Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Hussar]

I really want to be sympathetic, but this is such an extreme case that its really hard to be. From what you've told me, the player primarily gets his enjoyment out of combat and yet he's deliberately chosen to play a rogue which is incredibly one dimensional in combat.

He's playing a small race with no strength bonus and apparently he has no back up strategy if the target is immune to criticals (he hasn't maxed out Use Magic Device, he hasn't invested in a bow with an energy boost to damage, he hasn't gone the rogue/ranger, rogue/fighter or rogue/barbarian route, etc.).

Didn't he this coming? It's not exactly surprising that if you build a one dimensional character that there are going to be alot of times when that character simply doesn't shine.

I bet he's a really darn good backstabber though.

So, effectively, you're saying that the problem is that he's playing a core character, not spreading himself around by dipping into other classes and not using up his resources so he can emulate other classes.

I would also point out that the campaign is only 5th level, which I didn't mention in the original post, so, much of your advice is not really useful. Not enough money to invest in magic weapons, not enough levels to invest in multiclassing.

I wouldn't think that a single classed core character should be considered one dimensional.

 

[FireLance]

This is a deep and fundamental design issue -- I'd even say design flaw. 4e needs to enforce general competence, while still allowing meaningful customization. It's a tough job, but I'm willing to watch someone else do it.

Shouldn't this be posted in the trained/untrained skills thread?

 

[Nifft]

Shouldn't this be posted in the trained/untrained skills thread?

Skills are a good example -- and you've hit the nail on the head as to why I like the SW Saga system better -- but they're hardly the only one.

Another example would be a reduced progression of Sneak Attack dice + a generic damage bonus (say, one-half level), coupled with a reduction in the number of attacks you get so TWF flank-and-spank is no longer your best Rogue route. Now you'll miss those extra damage dice, but you won't rely on them entirely.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Reynard]

This is from a few pages back. Don't have time right now to read the whole thread, but, I wanted to comment on this.

For the past three sessions, we've been facing constructs and elementals. The player of the rogue, who absolutely adores combat, has been sitting in the corner with zero to do. For THREE sessions. NINE hours of gameplay because his d4 damage just isn't going to do anything.

It's fine to say, "Oh, find something constructive to do" but, I don't play a character to find something else to do. I play a character because I want to play THAT character. If I'm playing a rogue, I want to backstab something. If I wanted to be utterly useless, I'd play a bard.

Emphasis mine.

Here's the thing: the rogue can still be useful even if his damage capacity is not super high. Flanking for other party members, using non-damaging attack types, tumbling through to help control the battlefield are all useful combat tactics usable by a rogue and still be in character. The problem is that too often "usefulness" is measured only in damage potential, because ultimately everything comes down to hit point attrition when you play a hack-and-slash, combat focused game.

Out of curiosity, what do these 3, 3 hour sessions represent from the perspective of the campaign. Is this one adventure among many, in which the rogue finds he isn't as effective? Is this an early adventure, or a late one? The first? How long do individual adventures last? How long can the rogue be expected to have to deal with monsters immune to crits? Is it a homebrewed adventure or a published one? Any and all of this information is necessary to make any kind of jusgement about whether the rogue players' lot is fair or not.

 

[hong]

Here's the thing: the rogue can still be useful even if his damage capacity is not super high.

... not that anyone was saying anything about "usefulness".

 

[Reynard]

... not that anyone was saying anything about "usefulness".

Except in the post I quoted and was responding too.

 

[hong]

Except in the post I quoted and was responding too.

Well, Hussar tends to be loose with terminology.

 

[Celebrim]

So, effectively, you're saying that the problem is that he's playing a core character, not spreading himself around by dipping into other classes and not using up his resources so he can emulate other classes...I wouldn't think that a single classed core character should be considered one dimensional.

More or less, yes, that's what I'm saying. But additionally, he's playing a 'martial' class in which he's done basically everything he can to reduce his martial combat prowess when critical hits aren't available to him. He's taken a small sized race. He has no strength bonus. Ergo, his character is very one dimensional in combat. A rogue doesn't have to be one dimensional in combat. He could be playing a medium-sized race and have some sort of bonus due to strength. A fifth level rogue with a 12 STR with only a +1 rapier would be doing 3-8 damage per attack. At fifth level, that's a significant contribution itself, to say nothing of assisting the party by helping the tank flank or any other sort of useful tactic.

But if he wants to be more martial than that, then he should do as many of my players have and multi-class into a more pure martial class like fighter, barbarian, or ranger.

I would also point out that the campaign is only 5th level, which I didn't mention in the original post, so, much of your advice is not really useful. Not enough money to invest in magic weapons, not enough levels to invest in multiclassing.

Five levels isn't enough to invest in multiclassing? I've seen a Barbarian2/Fighter2/Cleric1 by that point. Granted, it was that players second attempt at a character in my campaign once he saw all the specialists repeatedly get hosed by my frequent calling for skill checks, varied opponents, killer traps, and my general RBDM style. But its a good example of covering all your bases (except reflex save, which is ok if you have good hit points) while min/maxing at the same time.

Let me tell you what I see going on here. From your description I'm guessing that the character has maxed out DEX and gone the weapon finesse route. He's probably nearly maxed out CON. He's min/maxing a narrow strategy and now he's got a character with abilities that are very one dimensional. Poor, poor, player. His DM doesn't only give him challenges that exactly fit his probably highly pre-planned out character design.

I really do want to be sympathetic. More than any other class with the possible exception of Bard, rogues are highly dependent on the meta-game. If the DM isn't planning on alot of skill challenges, isn't planning on alot of monsters that can be critically hit, and isn't planning on running many traps then there isn't alot that a rogue is going to be able to do. (You may note from the above the rogues generally do really well in my campaigns.) So maybe if you presented the problem as, "We haven't been asked to make many skill checks. We haven't met anything that could be sneak attacked, and we haven't encountered a trap.", I might have responded with, "Oh, so you are playing the Age of Worms adventure path, eh? Yeah, someone should have warned you about the fact that a rogue is almost useless." But you've got a really extreme case of playing to a narrow skill set, and the player shouldn't be surprised to be in this situation.

 

[hong]

Let me tell you what I see going on here. From your description I'm guessing that the character has maxed out DEX and gone the weapon finesse route. He's probably nearly maxed out CON. He's min/maxing a narrow strategy and now he's got a character with abilities that are very one dimensional. Poor, poor, player. His DM doesn't only give him challenges that exactly fit his probably highly pre-planned out character design.

To be precise, he's going the obvious route when it comes to playing a rogue. If the obvious route leads to an unplayable character, that means the rules need work.

 

[Reynard]

To be precise, he's going the obvious route when it comes to playing a rogue. If the obvious route leads to an unplayable character, that means the rules need work.

Work as in "every character should be equally effective in every encounter, regardless of the particulars of either the character or the encounter"?

Could there be any style of play more boring than that? in the example given, the adventure is the issue. Apparently, there are no enemies in the adventure at all that are subject to critical hits, which negates one of the core abilities of one of the core classes. that isn't bad class design, that's bad adventure design.