D&D (2024) Rogue Playtest Discussion

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't think I agree with that. It won't be 2024 PHB + Tasha's/Zanathar's/Etc. I think the assumption is that One D&D will supercede all previous sources, and as of this latest iteration, there's no Steady Aim.

That's not how they've ever said that the 50th Anniversary books will work, far or less the playtest (which explicitly states that all 5e rules are a go if not otherwise mentioned.)

So as of right now, there absolutely IS Steady Aim, if your group plays with it. Of course we have no idea what 2024 will bring. But NO IDEA does not mean we can make whatever we fear up and then state it as fact, just because we think it will be so.

You may wind up right, but it's far too early to tell, in particular when the only info we have tells us the opposite. Extant rules are on ATM, unless they've been revised. Steady Aim has not.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's not how they've ever said that the 50th Anniversary books will work, far or less the playtest (which explicitly states that all 5e rules are a go if not otherwise mentioned.)

So as of right now, there absolutely IS Steady Aim, if your group plays with it. Of course we have no idea what 2024 will bring. Bun NO IDEA does not mean we can make whatever we fear up and then state it as fact, just because we think it will be so.

You may wind up right, but it's far too early to tell, in particular when the only info we have tells us the opposite. Extant rules are on ATM, unless they've been revised. Steady Aim has not.

Did I state something as fact that isn't?

In any event, we'll see. Obviously some of the new content is incompatible with Tasha's (and Xanathar's), and it's hard for me to imagine they'll say, "Use all the stuff from those books that's not contradicted by the new books" or something like that. But, again, we'll see.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Did I state something as fact that isn't?

I don't know. I could easily be confusing parts of the discussion involving you for someone else if we're talking about my overall feelings on the subject after reading this entire thread. I do think it was you that said that Steady Aim was out (which it's not ATM - at least not any more than it's out of anyone's game who's not using it as an option) which is, I think, what I was talking about at that moment.

Still, I don't mean for you to take it too severely. I just see a lot of fearmongering when it comes to playtesting. I mean, even the designers don't know what the final books will look like yet - that's the whole point of playtesting. So it's always strange to me when people read a thing in a playtest packet and assume that something is "this way now". It's NOT. It's "let's try it this way and see how it goes".

I mean look at the Crit rules. As far as we can tell, they scrapped the first packet's Crit idea before even getting feedback on it. The whole thing's in flux. There's only so much we should conclude from anything yet. Fear? Fine. It's reasonable to worry that any rule you don't like will continue forward. Conclude that it will for sure? Waste of time. IMO.

Note that I'm not saying YOU SPECIFICALLY are doing this. It's just all over the place, so I felt like talking about it. Right this second, I happen to be talking to you, but I assume others are reading it too. Much of what I'm saying are just my general thoughts on the subject.

In any event, we'll see.

Agreed.

Obviously some of the new content is incompatible with Tasha's (and Xanathar's), and it's hard for me to imagine they'll say, "Use all the stuff from those books that's not contradicted by the new books" or something like that. But, again, we'll see.

Yeah, who knows how it will work? But so far, all we have to go on is the playtest specifically tells us to use any rules that aren't mentioned, and that the 50th Anniversary Books will be "backwards compatible" (whatever THAT means). Unless we're going to assume that they're either lying to us, or at least spinning it, and are wrong about those things, we ought not to go too far down the rabbit hole (I agree that a bit of skepticism is reasonable).

At least we shouldn't judge what we have with things we assume will happen. Again, IMO (and all that). Do what you like. That's my two bits.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Snip

And I want to add, that tge change for the class should not be regarded in isolation. Instead you need to factor in other (planned) changes, some of which we know about, some of which we don't.

Every scream: "OMG, wizards killed tge rogue" is very premature, as we have only seen 1/4th of the classes and probably even less of the other rules.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Like the idea that not being able to take expertise in Thieves' Tools. You are absolutely fair to not like it! But it's NOT a nerf! For example: Let's say you have a Level 3 DEX 16 rogue with TT expertise picking a lock. The "old" way would have you rolling 1d20+7 to pick the lock. The "new" way, you'd take expertise in Sleight-of-Hand instead (not because you're somehow differently skilled, but because that IS the new way the game models the ability to pick locks!) and you'd roll 2d20(High)+7. That's a buff.

You can prefer the old way all you like, of course! But it's still a buff.

I take your point here, and in some ways it's the limited applicability of the terms being used. My concern is niche erosion, which maybe falls outside of the nerf/buff scale.

Each class should be distinct, should have a niche, and be able to hold their own in a party. For me, that's axiomatic. When one class is weakened in that respect, and it's a class that already had a reduced niche identity in this edition, I get worried. When it's also one of the very few non-magical options to players, I get grumpy.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Every scream: "OMG, wizards killed tge rogue" is very premature, as we have only seen 1/4th of the classes and probably even less of the other rules.

Totally agree with this. My feedback will be that although I like the utility buffs, both reducing and simplifying combat damage would not be worth the trade-off, to me.

But anybody who thinks the sky is falling over any of this (“WHAT!?!?!?? Guidance cantrip on limited use!!! That’s OUTRAGEOUS!!!!”) is losing sight of what these playtests are meant to be.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I take your point here, and in some ways it's the limited applicability of the terms being used. My concern is niche erosion, which maybe falls outside of the nerf/buff scale.

Each class should be distinct, should have a niche, and be able to hold their own in a party. For me, that's axiomatic. When one class is weakened in that respect, and it's a class that already had a reduced niche identity in this edition, I get worried. When it's also one of the very few non-magical options to players, I get grumpy.

Yes, niche protection is a fair concern, but has nothing to do with buff/nerf. Though I would argue that they're simply trying to broaden the potential party make-up with niche overlap. Parties used to essentially "need" two classes - a Cleric (to heal) and a Rogue (to deal with traps and locks). Just like they made it possible to skip the cleric (if you have a Bard, Druid, Paladin, or Ranger) but the cleric is still the best healer, we have a situation developing where you can skip the Rogue, if you have a Bard or Ranger (or Artificer).

Is the rogue still the best trap/lock expert? Maybe not, but healing (because it involves magic) has soooo many more points where you can get one thing but not the other to make one the "best" while trap/locks are two or three skill proficiencies. I think it could be argued that the rogue still has the potential to have the most of those.

OH! And the Thief can do it as a bonus action as part of Cunning Action, so the Thief, at least, is still the best at the niche.

 

[Ptmackim]

Not having use an option severely makes the subclass a lot more unfun. Especially with the new twf rules, use an object just to draw one more dagger would be incredibly useful.

Totally agree. Use an object with Fast Hands makes the Thief an extremely creative choice, and it is really the only character I ever played who uses any of the adventuring equipment in the PHB. Taking that away makes it much less fun, esp compared to other subclasses

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Totally agree. Use an object with Fast Hands makes the Thief an extremely creative choice, and it is really the only character I ever played who uses any of the adventuring equipment in the PHB. Taking that away makes it much less fun, esp compared to other subclasses

This would make a case for changing those ineractions with objects generally a bonus action. This way we actually might see them used on a regular basis and this would explain the sleight of hand change.