Rogue Design goals . L&L May 7th

[Remathilis]

I'm with it, except for the whole biding your time for a surprise attack bit. Too many bad memories of the 2e thief's backstab being totally useless. People fighting back to the wall, or back to back was so common, you'd think everyone in the world had cast protection from backstab 10' radius.

Sadly, those are the common tactics to avoid being waylayed by a lurking foe.

2e backstab was useless for a variety of reasons; it didn't scale quickly enough, it was a horrible pain to set up, and usually worked once per combat if it even did at all. I have no problem allowing rogues some form of 3e-era sneak attack mixed with a few 4e-style movement tricks to gain advantage easy.

What I think Mearls was saying is that a rogue shouldn't get a "sly flourish" style attack where they deal good damage by simply standing there. A rogue needs to be mobile, opportunistic, and willing to use all manner to tricks an guile to set up advantage and get his SA dice.

Put a different way: A fighter can stand toe-to-toe with an orc and deal large damage from weapon choice, strength, specialization, etc. A rogue going toe-to-toe deals crappy base weapon damage, but if he moves, finds weak spots, and ambushes foes, his SA dice easily equal out to all the fighter's weapon focus.

 

[john112364]

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. And there is no reason that he should be better at something like Sense Motive.

I like my characters to be skilled. Sometimes broadly skilled, sometimes narrowly focused. I really, really, really don't want to find out that in order to be very good at some skill then I HAVE to take a rogue.


I think that they could easily go way over the top here, at least for my tastes

If a rogue specialized in diplomacy can automatically cause a King to become his ally (as could be done by the rules in 3.x) then there is a problem.

Mearls doesn't actually say the rogue can auto success every skill. I would think (with absolutely no evidence whatsoever btw ) that a rogue would have to choose which skills to master, most likely off of a list of rogue like skills. I agree that a rogue should not be better at arcana than a wizard or nature than a druid. But we also don't have enough information to say one way or another. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Ellington]

I understand that, I just don't understand how a rogue that focuses on something like nature is going to be better than a druid, at nature. This all inclusive statement just doesn't work for me. Even in skills that are more natural to the rogue like climbing, I don't understand why a goliath fighter who grew up and was trained in the mountains couldn't be the rogue's equal.

Okay, so maybe the fighter who grew up and was trained in the mountains is equal to the city rogue who's mastered climbing. But the rogue who grew up and was trained in the mountains AND mastered climbing will still be better than him. The fighter just doesn't have the same knack for skills as the rogue.

As for the druid and knowledge of nature, I guess you're right, since nature is pretty much the druid's niche. The rogue could and should be better at the druid in any other skill both of them focus on, though.

 

[Dausuul]

Four chances to hit, verses one chance to hit is a big difference, even if the damage expressions were the same.

The rogue's damage is more variable, true, and the rogue has a greater risk of blowthrough. However, average damage output is the same. It's a reasonably close starting point and can be calibrated through playtesting, just like any other ability.

Besides, the rogue has considerably greater ability than the fighter outside of combat, so it's only reasonable that its contribution in combat is less.

 

[pauljathome]

Mearls doesn't actually say the rogue can auto success every skill. I would think (with absolutely no evidence whatsoever btw ) that a rogue would have to choose which skills to master, most likely off of a list of rogue like skills. I agree that a rogue should not be better at arcana than a wizard or nature than a druid. But we also don't have enough information to say one way or another. We'll have to wait and see.

Actually, Mearls is quite clear. He may be misspeaking but he is quite clear

If a rogue decides to master a mundane skill, he or she can reach a higher level of expertise than other characters

They can't master everything, but they can master any mundane skill and be better than any other character. Regardless of the skill.

 

[Incenjucar]

That of course brings up the question "Are there non-mundane skills?"

 

[frankthedm]

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*

Thankfully 5E rogues are going to need more than a 5' adjust to deal obscene damage. 12 years ago Wotc lowered the bar too far for rogues to get their damage bonus. An attack that represents punishing a foe with a lowered guard should take more than just a 5' adjustment to activate.

Backstab / Sneak Attack should be something that happens occasionally, not an ability expected to kick off every round.

3rd edition's crime of Flanking = Sneak Attack was a gross violation of every intelligent creature's right to prioritize threats. And I find it great to hear that standard is on it's way out of the D&D ruleset.

 

[Dausuul]

That of course brings up the question "Are there non-mundane skills?"

Good question. My guess is that if you have a druid and a rogue both specialized in Nature, the druid will have a deeper understanding of the natural world and its cycles and rhythms--but the rogue will be better at setting a deadfall, tracking an enemy, and catching a rabbit for supper.

 

[Mengu]

Besides, the rogue has considerably greater ability than the fighter outside of combat, so it's only reasonable that its contribution in combat is less.

There's another thread on this, but I disagree. Some players will be happy with that, and some players won't. I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I have players who like to play different classes, but really are more interested in the combat aspect of the game than the exploration, and wait for me to say "roll initiative". Rest of the time, they are observers, and though they are not bored, they are not too big into contributing either. As such, when that player plays a rogue, I need that character to contribute as much to the fight, as the fighter, or ranger, or what have you, instead of having to tell that player, sorry, you always have to play a fighter if you want to be good at fighting.

I've been in games where we blow through the fluff, to get to the crunch combat.

There are various styles of play. The system needs to be agnostic of, or able to service these various play styles.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I would say the opposite. Rogue is the ultimate adventuring class, and is indispensable as such. Fighter is just a dude with a weapon and armor, and could be replaced by practically anything. Not that I would want to, because dude with a weapon and armor is a very basic archetype.

I was gonna say something long-winded, then I saw your sig. Har har.