Rogue Design goals . L&L May 7th

[Mishihari Lord]

I don't like the emphasis on sneaky backstabbing at all...

I want rogues to head more towards flashy combat acrobat / "ninja as portrayed in media and anime." Fast moving, skirmishing, and able to effortlessless maneuver past the front lines to get to softer or more important targets.

*Sigh*

Very much disagree. I like the sneaky backstabber. But I hope you get the (different) ninja class you want to play as well.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

The only point I really didn't like was number 3. I like my magical magical and my mundane mundane. This point makes me think of Greek mythology, which is really not what I'm after in my game.

 

[pemerton]

assuming 18 (00) strength, and he does gain surprise, he can do 5d10+30, or 80 damage max with a two handed sword.

But the average of that is 57.5, and the average of your 10 backstab rogue is 70. If you add in weapon specialistion, the gap closes by 10, to make the fighter almost identical to the rogue.

And against size L monsters, the fighter's average climbs by 25 (1d10 > 3d6), whereas the rogue's climbs by only 15 (1d8, 1d4 > 1d12, 1d3).

Also, for what it's worth - and I know we crossed posts about this a couple of weeks ago - I also think you are misinterpreting the surprise rules. The chart you referred to has no "6" entry because it is a chart for calculating the number of surprise segments when both sides are surprised, and it is assuming a maximum surprise chance of 5 in 6 (hence the absence of an entry for "6"). It is only when both sides are surprised that the "subtract one die from another rule" comes into play.

Otherwise, as was mentioned upthread by [MENTION=15407]Thalionalfirin[/MENTION], the number of segments of surprise is simply equal to the die roll of the surprised party.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think this was really touched on, but one of the Rogue's best talents is AVOIDING danger.

The fighter has to rush the bugbear guarding the door. The rogue distracts it with a thrown pebble and sneaks past it.

The fighter has to time a jump through a pendulum trap he triggered. The rogue finds it before it goes off and nimbly jams or breaks the mechanism to get past it.

The fighter wants the treasure the guards are protecting, he's got to fight them. The rogue fast-talks the guards into loading the treasure into his wagon and if he's really good, the guards give the rogue their personal treasure as well to invest in his "sure thing" that'll "have a huge return on their investment."

The fighter leads an army into the fray, using his knowledge of warfare to bring his forces to bear as he seeks out the enemy commander to face in single combat. The rogue? He slipped into the camp last night under cover of darkness, killed the general in his sleep and took the concubines home with him.

The fighter's great when facing opponents who want your blood. The rogue has a few tricks up his sleeve to deal with foes, but his talents really rely on getting by without inciting trouble.

The Rogue has a dozen tools in his toolbox, hammer included. The hammer isn't as big as the fighter's hammer, but when forced, he should be able to hit the nail. When asked the question how do we get past the guards, the rogue should have a several answers spring to mind (poison their food, fast talk, sneak past them, etc). Fighting the guards should be the fall back position after the other tools have failed.

In these two posts rogues poison guards' foods, go on solo assassination missions, etc. And others have mentioned examples, too, of roguish trickery.

If this is going to work, D&Dnext is going to need better scene-resolution mechanics than D&D has had in any edition prior to 4e. AD&D, for example, is simply not set up to smoothly adjudicate a poisoning of food. What dice to I roll? What do my friends (both the PCs in the party and the real people at the table) do in the meantime? Contrast this to combat, with its smooth rules: we all roll initiative, declare actions, make attacks etc.

I'm not at all saying that scene-resolution is impossible. But skill challenges seem very unpopular for whatever reason, and even the less abstract rules in Burning Wheel (skill checks against objective DCs governed by Let It Ride plus very generous - by D&D standards - assistance and augmentation rules) I think would be highly suspect for many D&D players.

Personally, if we get an edition of D&D that is both (i) popular among classic D&Ders and 3E/PFers, and (ii) makes it as likely that a typical group will have the rogue poison the guards' food as just engage them in combat, I'll eat my hat!

you also have 4e, which is widely considered to be the edition most hostile to doing anything other than combat

Yet the only edition that actually has smooth mechanics - if nevertheless widely disliked - for adjudicating the poisoning attempt against the guards.

There are structural reasons why combat takes up so much time. Its often intricate in a way that non combat events are not. It requires multiple die rolls per player, multiple decisions per player, and significant feedback between players and DM, as well as between individual players.

<snip>

if you design a game where combat takes up no more game time than any other aspect of the game at which a character might specialize, well, THAT will be the true difference between 5e and every other edition. I wonder how that will be received.

QFT.

Of course non-combat can be made as mechanically "weighty" in play as combat. Plenty of RPGs do it. But the closest approximation to this in D&D - namely, 4e's skill challenges - have been said to be "dying in a fire".

I simply cannot believe that we are going to get an edition of D&D in which it is as likely that a party with a rogue will poison the guards' food, as opposed to simply attack them all. (Perhaps from surprise, with the rogue playing some lead role in setting up the surprise attack.)

 

[pemerton]

#4... Whatever... It's all fluff. The numbers on the paper are not about the routine. They are about those stressful situations. In every edition of D&D, I've had skilled characters succeed at trivial stuff without rolls. This doesn't need to be a design goal, just a sentence in the DMG.

I took the idea to be that, even in stressful situations, the rogue does not always have to roll.

One obvious way to do this would be to grant rogues rationed "skill check tokens", but I assume they'll do it some other way in order to avoid being criticised for making rogues play like wizards.

 

[Felon]

Seems that the design goals largely mimic the previous edition's design goals, and not just for the rogue.

I realized at some point between 3e and now that I'm not crazy about the rogue's combat role being primarily "burst damage". I'd like him to have a bag of dirty fighting tricks, stuff that's more about control through distraction and harassment than supercharged-up dagger damage.

 

[FireLance]

It's kind of sad, really -- I never saw a "Fiter", or a "Wizzard", or even a "Clerk" on a character sheet, but those poor skill-stealy-type guys just never could catch a break.

I guess you never played with Rincewind, then.

 

[Aenghus]

In previous editions of D&D the swashbucker/light-fighter/ninja concept has been expressable mechanically in a number of ways, which boil down into three variants - fighter class versions, rogue class versions and their own class. When more than one of these existed in the same edition, typically one of the implementations was just plain better than the other.

So for the next edition, the designers need to figure out how to implement the lightly-armoured competent melee combatant concept in an effective and widely acceptable way.

Secondly, a significant problem for rogues/thieves in all previous editions as they rose in levels is that the increasing sensory, magical and supernatural powers of their opposition at higher levesl tended to marginalise their abilities more and more, both in and out of combat. In combat monsters were increasingly immune to sneak attack in 3rd ed and backstab in earlier editions - constructs, undead, oozes etc.

Out of combat, enemy senses such as an excellent sense of smell, blindsight, blindsense, tremorsense, true seeing, magical detection, and hidden guards such as gargoyles and undead can make live very hard on rogues who try to be sneaky, to the point where in some games it's just a waste of time even trying. Care has to be taken to keep all classes viable at all levels on a continuing basis, as this sort of marginalisation can result from subsequent designers producing monsters and other material that make using class abilities increasingly more difficult, and this can happen accidentally.

This is of particular concern, as it looks like the next edition will feature more situational spike damage for rogues, and if the chances of gaining this spike damage lower appreciably with increasing level due to increasing monster abilties, it will marginalise the rogue/thief class for many potential players.

 

[scruffygrognard]

This bit really rubs me the wrong way:

The same king tricked into an alliance by a rogue is much harder to sway. A simple spell is not enough to counter the web of lies, half-truths, and fears that a cunning rogue might use to manipulate a way into the royal treasury.

ANY character should be able to be manipulative/persuasive. I hate to see rogues as "the master of skills"... because I'd like skill use to be toned down.

In place of extensive use of skills, I'd like to see more of a focus on flexible class design that ties ability scores, character themes, roleplaying and player ingenuity to success at tasks. Otherwise we're just rehashing 3.X and 4th edition skill use.

 

[SkidAce]

This is the part that I hate with a fiery passion. While the rogue should be good at many things, there is no way in all the planes that he should be the best at Knowledge - Arcana no matter how much he concentrates on it.

Emphasis mine.

I think I agree with your main idea, however...

If a rogue studies arcana, lives arcana, breathes aracana at every old library, or institution he comes across (focuses all skill points etc.) he should be really good at the "theoretical concepts" of arcana. It's a valid character concept.

Versus a "lazy" wizard that just blasts things and has no intellectual leanings at all, the rogue may have better arcana checks.

That said, if both progress naturally, without focus/specialization, the wizard type should maintain a lead.


IMO.