Essentials Rogue is up!

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

As a technical point, unless it gets specifically written you don't have to move at all to get the advantage, upto your speed means 0 move as well.

Which is exactly what I mean as something "opaque to naive players."

"Why would I use a move action if I don't want to move?"

The key is not the number of choices, its how often a player is mandated to make a choice.

You may not be mandated to make choices very often, but right at first level you have the option of making choices more often with the thief than the rogue.

To start with, in addition to making your attack (which is superficially simpler than choosing an attack power), you have a selection of attack-affecting movement powers that you can choose in place of your basic movement.

We could call that a wash on total complexity, but instead of your decision being directly about your attack, it is about your movement. Cool, but it's a full layer of abstraction removed from the attack itself. This is inherently more complex than having those options built into the attack powers.

But besides that, there are up to two more choices that are new: "Should I apply Backstab to this attack I'm about to make?" and for some builds "Should I apply Power Strike to that attack I just made?" These are not "mandated" in the strict sense of the word, but are technically part of the decision tree every time. You can't simply ignore them without being a limp rag. Or, at least I hope not, for balance reasons. For all intents and purposes with the original rogue, these decisions are baked into your choice of attack power for the turn. So for the thief one decision has been broken down into 2 or 3. By your own logic, this is more complicated.

A first level rogue might have 4 or 5 attack powers to choose from. One decision with 5 options and a movement decision. The first level thief has a choice of 2 movement powers besides the normal suite of move actions, one binary (yes/no) choice and possibly another binary choice if they gave up one possible movement power. 3 separate decisions. At best, it's infinitely debatable if that's simpler. Heck, it's actually quite a bit more difficult to describe, if that means anything.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Which is exactly what I mean as something "opaque to naive players."

"Why would I use a move action if I don't want to move?"


You may not be mandated to make choices very often, but right at first level you have the option of making choices more often with the thief than the rogue.

To start with, in addition to making your attack (which is superficially simpler than choosing an attack power), you have a selection of attack-affecting movement powers that you can choose in place of your basic movement.

We could call that a wash on total complexity, but instead of your decision being directly about your attack, it is about your movement. Cool, but it's a full layer of abstraction removed from the attack itself. This is inherently more complex than having those options built into the attack powers.

But besides that, there are up to two more choices that are new: "Should I apply Backstab to this attack I'm about to make?" and for some builds "Should I apply Power Strike to that attack I just made?" These are not "mandated" in the strict sense of the word, but are technically part of the decision tree every time. You can't simply ignore them without being a limp rag. Or, at least I hope not, for balance reasons. For all intents and purposes with the original rogue, these decisions are baked into your choice of attack power for the turn. So for the thief one decision has been broken down into 2 or 3. By your own logic, this is more complicated.

A first level rogue might have 4 or 5 attack powers to choose from. One decision with 5 options and a movement decision. The first level thief has a choice of 2 movement powers besides the normal suite of move actions, one binary (yes/no) choice and possibly another binary choice if they gave up one possible movement power. 3 separate decisions. At best, it's infinitely debatable if that's simpler. Heck, it's actually quite a bit more difficult to describe, if that means anything.

I tend to agree with you. For anyone posting on this board the concept of "my movement power affects how my attack works" is pretty trivially easy to understand, its not a complex mechanic in and of itself, but it is likely to feel a bit odd to a new player, especially with the subtlety of the "move 0 squares" (which option is going to come up a lot as the best one). In fact one could argue that with that option does the Thief ACTUALLY even encourage mobility? I move 0 squares is kind of a trick.

My real core of dissatisfaction with the whole design of Essentials martial classes though boils down to a fundamental disconnect. I never saw martial powers as really being character resources but PLAYER resources that attach to the narrative of the story. Its not that a martial character COULDN'T possibly pull some exploit more often, it is just that the player is only allowed so many chances to make a big impact on the narrative. Its like martial character players are now going to the back of the classroom, they get to attend, but they don't get to grab hold of combat narrative in any big way like they used to. It isn't that they're weaker than the older classes, its that the actual underlying philosophy of how the story gets told has regressed somewhat. Its like we're going back to some kind of simulationist past that never really worked all that well for D&D.

 

[JohnSnow]

...instead of your decision being directly about your attack, it is about your movement. Cool, but it's a full layer of abstraction removed from the attack itself. This is inherently more complex than having those options built into the attack powers.

Well, I guess this is a matter of opinion, but I disagree.

Tying the power to the movement prevents you from having to weigh the difference between movement powers and movement actions. Also, changing the emphasis to movement puts the focus of the new player on MOVEMENT. So effectively, you teach him that movement is important to a rogue by giving him powers that key off of movement. Do that move, and you can make this attack. Pick this other move, and you'll be able to do this kind of attack.

But besides that, there are up to two more choices that are new: "Should I apply Backstab to this attack I'm about to make?" and for some builds "Should I apply Power Strike to that attack I just made?" These are not "mandated" in the strict sense of the word, but are technically part of the decision tree every time. You can't simply ignore them without being a limp rag. Or, at least I hope not, for balance reasons. For all intents and purposes with the original rogue, these decisions are baked into your choice of attack power for the turn. So for the thief one decision has been broken down into 2 or 3. By your own logic, this is more complicated.

...Heck, it's actually quite a bit more difficult to describe, if that means anything.

There's a concept called "decision theory." Essentially, the theory works like this: the more things they have to pick from at any given time, the more complex the decision is. The fewer you have to pick from, the simpler it is.

A series of 3 binary decisions can produce as many options as a single choice between 8 options. For example:

Step 1: A or B
Step 2: C or D
Step 3: E or F

Produce the 8-branch decision tree of "ACE, ACF, ADE, ADF, BCE, BCF, BDE, BDF."

To get that many options out of a single choice, you need 8 up-front options. Weighing 8 options can get to be awfully difficult on the fly, leading to the phenomenon known as "decision paralysis." With 3-option choices, it gets worse. Three 3-way choices (still doable) yields 27 combos. Give someone 27 powers to pick from and they'd probably collapse in a gibbering mess (or just default to "the easy one"). "Reducing complexity" means that each choice can be made intuitively based on knowledge someone is likely to possess at the time.

Our hypothetical thief player who takes (for example) "Ambush Strike" and "Tumbling Strike" has a pretty simple choice: "Do I move 5 squares and set up combat advantage against an isolated opponent close by? Or do I tumble 3 squares (probably setting up CA as well) and get to drop a small bit of damage on a secondary opponent? Secondarily, is the primary target one worth using backstab on or isn't he?

To me, those are a couple of very easy and intuitive choices. Most of the hard complexity is dealt with when you pick your tricks in the first place (at which point, you have plenty of time to weigh options as you decide what kind of character you want to play). After that it's "Does A or B put me in the best attack/have the best movement mode for this situation? Do I need to do extra damage or don't I? Assuming I have feats that modify basic attacks (swapping damage for conditions), do I make use of one, or not?"

The upside of separating the decisions in this way is that you don't have to use up my "switch places with your ally" power (King's Castle) in order to get the extra damage it does. Because the extra damage isn't tied to a single attack type or movement mode.

Does the thief have "more points of decision." Yes, clearly. Can they produce the same number of options? Yes, it seems so. Is it more complex? I would argue no.

Make sense?



P.S. - fyi, the inclusion of power strike in the write-up is a formatting glitch, so that choice isn't there. Mearls clarified that in one of his responses last night.

 

[LostSoul]

I can't tell until I play, but it looks like these Thief powers will get rid of "power fixation" and put more focus on the fictional details of the game world. Very interesting design, I like it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, I guess this is a matter of opinion, but I disagree.

Tying the power to the movement prevents you from having to weigh the difference between movement powers and movement actions. Also, changing the emphasis to movement puts the focus of the new player on MOVEMENT. So effectively, you teach him that movement is important to a rogue by giving him powers that key off of movement. Do that move, and you can make this attack. Pick this other move, and you'll be able to do this kind of attack.



There's a concept called "decision theory." Essentially, it occurs like this: you want people to have to choose between so many things. The more things they have to pick from at any given time, the more complex it is. The fewer you have to pick from, the easier it is.

A series of 3 binary decisions can produce as many options as a single choice between 8 options. For example:

Step 1: A or B
Step 2: C or D
Step 3: E or F

Produce the 8-branch decision tree of "ACE, ACF, ADE, ADF, BCE, BCF, BDE, BDF."

To get that many options with out of a single choice, you need 8 up-front options. With 3-option choices, it gets worse. Three 3-way choices yields 27 combos.

Reducing complexity means that each choice can be made intuitively based on knowledge. The more tied that is to what people "get," the "simpler" the system is.

Our hypothetical thief player with "Ambush Strike" and "Tumbling Strike" has a pretty simple choice: "Do I move 5 squares and set up combat advantage against an isolated opponent close by? Or do I tumble 3 squares (probably setting up CA as well) and get to drop a small bit of damage on a second opponent? Secondarily, is the primary target one worth using backstab on or isn't he?

To me, those are a couple of very easy and intuitive choices. Most of the complexity is dealt with when you pick your tricks in the first place. After that it's "Does A or B put me in the best attack in this situation? Regardless, do I backstab or not? Assuming I have feats that modify basic attacks (swapping damage for conditions), do I make use of one, or not?"

Fewer options. Yes, clearly. More complex? Doesn't seem like it.

Oh, fyi, the inclusion of power strike in the write-up is a formatting glitch, so that choice isn't there. Mearls clarified that in one of his responses.

The upside of separating the decisions in this way is that I don't have to use up my "switch places with my ally" power (King's Castle) in order to get the extra damage it does. Because the extra damage isn't tied to a particular power.

Make sense?

Some reasonable points. OTOH you will also run into the problem of 'backtracking' as the player searches the solution space for the answer he wants. In other words he considers using Tumbling Trick or Ambush Trick, picks one, executes the move, decides that isn't going to work so good with his choices for attack, backtracks the move, etc. Now presumably there's been some degree of testing with brand new players, so I'd be surprised if it turned out to be significantly MORE confusing, but I can definitely see it being no less complex overall, especially with the 0 square move thing.

You have a point with things like King's Castle. Personally I liked the monk's full discipline stuff and I like the concept of these rogue tricks. They WILL smooth out a few annoyances and I've rather always wondered why movement powers have been so few and far-between.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Which is exactly what I mean as something "opaque to naive players."

"Why would I use a move action if I don't want to move?"

Very good point, I never liked move action name anyway... esp disliked move-equivalent action! Other games use better terms.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A simple problem with this move actions is:

you cannot shift to get into better position and chose your attack... on the other hand, only one decision is enough... so it may be simpler, but less effective than the PHB rogue

one other thing i noticed: no rogue tactics and no weapon mastery (at least at first level) also reduces damage output compared to the PHB rogue... (unless weapon finesse does more than simply allowing dex for MBA stat)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

My real core of dissatisfaction with the whole design of Essentials martial classes though boils down to a fundamental disconnect. I never saw martial powers as really being character resources but PLAYER resources that attach to the narrative of the story. Its not that a martial character COULDN'T possibly pull some exploit more often, it is just that the player is only allowed so many chances to make a big impact on the narrative. Its like martial character players are now going to the back of the classroom, they get to attend, but they don't get to grab hold of combat narrative in any big way like they used to. It isn't that they're weaker than the older classes, its that the actual underlying philosophy of how the story gets told has regressed somewhat. Its like we're going back to some kind of simulationist past that never really worked all that well for D&D.

I agree with your take on the powers as player resources.
However, they do produce analysis paralysis, I have observed that directly and it is also clear from other threads here that many do not attach priority in having resources that dramatically affect the ingame narrative and would be quite satisfied in less choices and less narative power.

 

[Henry]

Blarg. You're not missing anything. Normally a trick's effects and combat advantage would work together.

That's what I get for posting almost immediately after jogging a mile.

Paraphrase from Dave Noonan: "Asking a designer about rules is a little dangerous, because they have running around in their head the correct rules, a bunch of old versions of the correct rules, and Rules That Should Not Be."

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

There's a concept called "decision theory." Essentially, the theory works like this: the more things they have to pick from at any given time, the more complex the decision is. The fewer you have to pick from, the simpler it is.

I'm familiar with it, and you have a point, but I don't think this case is as schematic as you're laying it out.

For one thing, if you look at the limited progression path they gave us for the Thief, it's not going to remain a set of binary choices. Some option sets will grow as you level. And I would bet a moderate amount of money that additional decision points will be added, if only as a way to scale damage as you level.

Also, I think you're caricaturing how broad the decision space is in baseline 4e. The at-will, encounter, daily breakdown already subdivided the decision. "This fight is totally not worth a daily" removes options trivially. The thief doesn't have that until some resources are already spent.

Most of the sub-choices in baseline 4e are trivial, like disregarding the obvious bad choices in a multiple choice test. The decision space chunks very well and can be parsed instantly by simple heuristics: "Don't need a Daily here", "Don't need AoE here", etc. That doesn't seem to be the case for the Thief, as the choices with say, a movement power, are more dependent on the relative position of various creatures on the grid than even most of the low level attack powers were, IMO, so there may be more factors to consider when making that decision, particularly in a space with multiple creatures and terrain features.

Additionally, I think you're simply undervaluing the fatigue that comes with serial decisions and overvaluing decision paralysis. Sure, decision paralysis is more common with larger numbers of choices, but we're not talking about large swings in the number of choices here. Making a whole mess of serial decisions has its own problems.

If you've ever planned a wedding, you'll know how much fatigue sets in with serial choice, even if each choice is simple. Personally, I got to a point where choosing a shirt in the morning was a harrowing experience, and I'm a fairly standard issue guy with a limited decision space in his closet. If a barista asked me "What size do you want?" I simply blinked owlishly for several seconds before asking her to pick for me. But all of that is neither here nor there.

We're well within a space with low level 4e, where the number of choices in a single decision is not large, and the cost of adding additional decisions should be weighed carefully. Personally, I think how you approach the game and what sort of heuristics you've developed to break down the tactical space is going to have a larger influence on your cognitive load than these tiny shifts in the decision space, but YMMV.

Ouch.... that got a bit jargon-y. Sorry.