Extreme self-preservation

[Ancalagon]

At the risk of being a grognard... I blame video games.

In a tabletop rpg... you can try *anything *. The players can come up with an incredibly wide array of plans. A good rogue is a great facilitator of this.

But in a video game, you don't have this flexibility. So what to do with the rogue? She becomes the striker/glass cannon.

And now this limited thinking is bleeding back into tabletop play...

 

[Eltab]

All you need is an ally in melee with your target. You can still shoot them from 60' away!

I wonder how many players ... might actually think you have to be hidden to get Sneak Attack?

I usually (such as at Conventions) prefer to be Hidden before claiming Sneak Attack, because it reduces confusion and arguments.

But my Yawning Portal group includes a Barbarian, who both counts as 'an ally in melee with your target' and gives the whole group Advantage against the target just by standing adjacent to it. I usually shoot whoever she is fighting at the moment. The rules encourage teamwork !

 

[iserith]

At the risk of being a grognard... I blame video games.

In a tabletop rpg... you can try *anything *. The players can come up with an incredibly wide array of plans. A good rogue is a great facilitator of this.

But in a video game, you don't have this flexibility. So what to do with the rogue? She becomes the striker/glass cannon.

And now this limited thinking is bleeding back into tabletop play...

My experience is that players who cleave narrowly to the rules when determining what they will do often have bad experiences with DMs who say "No" to a lot of their ideas and plans. So they just start trying to rely on the mechanics more often in response. A DM might rarely say no to something defined by the rules, but suddenly get very defensive when the player proposes something that might subvert some outcome the DM had in mind or otherwise negate his or her prep work.

In a one-shot I ran a couple weeks ago, one of the players (someone I didn't know since it was a pickup group) proposed a plan for luring ravenous troglodytes out of a hole so that they could be picked off one by one outside of the range of their stench. The plan she and the others proposed sounded reasonable, so it worked for clearing out half the trogs in the manner they intended. (The other half stayed behind because now they had their fellow trogs to eat.) She said, "I can't believe this is working - my plans never work!" How sad. I bet she has a lot of DMs who say "No," or who backdoor a "No" by asking for too many ability checks which inevitably fail.

 

[Oofta]

Firstly, I though you had bid me good gaming on this issue. I am confused -- is the topic of how you run stealth up for discussion or not?

Secondly, I'm rather disappointed that your re-entry to the discussion is so blatantly misrepresentative. No, simply rolling a d20 is not my method, and if you honestly think that you have not been paying attention. The play procedure is:

1. The DM describes the scene.
2. The players announce actions.
3. The DM determines if those outcomes succeed, fail, or are uncertain. If uncertain, mechanics are used to resolve the uncertainty.
4. The DM narrates the results.
5. Repeat.

Nowhere in that procedure does "simply rolling a d20" occur.

In the topic at hand, we differ on step 3 in regards to stealth. You prefer to narrate failure in more cases than I do. That's it. But, instead of duscussing that, you're responding with mischaracterizing my play after you've indicated you no longer wish to discuss the matter with me. One of us is behaving poorly.

Sorry, as someone else said in another thread, I failed my wisdom save. My point is that you've stated that the rogue should get to check for attacking with advantage pretty much every round without moving around. That to me equates to staying in 1 position and rolling a D20 to see if they're hidden to get advantage. Every round of pretty much every combat. For higher level rogues (especially if properly equipped) it's going to become pretty much automatic. You can add steps and fluff to that, but for most games it will become a rote roll of a D20 or 2 for their stealth check and asking if it's high enough to get advantage if they don't already know the target.

I think it would be boring for a lot of players. Of course, some players just want an "I win" button, but you can't please everyone.

In my games in most cases if they want advantage after the first round they have to engage. They have to ask questions about the environment, try to figure out a plan to get somewhere to hide. They need to think about tactics. Maybe they work with me to get smoke bombs and a grappling hook so they can Batman up to the balcony to set up hiding from a different position.

Or they can just be happy with doing reasonable damage round after round with sneak attack without as much risk. My experience in actual games is that rogues are on par with or exceed most other classes in consistent damage. I don't play in white-room scenarios on a spreadsheet, just relaying what I've seen. There are of course a lot of factors that will affect that and it will vary by level and game. On the other hand I have no clue what spell casters you play with that do more damage with cantrips than a moderately high level rogue.

In addition my games also involve a lot more than combat, which is where rogues tend to really shine. YMMV.

TLDR: I'll try to keep my sarcasm without explanation check; but no guarantee I won't fail my save again.

 

[Oofta]

My experience is that players who cleave narrowly to the rules when determining what they will do often have bad experiences with DMs who say "No" to a lot of their ideas and plans. So they just start trying to rely on the mechanics more often in response. A DM might rarely say no to something defined by the rules, but suddenly get very defensive when the player proposes something that might subvert some outcome the DM had in mind or otherwise negate his or her prep work.

In a one-shot I ran a couple weeks ago, one of the players (someone I didn't know since it was a pickup group) proposed a plan for luring ravenous troglodytes out of a hole so that they could be picked off one by one outside of the range of their stench. The plan she and the others proposed sounded reasonable, so it worked for clearing out half the trogs in the manner they intended. (The other half stayed behind because now they had their fellow trogs to eat.) She said, "I can't believe this is working - my plans never work!" How sad. I bet she has a lot of DMs who say "No," or who backdoor a "No" by asking for too many ability checks which inevitably fail.

It can be hard for newbie DMs to wrap their heads around how much freedom they have to tell a story. I know it's something I still try to improve on - that balance between letting any crazy plan work no matter how silly and encouraging creative solutions. Sometimes I try to throw in a "that won't work because ____ but looking over the scene you do see that ____" and giving some hints on what might work.

But how to encourage that is probably a whole other thread.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

At the risk of being a grognard... I blame video games.

In a tabletop rpg... you can try *anything *. The players can come up with an incredibly wide array of plans. A good rogue is a great facilitator of this.

But in a video game, you don't have this flexibility. So what to do with the rogue? She becomes the striker/glass cannon.

And now this limited thinking is bleeding back into tabletop play...

That has something to do with it, I know when I was into MMO the rogue was a striker, the glass cannon. When I was first into AD&D the thief was the master of the exploration pillar, the skill monkey, who took over mostly when the fighting was over. Sure in combat he may get in a sneak, may, but often was just adding the damage he could via short sword or sling. Of course back then lower HP made doing 1d4 or 1d6 a bit more effective. Emphasis of the game changes over time and role exceptions do as well.

 

[Yunru]

By doing something more than rolling a D20?

No. Because characters never roll a d20. Player's roll a d20 when the outcome of their action is uncertain. Like, and I'm just spitballing here, whether the opponent is able to keep track of the rogue hiding behind the four or so people wailing on them.

 

[Oofta]

No. Because characters never roll a d20. Player's roll a d20 when the outcome of their action is uncertain. Like, and I'm just spitballing here, whether the opponent is able to keep track of the rogue hiding behind the four or so people wailing on them.

Hey now, if the rogue wants to take advantage of the fact that he's hiding like a coward in the back while everyone else is risking their necks in the front line by getting some use out of the gaming set from his background, who am I to say anything?

Besides, the opponent is distracted by the other PCs. At least enough to allow for the rogue to get a sneak attack. On the other hand if there's a solid wall of people then the rogue doesn't have line of sight so it's a moot point anyway.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sorry, as someone else said in another thread, I failed my wisdom save. My point is that you've stated that the rogue should get to check for attacking with advantage pretty much every round without moving around. That to me equates to staying in 1 position and rolling a D20 to see if they're hidden to get advantage. Every round of pretty much every combat. For higher level rogues (especially if properly equipped) it's going to become pretty much automatic. You can add steps and fluff to that, but for most games it will become a rote roll of a D20 or 2 for their stealth check and asking if it's high enough to get advantage if they don't already know the target.

I think it would be boring for a lot of players. Of course, some players just want an "I win" button, but you can't please everyone.

In my games in most cases if they want advantage after the first round they have to engage. They have to ask questions about the environment, try to figure out a plan to get somewhere to hide. They need to think about tactics. Maybe they work with me to get smoke bombs and a grappling hook so they can Batman up to the balcony to set up hiding from a different position.

Or they can just be happy with doing reasonable damage round after round with sneak attack without as much risk. My experience in actual games is that rogues are on par with or exceed most other classes in consistent damage. I don't play in white-room scenarios on a spreadsheet, just relaying what I've seen. There are of course a lot of factors that will affect that and it will vary by level and game. On the other hand I have no clue what spell casters you play with that do more damage with cantrips than a moderately high level rogue.

In addition my games also involve a lot more than combat, which is where rogues tend to really shine. YMMV.

TLDR: I'll try to keep my sarcasm without explanation check; but no guarantee I won't fail my save again.

And, again you mischaracterize my play despite a clear, enumerated starement of it. This is tiring.

I never said the rogue should get to check for advantage every round. I asked why you felt the need to restrict hiding as much as you do and saud I'm more permissive. Yes, in many combats rogues on my game can hide, but the idea they do nothing to make this happen is entirely your invention. As I've said, they must meet the rules fir hiding in a way that's automatically siccessful (I hide from the dead orc, frex, is automatic) or create uncertainty as to the success, in which case I call for a check. I apply advantage and disadvantage as appropriate to the situation, and I evaluate each situation as it occurs. Nothing about this is hiw you portray it.

The suggestion my games are boring because I don't require excessive effirt to hide is insulting. Again, you engage in poor behavior with no provocation.

I'm playing a rogue -- I'm middle of the pack on damage behind the barbarian, the wizard, and the light cleric (yup). I beat the weird paladin/sorcerer MC and the druid. In my run games, despite my rogue players optimizing heavily, they still fall behind the straight casters and the barbs/pallys/battlemasters after tier I. I contend that if your rogues are top of the damage pile, you're tge exception. White room is good for a general feel on damage, and rogues don't have it even against vanilla non-feat, no-subclass fighters. If in play you're seeing a big difference, that's the RNG.


Finally, if, as you say, high skill bonuses mean that the check is mooted so you change play to avoid that, why are you punishing players for their build choices? The player invested their limited build choices to be good at something and your response is that their choices have made it too easy so you make it harder to compensate? And you brag about this?

 

[Oofta]

And, again you mischaracterize my play despite a clear, enumerated starement of it. This is tiring.

I never said the rogue should get to check for advantage every round. I asked why you felt the need to restrict hiding as much as you do and saud I'm more permissive. Yes, in many combats rogues on my game can hide, but the idea they do nothing to make this happen is entirely your invention. As I've said, they must meet the rules fir hiding in a way that's automatically siccessful (I hide from the dead orc, frex, is automatic) or create uncertainty as to the success, in which case I call for a check. I apply advantage and disadvantage as appropriate to the situation, and I evaluate each situation as it occurs. Nothing about this is hiw you portray it.

The suggestion my games are boring because I don't require excessive effirt to hide is insulting. Again, you engage in poor behavior with no provocation.

I'm playing a rogue -- I'm middle of the pack on damage behind the barbarian, the wizard, and the light cleric (yup). I beat the weird paladin/sorcerer MC and the druid. In my run games, despite my rogue players optimizing heavily, they still fall behind the straight casters and the barbs/pallys/battlemasters after tier I. I contend that if your rogues are top of the damage pile, you're tge exception. White room is good for a general feel on damage, and rogues don't have it even against vanilla non-feat, no-subclass fighters. If in play you're seeing a big difference, that's the RNG.


Finally, if, as you say, high skill bonuses mean that the check is mooted so you change play to avoid that, why are you punishing players for their build choices? The player invested their limited build choices to be good at something and your response is that their choices have made it too easy so you make it harder to compensate? And you brag about this?

Huh? I am confused. I don't mean that sarcastically or offensively. I am honestly confused. Everything you've written before this led me to believe you think the rogue should get advantage from hiding almost every round. I gave an example of the rogue at the end of a well lit 10 foot wide corridor. I said he wouldn't be able to attack from hidden and you gave an alternate narrative that said they get advantage by waiting for the right moment.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's not meant as an insult, a put-down. I never said your games were boring. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Different people have different styles than I do.

But now you say you don't do that and it's like somebody repeatedly singing the praises of Rocky Road ice cream above all other ice creams and then when i mention that you like Rock Road you get upset.

Maybe you meant something else. Forums aren't always good at this kind of thing. Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding what you've said.

I'm simply trying to explain how I run games and why. That's it. See my standard disclaimer.

As far as rogue damage I'm just relaying my experience which may be different than yours which I stated. I don't see why that bothers you.