Please step away from the 4th edition "effect everything" abilities.

[BobTheNob]

Putting players at a disadvantage works just fine, but taking away a player's ability to contribute AT ALL is not. If you're going to have encounters in which a rogue cannot backstab, at least give him something else to do, ya know, like try to disable the control panel that's running the golem, or disable the traps shooting poison darts from the walls.

Nor would I ever suggest that should be the case. To focus on the rogue example, I would hope that rogues are defined by more than their ability to backstab. At the same time, I would hope players are not feeling so restricted in gameplay that they genuinely believe that that which is on paper is the only option they have.

Telling the rogue he can't backstab is like telling the Wizard he can't cast spells. Not the his target is immune to magic or has high spell resistance, that's got it's own loopholes. But try setting up an encounter in an anti-magic zone that the wizard cannot leave. That's how a rogue feels when he can't backstab.

Not so sure I would take it that far. If backstab is the only thing the rogue gets, I will cry. But again, take the golem example. It immune to most of the mages spells!! Then the mage uses grease. Resist that.

The mage using grease in that scenario is just creative play. So whats stopping the rogue from creative play? Whats to stop him trying to setup a rope to trip the thing while the fighter holds it at bay, or looking for the loose section of ceiling to try and collapse on its head? If rogue players walk into every situation thinking "damage output" is the only solution (and therefore the natural expectation of that being that backstab should work on everything), I will be very disappointed.

This is where the universal damage vs target thing mad me sad. It makes damage output a viable solution to everything, so players arent challenged to step outside that box. They still can (and some do), but given you can damage your way through every fight, you just dont need to. Backstab, lather rinse repeat, problem solved.

To me, backstab particularly was a tool in the rogues toolkit, not the toolkit itself.

 

[Savage Wombat]

The solution is not to make the backstab/sneak attack be "the way the rogue gets damage equal to a fighter". The rogue should do "almost as good as a fighter" normally, and then against certain targets in certain situations he does superior damage to a fighter. Then it doesn't matter if some creatures are immune - that's the fighter's "time to shine".

 

[Tony Vargas]

The solution is not to make the backstab/sneak attack be "the way the rogue gets damage equal to a fighter". The rogue should do "almost as good as a fighter" normally, and then against certain targets in certain situations he does superior damage to a fighter. Then it doesn't matter if some creatures are immune - that's the fighter's "time to shine".

So much for the "the fighter will 'best' at fighting." Slightly better than the other guy's off day is not 'best.'


To the original topic, though: The plus side of the 'effects everything' approach is that it frees the DM to use whatever opponents he wants. He doesn't have to worry about whether there's a PC in the game who will be worthless vs or 'own' undead (or, worse yet, both, as was pretty common in 3e - Rogue and Cleric being traditionally mandatory classes). Throw whatever you want at the players, baring some major tactical blunders and/or extreme bad luck, no one's going to be crying in the corner.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Except you continue to misinterpret what "best" at fighting means.

 

[BobTheNob]

To the original topic, though: The plus side of the 'effects everything' approach is that it frees the DM to use whatever opponents he wants. He doesn't have to worry about whether there's a PC in the game who will be worthless vs or 'own' undead (or, worse yet, both, as was pretty common in 3e - Rogue and Cleric being traditionally mandatory classes). Throw whatever you want at the players, baring some major tactical blunders and/or extreme bad luck, no one's going to be crying in the corner.

That is true, but it isnt something I ever really had a big problem with. Once in our 4e days our cleric had specc'd anti-undead to the extreme. I made sure that there were enough undead fights to justify his investment. I was happy for him to shine occasionally. Then for the next X encounters there was no undead at all. Was he upset? No, he was still useful, just not "gleaming".

Maybe a little artificial, but I never minded. I want players to revel in their characters, and if I need to re-think encounters to do it, so be it.

I suppose thats what I want to get at. The cleric had plenty he could do when it wasnt an undead encounter, but he shined when it was. Great sometimes, contributing others. If we could achieve the same with the rogue and not basically define his combat contribution SOLELY on his backstab, isnt that a better approach than making his backstab work on everything?

Let his backstab shine sometimes like the cleric turn undead shines sometimes. Let him contribute at other times the way a cleric contributes at other times. I would *never* suggest anyone find moments when they are utterly useless, but making backstab into consistent every battle damage output is just such a boring solution.

Or even better, stop focusing so much on mechanics for combat and let improvisation rule a little bit more. As I said before, lets develop a system that encourages on the fly problem solving instead of comparative numeric outcomes, that rewards player for thinking outside the box rather than for quoting powers and feats at the DM.

I am not in favor the 4e ubiquitous damage approach, and thats not because I played more 3e than 4e...its because I played more 4e than 3e.

 

[Li Shenron]

Now what I mean by that is the "Hunter's Quarry" ability and now the Smite everything ability of the upcoming Paladin.

This is not what I want out of the next iteration of D&D. I want "Smite Evil" I want the ranger's "Favored Enemy(Humanoids)" etc.... I don't want every class with a unique ability to work universally. Really the point of special abilities is the fact that they stand above other abilities in certain circumstances, that's what makes them special.

What makes sense is a ranger who specializes in a type of foe and gaining advantages when fighting that foe not having a universal hunter's quarry that works on everything. If that's going to be the case then it needs to be called something else.

I think that D&D has enough room for BOTH affect-everything abilities and circumstance-based abilities, and there better be...

Personally I am more a fan of the latter. I WANT abilities that work in some circumstances but the point actually is that I WANT them NOT to work in other circumstances, because it is when something doesn't work that you have to think out of the box and be creative... of course it's hard, but if you succeed then it is much more fun and rewarding that using a schtik that always works

 

[nnms]

The only thing I don't want to see when it comes to the ranger (or any class) is a defacto role defining ability. Like a striker damage rider. Or a defender marking mechanic. Or a twice per encounter healing ability.

 

[slobster]

The only thing I don't want to see when it comes to the ranger (or any class) is a defacto role defining ability. Like a striker damage rider. Or a defender marking mechanic. Or a twice per encounter healing ability.

I don't know if I'd go that far. What is sneak attack (in any edition) but a striker damage rider? What is the lay on hands ability but a limited healing ability? What is a barbarian's rage but an attempt to shoehorn the class into the damage dealing melee role?

But those things work for me, conceptually, even if I have issues with how they've sometimes been executed. I suppose you could argue that before 4E these mechanics didn't "define a role", but I think the truth is that they did. 4E just made it explicit.

I don't want to see classes as strictly or explicitly assigned a role as they were in 4E, but I also don't want anyone's contribution to an encounter to be so heavily dependent on factors beyond player control as was the case with rogues in 3.x.

 

[nnms]

I don't know if I'd go that far. What is sneak attack (in any edition) but a striker damage rider? What is the lay on hands ability but a limited healing ability? What is a barbarian's rage but an attempt to shoehorn the class into the damage dealing melee role?

Sorry, I meant "as the defining feature of the class." The pre-4e barbarian's rage certainly is a damage rider, but it's also full of other mechanics. I'd say a pre-4E defining characteristic of a rogue is their skills rather than sneak attack/back stab.

I don't want to see classes as strictly or explicitly assigned a role as they were in 4E, but I also don't want anyone's contribution to an encounter to be so heavily dependent on factors beyond player control as was the case with rogues in 3.x.

Absolutely.

 

[pemerton]

In Pathfinder the ranger has a spell that allows him to target something that isn't normally his Favored Enemy for a certain number of rounds.

And how is that better than 4e on your criteria?

What could be less flavoursome in comparison to "my guy grew up hating orcs" than a generic Hunter's Quarry bonus? "My guy grew up hating orcs, but when he casts this spell he can channel that hatred against basilisks instead."

If you're going to go with favoured enemy for the flavour, at least have the courage of your convictions!