D&D 5E I hate expertise dice as a universal mechanic.

[eprieur]

Each class should be, by definition, interesting to play. I mean what we have learned from decades of gaming both pen and paper and from video games is that there are pretty much only 1 way to balance things out.

If you make combat an important part of your game (and in dnd it is) and if out of combat skill checks are an important part of the game, then everybody pretty much has to participate equally or so in both part of the game. That mean that each class, in it's own way, must be able to pull it's own in combat and also contribute to non combat situation no matter the built or the options. Do it any other way and you are most likely to fail at balance.

Maybe classes are on average 75% combat and 25% non combat and rogues are 70% combat and 30% non combat, but you cannot have a 50% combat and 50% non combat class, meaning it's incredibly gimped in combat like the rogue currently and then give them 3 more skills and call that balance.

I wouldn't worry too much about the rogue currently, it's so badly designed they have to remake it anyway.

 

[kerleth]

Actually, I've played lots of video games where there were characters who were awesome in combat and others who were awesome in exploration. The difference is that I "played" the whole party, not just one character. Let's not muddy the waters by bringing in video games that may very well be single player exercises into the mix.

There is a huge narrative reason to not have everyone be perfectly or even closely balanced across all pillars. Some character concepts just don't make sense if they are.

There is a huge gameplay reason to have everyone be balanced across all pillars. Since the designers can't really predict the playstyle of a given group, it is the easiest way to ensure intraparty balance.

I think a great deal of the debate over the rogue lies in the difference of playstyles and how to address the concerns of both groups. I lean more and more to the "core" rules leaning towards hack-and-slash, at LEAST 50% combat. Then have a module that would balance classes in campaigns where combat is less of a factor. I dunno. The idea sounds good on paper, but is it workable?

 

[mlund]

I am with you here, I don't want the Rogue to be a Fighter light. Maybe it's Defcon 1's playstyle that is a minority?

Highly unlikely. I've surveyed way more hack-fests than deep exploratory and interactive games with little-to-no combat. Heck, pretty much everything the RPGA has handled in the last 20 years has been a hack-fest.

- Marty Lund

 

[Stalker0]

I don't want the Rogue to be a Fighter light, but a class that has it's own fighting style. I like the movement heavy, weakness exploiting Rogue.

And its important to note that this is exactly what the current playtest rogue is. Sneak Attack still requires advantage, meaning movement and stealth are still keys to getting the big damage.

However, the big difference from the previous 4e and 3e rogues is that the rogue on his best day is not better in combat than the fighter. He can match the fighter with use of advantage, but cannot surpass him.

Instead, he is given superior skills, both with more skills, but also with a unique ability that is all his own that can greatly boost his skill rolls (just because its a maneuver doesn't mean its not a rogue unique ability).

So the question is....is that enough?

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's fine. But I think you are in the minority on this one. So we can't necessarily use your idea for how rogues fare in combat as the baseline for the entire game. Because like it or not... I think combat *is* important for most D&D games and always has been (either in the design or at the actual tables of the players.)

By saying combat isn't THAT important, I'm not saying it isn't important at all. Just not so important that everyone needs to be defined by what they do in it.

The important thing is that rogues are not defined by their combat role, but rather by their role in the adventure. This includes a combat role, but it is not the most important definition. A rogue does not just need stabby ninja moves to be a "real" rogue.

Fighters, by comparison, are defined by their role in the adventure -- which is as a combatant. Bards are defined by their role in the adventure -- which is as a social specialist. Druids are defined by their role in the adventure -- which is as a wilderness specialist. Rogues are defined by their role in the adventure -- which is an exploration specialist.

That can include a combat component. But it is not ABOUT combat. That's not what makes a rogue fun or not for me.

Note that this isn't an argument that the rogue should be weak or be a lousy combatant. They should be able to hold their own. They don't need an array of ninja combat skillz to do that, though.

And I'm not against these things as a potential option at all. I'm just resistant to them giving the rogue some ninja combat moves and calling it good. That's not good enough for me. I don't care about that. Give me a rogue that gets me through a dungeon in an interesting and engaging way, and I'll be happy. Until then, I'm not.

 

[Blackbrrd]

... He can match the fighter with use of advantage, but cannot surpass him.
...
So the question is....is that enough?

Hmm... My point about "exploiting weakness" isn't really covered by a maneuver that does the same damage than a very similar fighter maneuver when the fighter is more likely to hit and uses a higher damage weapon and doesn't have to find the weakness.

That's more like having a weakness to your attack, not exploiting a weakness.

If it's balance they are afraid of messing up, I would rather that they made it harder to get high AC in light armor (currently you get the same AC in light as in heavy armor) to compensate for some more interesting maneuvers - or other mechanic.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Probably he and I are a minority, among those on your playstyle. You cannot just dismiss someone's opinion on the grounds of it not being "popular", weird because. I can count at least four people on this thread who think the rogue right now feels like a "fighter light" and are disatisfied with it. Are we really a minority here? We cannot know for certain here, playing rogues isn't as fringe as liking playing healbots, therefore you cannot know what should or shouldn't be used as the baseline, that is a decision for the designers to take.

I'm basing my opinion not because of my playstyle, but by using the evidence that we have all seen and heard talk about over the years.

The largest swath of rules for D&D since the beginning have been for combat. I don't think that's arguable. Just look at all the mechanical systems in place to tell us what PCs and monsters can do when they get into a fight, compared to what they can do outside of it. Every single stat in a monster block is geared towards prepping them and using them in combat. And most abilities and equipment each PC has is used towards combat as well.

Now add to that everything the designers have said during the 4E and DDN terms about how they want the game to run. They don't want players sitting on their hands. They want to always give players something they can possibly do during combat. The idea of a class not being an active participant during combat as the default is not something they want to design towards. Again... I'm not saying this because it's "my playstyle"... I'm saying it because that's what the evidence thus far given has lead me to believe.

Finally... you can take anecdotally the stuff we've already heard from people here on the boards who have complained that Sneak Attack is weaker than Deadly Strike... many of whom are questioning why they just wouldn't build their own Scheme that gives them Deadly Strike instead. So even here on the boards, combat for the Rogue appears to be important.

Put all of these together and I think that we can come to the conclusion that the Rogue is going to have a place in regular combat in DDN, and its not going to be of the type that doesn't get involved except for that one massive Backstab per fight.

While I think it's great that you have another playstyle when it comes to the rogue... one where he apparently isn't involved in combat that often... based on the evidence I still believe you are the minority on that one and thus the game will not (and probably should not) have default mechanics where the rogue doesn't fight while the rest of the party does.

 

[DEFCON 1]

By saying combat isn't THAT important, I'm not saying it isn't important at all. Just not so important that everyone needs to be defined by what they do in it.

Well, then I suspect your original post above based upon a quote I said was not necessarily following the context of what I was talking about. It looks like you replied to my first sentence and they didn't read the rest of my post.

I said a Rogue was a "Fighter-light" because during combat they shouldn't be as equal to the Fighter. Their combat ability should be less. Reason being... they have all the exploration and interaction pillar stuff as well. That's why they're "fighter-lights"... because in the combat pillar their ability is secondary to the fighter. And my post was in reference to the previous people who seemed to be upset that something like Sneak Attack was objectively a worse maneuver than Deadly Strike was. People seemed to want to have the Rogue have the ability to occasionally put out a burst of damage on par with the Fighter, which I disagreed with, because the only way that would really end up being balanced was via the "stealth assassin" paradigm... which was not a method for designing the Rogue in combat that I think WotC would want to default to.

So perhaps you actually agree with what I said... it was just the phrase "Fighter-light" that triggered something in you to post that you disagreed with me? I dunno.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So perhaps you actually agree with what I said... it was just the phrase "Fighter-light" that triggered something in you to post that you disagreed with me? I dunno.

I think you're kind of missing the thrust, here.

What the rogue is in combat is irrelevant to me. It's not a point upon which my concept of a rogue hangs. So if I've gotta use expertise dice with my rogue, it's a distraction from the elements of the rogue that I feel are the most important.

The point being, what a rogue is in combat doesn't tell me anything I care about the rogue. So right now, the rogue having more complex and interesting combat mechanics than exploration mechanics...kind of sucks.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I think you're kind of missing the thrust, here.

What the rogue is in combat is irrelevant to me. It's not a point upon which my concept of a rogue hangs. So if I've gotta use expertise dice with my rogue, it's a distraction from the elements of the rogue that I feel are the most important.

The point being, what a rogue is in combat doesn't tell me anything I care about the rogue. So right now, the rogue having more complex and interesting combat mechanics than exploration mechanics...kind of sucks.

That problem lies with the fact that currently the Social and Exploration pillars have no structure. With out structure they can't be given proper abilities to work in that structure.