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

[DDNFan]

Ok, I am putting you on Ignore now, Sadras, so bye, you had some good points about other stuff, but when you're seriously asserting that I wasn't playing by the rules because I didn't use the Page 42 rules for Underwater and Mounted Combat, which you did, then I can't help you.

Using P42 would get you a lot of dirty looks at the Encounters tables I took part in, because the party eventually realized you weren't pulling your weight compared to what you could be doing using your AEDU routine.

Are you going to put the entire forum on ignore? You are wrong.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Let's not let facts intrude on the "it's the players' fault for playing the game by the rules and realizing their own powers are always strictly better than the max benefit of improvisation" -argument.

It was absolutely a systemic rules problem. Improvising should have a chance of killing an enemy outright, otherwise your normal abilities will probably kill the monster anyway within a round or two. As a guy who loves D&D improv and stunts, it was mathematically undeniably inferior to not use your own powers, which were often augmented by feats, class features, magic items, and synergy with class features, feats, and magic items owned by other members of your party.

If the enemy had received cold vuln last round, are we expected that anyone in their right mind wouldn't take advantage of that? Part of being a team player is working with the team. Bypassing the normal rules for powers often just means you are throwing away 100% of the synergy you could have had.

This is bad game design, IMO. The problem was an overly complex inter-locking set of benefits that build upon one another, like when you do a basic attack you gain this benefit with this weapon after you took this feat and class feature, so that the warlord grants you a basic attack it will trigger all those things. If the warlord doesn't do that, he's throwing all that possible optimisation away. The quote from the 4 DMG doesn't even come close to realizing all the lost synergy. It was poorly thought out. Players aren't stupid, they were playing the game well, from not only a meta-game optimisation standpoint, but also an in-game party synergy "team player" standpoint, by not using P42.

Picking an inferior mechanical choice repeatedly (even ever) doesn't make you a better roleplayer, it just means the system is badly designed, objectively speaking.

Doesn't this argument essentially apply to all editions of D&D, though? That you should, logically, optimally, only improvise if it's better than using your powers?

I mean, this is why Thieves and Fighters tended to improvise most in 2E AD&D, because they didn't have any powers, and it was often possible to come up with an improvisation better than an unreliable (due to low THAC0) backstab or even the Fighter's multiple attacks. Whereas a Wizard of about level 7-9+ in 2E (with a high INT) rarely improvised (as in tried something other than casting a spell), because spells were almost always the best option.

5E will definitely have this problem, too, if you consider it a problem - unless the DM is willing to make improvised actions into instant takedowns, as you suggest, it's rarely going to be smart to use them.

Using P42 would get you a lot of dirty looks at the Encounters tables I took part in, because the party eventually realized you weren't pulling your weight compared to what you could be doing using your AEDU routine.

Are you going to put the entire forum on ignore? You are wrong.

What am I wrong about, specifically? Are you saying that Page 42 applies specifically to Underwater and Mounted Combat?

I'm sorry that people an Encounters behaved nastily to you if you didn't play in a hyper-optimized way, but that's outside my control. I have not suggested that Page 42 is optimal. I don't play with a group who only do "optimal" things, and if a player was nasty to another just because the other wasn't "using his AEDU routine", dude, I'd kick him out of my group.

EDIT - I should add that any DM worth their salt should recall that Page 42 is "guidelines", not rules - you don't actually have to use those numbers. If you feel they're too low for the optimization-level of the group, you can increase them. If they're too high, well, decrease them. I think your complaint is Encounters-specific, in a sense, because there the DMs can't really change anything.

EDIT EDIT - Also, yes, picking a mechanically worse option totally can make you a better roleplayer. A very simple example is if you are playing a character sworn to not use guns in a system where guns are mechanically superior to other weapons - you could, of course, ignore the fact that your character doesn't use guns, and just use them, because they're mechanically superior, but would be terrible RP. Apparently in your book, it would "make you a better roleplayer", by ignoring RP and instead going for mechanical optimization. That's... an unusual viewpoint, no?

 

[DDNFan]

I'm sorry for even getting into this

I don't really care about 4th edition rules debates. But improvising actions in Next work much better, more freeform and less restrictive. Pushing a boulder onto an enemy mage should deal 100d6 damage, or whatever the DM thinks is appropriate for the size of the boulder, not some arbitrarily-pre-defined-damage-for-game-balance-reasons as per P42.

The fact that you cannot understand this is why you do not understand why the majority of people who've actually played 5th edition consider it to be far more amenable to improvisation. Because there are less moving parts in the rules, less interlocking dependencies, and there is no Page 42 limitation placed on the DM that makes players who attempt it to realize how pointless an "option" it truly is.

An option that is strictly inferior is not really an option, it's merely the illusion of one. "You can do anything you want in this game, so long as the outcome is weaker than your AEDU powers". This is what 4th edition improv boils down to, as per the rules. Players realize this, and therefore do not use P42 on a regular basis. Because it sucks.

5th edition has no such arbitrary rules limitations placed upon players' actions, it is entirely up to the DM, and is therefore a far superior system to engage players in the world around them since they will be trying to figure out smart ways of getting a leg up on their foes, rather than just resigning themselves to spamming their fixed attack routine with a million buff dependencies and triggers.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't really care about 4th edition rules debates. But improvising actions in Next work much better, more freeform and less restrictive. Pushing a boulder onto an enemy mage should deal 100d6 damage, or whatever the DM thinks is appropriate for the size of the boulder, not some arbitrarily-pre-defined-damage-for-game-balance-reasons as per P42.

The fact that you cannot understand this is why you do not understand why the majority of people who've actually played 5th edition consider it to be far more amenable to improvisation. Because there are less moving parts in the rules, less interlocking dependencies, and there is no Page 42 limitation placed on the DM that makes players who attempt it to realize how pointless an "option" it truly is.

Page 42 isn't a "limitation", dude, those are guidelines to ENCOURAGE improvisation, not rules to LIMIT it. You can change them and override them. Do you understand that?

An option that is strictly inferior is not really an option, it's merely the illusion of one. "You can do anything you want in this game, so long as the outcome is weaker than your AEDU powers". This is what 4th edition improv boils down to, as per the rules. Players realize this, and therefore do not use P42 on a regular basis. Because it sucks.

I don't agree - bad DMs who don't allow actions to be as successful as they should be are bad DMs, but you are literally wrong when you claim Page 42 imposes hard limitations. Guidelines aren't rules.

5th edition has no such arbitrary rules limitations placed upon players' actions, it is entirely up to the DM, and is therefore a far superior system to engage players in the world around them since they will be trying to figure out smart ways of getting a leg up on their foes, rather than just resigning themselves to spamming their fixed attack routine with a million buff dependencies and triggers.

So the change is now "If the DM agrees to let you one-shot an enemy, improvisation makes sense, otherwise it doesn't", right? You claim a boulder does 100d6 in 5E, except, unless that's in the rules, it doesn't. It does [DMs Opinion] damage, which is anywhere between 0 and infinity. If you have a DM who rewards stunts with huge damage and one-shots, yeah, you'll get a lot of stunts, and that's okay, but equally, if you have a DM who doesn't like stunts, and decides that they shouldn't do much damage, they're going to be a terrible idea.

EDIT - Further, just going on your logic here, if the players are able to basically bully or tricky or cajole or just honestly convince the DM that their stunts are all worthy of one-shotting enemies (which you've said is the only time stunts are worthwhile, because according to you, enemies always go down in 1-2 rounds), then they should basically use nothing BUT stunts, just spending their entire time trying to think convincing ways to get the DM to give them a one-shot.

That would be a hilarious RPG, I have to admit.

 

[Remathilis]

EDIT EDIT - Also, yes, picking a mechanically worse option totally can make you a better roleplayer. A very simple example is if you are playing a character sworn to not use guns in a system where guns are mechanically superior to other weapons - you could, of course, ignore the fact that your character doesn't use guns, and just use them, because they're mechanically superior, but would be terrible RP. Apparently in your book, it would "make you a better roleplayer", by ignoring RP and instead going for mechanical optimization. That's... an unusual viewpoint, no?

That's the kind of thinking that got us the Toughness feat, 3.0 multi-classing, Level Adjustments, and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting.

 

[Sadras]

In the rare instance that I'm not on the ignore list.

You've misread it, again - there's nothing about niche protection or "not approaching an official power" there - that's something you're adding - it's just noting that, even though it's more powerful than an At-Will, it's not ludicrously powerful - this isn't some sort of limiter, but rather they are allaying fears that Page 42 might be too powerful.

I did not add anything. I simply quoted the DMG, should you refuse to admit what is implied, that is not my concern anymore. I have brought it to your attention.

Again, point me to where it says you CAN'T or SHOULDN'T exceed other role's powers or the like?

I will say this. In 4e and as a DM if a stunt exceeds the damage of a PC's power, what you will generally have at least with the players I know is:

Can. Open. Worms. Everywhere.

Ok, I am putting you on Ignore now, Sadras, so bye, you had some good points about other stuff, but when you're seriously asserting that I wasn't playing by the rules because I didn't use the Page 42 rules for Underwater and Mounted Combat, which you did, then I can't help you.

Not helpful.

I don't really care about 4th edition rules debates. But improvising actions in Next work much better, more freeform and less restrictive. Pushing a boulder onto an enemy mage should deal 100d6 damage, or whatever the DM thinks is appropriate for the size of the boulder, not some arbitrarily-pre-defined-damage-for-game-balance-reasons as per P42.

The fact that you cannot understand this is why you do not understand why the majority of people who've actually played 5th edition consider it to be far more amenable to improvisation. Because there are less moving parts in the rules, less interlocking dependencies, and there is no Page 42 limitation placed on the DM that makes players who attempt it to realize how pointless an "option" it truly is.

An option that is strictly inferior is not really an option, it's merely the illusion of one. "You can do anything you want in this game, so long as the outcome is weaker than your AEDU powers". This is what 4th edition improv boils down to, as per the rules. Players realize this, and therefore do not use P42 on a regular basis. Because it sucks.

5th edition has no such arbitrary rules limitations placed upon players' actions, it is entirely up to the DM, and is therefore a far superior system to engage players in the world around them since they will be trying to figure out smart ways of getting a leg up on their foes, rather than just resigning themselves to spamming their fixed attack routine with a million buff dependencies and triggers.

....and I
Jizzed in my pants

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's the kind of thinking that got us the Toughness feat, 3.0 multi-classing, and greater two-weapon fighting.

Actually, no. The Toughness Feat, according to Monte Cook is specifically designed to screw players who aren't system masters over, which has nothing to do with role-playing or not-roleplaying.

3.0 multi-classing is a better example - that was designed with the apparent assumption that players would only take logical, reasonable MC choices, rather than horribly exploiting the system to the maximum extent possible, or that DMs would stop them exploiting it.

Sadly, players did horribly exploit it, and apparently DMs didn't stop them, to judge from the internet.

I don't remember Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, what was it's deal? Is it just that it's a mathematically terrible idea to use it? Again, though, you don't take that Feat because you're roleplaying, you take it because you want power (if you're RPing a two-weapon fighter, there are dozens of Feats you can pick - you don't have to pick that one), but it's a trap feat, presumably for the same reason as Toughness - Monte Cook was being a bastard.

Level adjustments are just shoddy game design, and not to do with this issue that I can see.

Notice how all your examples have one thing in common, though - they're about Character Building. Not in-character actions. I'm talking about in-character actions - sometimes, yes, if you are roleplaying, you do not always have the PC take the action which is necessarily most mechanically optimal. Do you disagree?

EDIT - Specific example from my own experience - Playing V:tM, my PC got very angry with a Risen - most mechanically advantageous thing would have been to pull my gun and shoot it, but it wouldn't have been in-character or made sense in context, so I took a swing at it - which of course failed to connect because my character was neither a martial arts expert, nor a fellow who was prone to doing the smart thing every time. No doubt, had I been playing Encounters D&D, doing something dumb-but-appropriate like that would have got me "dirty looks", but honestly, to hell with people who put optimization before RP in terms of actual in-game actions. I can kind of respect it in character building, but once you're in the game, you're playing a character, not just playing a game, imo.

 

[Stalker0]

Sadras, Ruin Explorer. Lets tone down the personal attacks and focus on debating the topic at hand.

-Stalker0

 

[Mistwell]

I never viewed Page 42 as a limitation. I think it's good to have guidelines (for the DM only) on how to adjudicate things not in the rules. It's a starting place for the DM - not a dictate of what must happen. I hope they expand such guidelines in 5e, and make it even more clear they are guidelines to start from and not dictates, and that they are a tool for the DM and not for the player.

My criticism was simply that it didn't get used very often, because the sheet mass of options for players to choose from on their character sheet meant players were not looking to choose an option not on that sheet very often. When I have 12 different powers to choose from on my character sheet, many of which already interact with the environment and move or impact foes in a variety of both damaging and disability ways, I am less inclined to look for yet more options to manipulate the room and foes off that character sheet.

And I found 3rd edition had a similar problem, though with a variation. Third edition seemed to have a rule for everything, and those rules were often directed at the players more than the DM. Want to swing on a chandelier and attack with your rapier? There was probably a prestige class or new character class or magic item or feat or spell that let you do that, so letting a PC that didn't have that thing just do it with a check, but without that prestige or regular class or item or feat or spell, seemed "unfair" to the player who devoted a resource to get that thing for their character. There was also an impact from being specific rules, somewhere, for most things no matter how obscure the action. That could cause someone to want to look up that specific rule if they tried something unusual, a game delay. Or it could serve as a discouragement from trying it due to the prospect of a pause to look up a rule. Or it could encourage the need for a rules lawyer who knew all the various rules from all the expansion books - which could also be a barrier to entry for a casual game.

Even 1e had this issue to an extent. Only thieves had a listed percentage chance to climb a wall for instance, or find traps. These were meant to represent an ability beyond the normal ability of every character to do this, but it wasn't often understood by many at the time to be that, and so it could serve as a constraint on characters who were not a thief to even try to do those things.

5e to me has fewer of these limitations built into it, at least so far in the playtest. That could just be from the lack of content so far for the game, but I suspect it's a change in philosophy. Your character sheet is brief, and covers very broad concepts with ability checks and proficiencies. Your player options are similar brief and broad. And while each type of character is best at a certain thing, it's much clearer that there is a huge amount of room for any PC to try any thing they can think of, though someone trained (proficient) in that type of thing will be better at it. For us, it's working very well, and leading to players being more inventive with their actions than in previous editions.

And nobody seems to benefit from that added room to try things than the rogue character, who is trained (proficient) in the most number of broad categories of "things you can try".

 

[Mistwell]

Purely by coincidence this new interview with Baur and Winter on their experience writing the upcoming adventures for 5e (these guys normally write for Pathfinder) mirrors quite nicely what I and some others have been trying to say in this thread:

io9: To the extent that it's possible to describe an entire RPG rule set in a few sentences, how would you describe this new edition of D&D?

Steve: I'd call it streamlined, at least compared to the previous two editions. Every new edition of the game veers toward expanding the rules, formalizing and codifying more and more of the experience. But an enormous part of the magic of D&D is that it's wide open. That's what makes it different from any other type of game. Every time you narrow that window, you lose something. The new edition of D&D seems to be veering in the opposite direction, toward more open-endedness and greater freedom for DMs and players.

I think that RPG designers have learned some critical lessons during the last two decades of ever-increasing structure. It's not that structure is bad, because it isn't, but there are ways to have structure and still have flexibility. The D&D designers seem to have put a lot of effort into building with flexible material rather than just setting everything in stone.

Wolfgang: I agree entirely that the looser structure makes it easy for the new edition to accommodate some playstyles that we haven't seen as often recently, focused on player smarts rather than character power. Related to that, the power curve for magic is changing as well. I'm used to thinking of the Forgotten Realms as a very high-magic, high fantasy sort of place, but the new edition of the rules dials things back a bit from the 3rd edition and Pathfinder tradition of "PC Christmas trees", or the characters with a magic item to fill every slot.

Magic is more wondrous and more difficult to find in the new edition—but I think that makes players value it a little more than the days of "oh, a +1 sword, toss it on the pile." The emphasis is squarely on what characters can do, not what their items do.

io9: Did the new rules open up some adventure writing possibilities that Pathfinder or 4th edition made difficult?

Steve: Absolutely. Because you're not overwhelmed by the minutiae of the rules, you can put your energy into devising a complex, fascinating plot and villains whose appeal comes from their motivation (or their psychosis) instead from a menu of intricate combat abilities. We didn't choreograph any of the major combat encounters of Tyranny of Dragons the way they would have been in 3rd or 4th edition.

Instead, we just laid out the situation, described what the villain hoped to accomplish, probably included some variables or conditions under which he'd run away, and then left it in the DM's hands to conduct that battle as he or she thinks best. DMs are smart, and they know their players better than we ever could.

Wolfgang: I enjoyed having the extra wordcount that we got back by removing the need for 500-word stat blocks every few pages. Tyranny of Dragons has a lot more encounters per chapter, because the emphasis is on the adventure flow, not on presenting stats.