go from that as a starting point? Why is the Rogue dancing with the enemy at all? The Rogue is there for support, using their skills to help everyone else kill faster. Sure, dart in for a backstab once in a while, when the opportunity is right. Overall, you might be better throwing down some caltrops to slow or trip an opponent. Snipe from the shadows. Play dead and hamstring someone. Distract them with some theatrics. Instead of cutting their purse, cut their sword belt. Blind them with some sand in the eyes. Don't fight fair. Let the Fighter do the heavy lifting. [/QUOTE]

Verification