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

[mlund]

I'll give White Wolf credit on one thing - no matter how borked their game systems are, their World of Darkness setting mechanics definitely have structure for social and exploration pillars.

Albeit, this is probably because they assume a modern setting everyone is familiar with and force players to accept that, while D&D is completely free-range DIY world-building, but hey - at least they've actually bothered to have social, economic, and resource-based advantages and disadvantages for characters for a couple of decades. D&D is only sticking a tentative toe in the water with very marginal features of Backgrounds.

- Marty Lund

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I like the concept that others have skirted around in this thread of the possibility of a fighter having a consistent pool that refreshes every round, making them consistently good in a fight. But the rogue could have a growing pool - which starts smaller than the fighters, but can be saved up over rounds to enable a 1 turn overshadowing of the fighter (damage wise at least).

So in a fight against a Necromancer and his Zombies for example the fighter can wade through the horde using his dice every round to deal with the high HP creatures lined up against him. The rogue however sneaks around the room in the shadows missing 2 rounds of attacks completely, but "banking" his expertise dice. So when he jumps out of the shadows to attack the Necro he can dump all the dice in on Nova attack, potentially taking the guy down (or producing some other effect, stun/daze) before skulking back off again.

This way in a straight up fight the Fighter is better as he gets more dice per round and can always use them for more damage, but any dice unused by the end of the turn are gone. The rogue gets less dice per round and has to work to be able to use them for damage - but he can save his dice up across rounds, so he is better at making that 1 vital attack at the right time - assuming he can set it up correctly...

This is a neat idea. I'd like to see it combined with a mechanic for rogues that if you use up banked expertise dice and meet a particular damage threshold you can get various effects such as "staggered - combat disadvantage for X rounds", "knocked down", "stunned for one round," "leg strike - -X movement for Y rounds" etc.

I also think that if you switch opponents you should lose the banked expertise dice. The XD simulate effort positioning your opponent for a powerful strike, so if you stop interacting with him he gets out of whatever you were setting up.

 

[pemerton]

In combat, a Rogue *is* a "Fighter light."

Not in my games it isn't.

rogues are not defined by their combat role,

<snip>

Rogues are defined by their role in the adventure -- which is an exploration specialist.

What the rogue is in combat is irrelevant to me.

I'm with DEFCON 1- you seem to be agreeing, or nearly agreeing: you seem to be saying that, at best, in combat a rogue is a fighter-light.

A rogue does not just need stabby ninja moves to be a "real" rogue.

<snip>

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.

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.

Unless I'm missing something, your position here is even more on DEFCON 1's side than DEFCON 1. You're saying that rogues shouldn't have combat dice at all. Or, at least, not as a compulsory element of the class.

You certainly don't seem to be agreeing with those who say that Sneak Attack needs beefing up because rogue's are currently underpowered in combat.

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.

I agree this is a problem. If you went with a very generic structure a la skill challenges, and were sticking to expertise dice, you could give rogues a manoeuvre that lets them help an ally's check (in advance, or perhaps a reaction in response to a failure), for example. Plus other more specific stuff like Vault, modelled perhaps on some skill powers and rogue and ranger utilities from 4e.

You would need to loosen up the expertise dice refresh rules, though, to make sure the rogue player had to make meaningful choices. A "round" in a skill challenge would have to be longer than 6 seconds.

 

[bbjore]

I like the concept that others have skirted around in this thread of the possibility of a fighter having a consistent pool that refreshes every round, making them consistently good in a fight. But the rogue could have a growing pool - which starts smaller than the fighters, but can be saved up over rounds to enable a 1 turn overshadowing of the fighter (damage wise at least).

I'd suggested something like this in another thread, and I agree 100%, building expertise die is an excellent way to make the rogue play differently, and it really helps the rogue shine as an ambusher is they have a few rounds to wait in hiding.

Sometimes I get concerned that it may be overcomplicated things. It might also be nice just to have the rogue us maneuvers to alternate actions. One round a trick that embodies their skillful nature, the next a sneak attack that allows them to keep pace with the fighter damage wise. In this way, while the fighter is consistently bashing, the rogue takes a turn to set-up, then hammers...

Maneuvers would be things like tumbling through the line, causing one target to lose sight of the rogue for a round, slowing a foe, or granting advantage on the next attack... It'd be especially nice if they did double duty, helping a rogue sneak, evade, con, or escape in the other pillars.

My only concern with your implementation is that many next combats are very short, running 2-3 rounds. If the build-up requires to much set-up or the rogue isn't rewarded for something like starting hidden or surprise, then combats may end before the rogue can really contribute. It's an easy fix, I just mentioned it because the actual implementation just has to account for the problem.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

You're absolutely right I missed the thrust, because your thrust makes no sense in the context of which the rest of us were talking.

We were discussing how much or how little combat-skill the Rogue should have. So the assumption for the discussion is that they had combat ability in some form.

To then quote and reply back to me to basically say that you don't care about what kind of combat skill the Rogue has at all... what exactly was the point? Great, you don't want to discuss the Rogue's skill in combat. Then don't. And there's no better way to accomplish that then to not get involved in a conversation about Rogues in combat.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Malright, lets say this:

The amount of combat schtick a rogue (or, really, the amount of schtick in any pillar that any class has) should be flexible. The type should also be flexible. If I want my rogue to be some street tough who wields a two-handed axe, that should be awesome according to 5e.

If that's not a controversial point, all the better.

 

[Zaran]

Not in my games it isn't.

In my games, rogues don't bother to play second fiddle to fighters in combat. They instead play lead guitar when exploring the dungeon.

Combat isn't important enough in my games for it to be a big deal if the rogue doesn't have 5 different attack options.

The issue is, a class should not be reduced in combat options just because they are good at exploration as well. Every class should have things to bring to the table outside of combat. Every class should also have things to bring to the table in combat as well.

It was silly for WotC to say that some classes should be 20% exploration and 80% Combat. Make them all that way! The player with the Fighter should not be twiddling his thumbs while everyone else is interacting with the statue with the giant red ruby eyes. At the same time, the Rogue player should not be twiddling their thumbs in combat just because all they can do do is attack or waste a turn to hide for extra damage.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Every class should also have things to bring to the table in combat as well.

I'm totally happy if, for my rogues, that thing is only "If I get surprise, an act before the enemy does, I do an extra 2d6 damage."

My fighter should have a few more options, but my rogue don't need 'em.

 

[Droogie128]

Why do they need something "unique"?

Because that is the whole point of classes. Each class should be distinct from the other. Mechanical diversity is a must have. "More of what everyone else gets" does not make a class. Classes are defined by what they can do.

 

[Droogie128]

I'm totally happy if, for my rogues, that thing is only "If I get surprise, an act before the enemy does, I do an extra 2d6 damage."

My fighter should have a few more options, but my rogue don't need 'em.

That isn't a game I would be willing to play. I want balance across all pillars.