Scott Rouse blog - Rogue ability

[PeterWeller]

I don't know about mmu1, but for me, it isn't the part about serving as a meatshield for other classes that bothers me. It's the part where the tank class also has to be completely impotent offensively. In City of Heroes, for instance, they've got the Tankers who do just that. They soak up damage, force opponents to attack them, etc. But I'm always amazed at just how mediocre their damage is in comparison to everyone else. I'm supposed to be a Superman type here. I've got Super Strength, and yet pretty much everyone else is inflicting more damage than me. Not just more damage, but a LOT more damage. I could've just stood there and made mean faces, for all the difference I seemed to be making with my attacks. That's my concern, anyway. That "Defenders" will end up being walking Tower Shields for other characters, like they are in MMO's. Great in protecting the rest of the team, but complete gimps when it comes to hurting the enemy.

I seem to remember CoH Tanks being able to solo instances scaled for six or seven people without breaking a sweat. Maybe they killed stuff a little slower than Scrappers or Blasters, but they in turn were almost invincible and could wade into fights alone that would have caused entire Tank-less parties to blanch. The walking tower shields you're talking about were, oddly enough, the Bubble Defenders, who would be considered "Leaders" in the D&D class roles.

:words:

I can see why you're bothered, but look at it from the other side: MMOs have taught D&D that "I attack" is totally lame compared to "I cast fireball (or sleep or wish or whatever)." I have no problem with greater tactical depth influenced by MMOs and other CRPGs because of two reasons: One, it's a full circle kind of thing. MMOs owe their very existence to attempting to emulate D&D (like you mentioned). I agree that they can never emulate what really makes D&D and other PnP RPGs great, but they can greatly influence and improve those parts of D&D that they do emulate, namely combat. The second reason flows from that. I really only see this MMO or WoW or whatever influence (when is someone gonna start claiming they're ripping stuff from Oblivion?) being felt in the combat rules. The same things that make it nigh impossible for MMOs or even really solid "RP-ey" CRPGs like Fallout to truly emulate what makes D&D great (the freedom of decision, action and interaction with the environment) are going to prevent those parts of D&D from getting "MMO-ed."

Now, I once held the fear that the more specific special actions the game included, the more it would implicitly become a "you can't" game than a "you can" one, but that's only a problem when the maneuvers dictate a very, very specific action. In the case of this particular Rogue ability, I don't see that being a problem. The Rogue gets a maneuver that lets him or her move three squares as part of his or her action, but as long as it's still up to the player as to how, specifically, that move happens, whether it be a dive, a dash, or a leap, then I don't see it being restrictive and instead giving players a concrete way in which to take the action they are imagining. Look at, for example and because I'm wildly drawing comparisons between D&D and a whole bunch of other games right now, Heroclix. In the new JLA set, Merlyn gets "psychic blast" as an attack on his dial. However, the character Merlyn isn't a psychic; he's an archer, and the psychic blast power represents his ability to fire with pin point and deadly accuracy. If these maneuvers and actions work like that, where they provide technical effects, but the fluff itself is left up to the player's imagination, I see no problem with having more detailed and varied combat abilities for Fighters, Rogues, etc.

Now, there are other assumptions that it appears D&D is adopting from the MMO world: class balance and class roles for instance, but these, I think, were always implicit in D&D, and the desire and need to constantly address balance in MMOs has only brought them to the fore. Pet Tanking in MMOs is something I'm sure has had a strong effect on how PnP developers approach pet classes. And while it might bother a lot of people to see WoTC apparently catering to the MMO crowd, I've experienced numerous instances of D&D drawing in players from MMOs who wanted something more. If the game adopts some of the ideas that make WoW great (and hate is as much as you want, but for a traditional EQ vein MMO, it is great), what's wrong with that? After all, those very ideas found their roots in gamers trying to transmit the D&D experience from the table to the screen.

God, sorry for the long post guys, and sorry that it's only slightly on topic.

 

[Exen Trik]

If you're a rogue and the prospect of a beatdown frightens you, stay out of melee. Same goes for wizards. Combat is the forte of the Fighter class (including Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers, etc.).

My point wasn't that the rogue should take no risks, but that having better battlefield mobility shouldn't be one of them. It is *because* they can't stand toe to toe in melee all the time that they need options to get into, out of, and past combat quickly and reliably. And it's not like rogues can just avoid melee, they aren't normally great ranged attackers or casters, dagger throwing and UMD notwithstanding. Whether 3e or 4e, rogues are designed to be strikers.

But I digress, I really don't want to get into a argument over what a rogue should or should not be. I'm just saying that tumble checks aren't the best way to do movements in combat, whether there is significant risk or not. And it's just more rolling, anyways. I really don't see much fun being lost by streamlining that, however you may want to define 'fun'.

It seems that 4D&D is being built on the premise of tactical combat being hardwired into the game especially the balance of class utility to a degree even greater than that of 3e. This is not good, in my opinion.

D&D was always and will ever be a tactical game, to some degree. But the direction they are going seems to be as much for dramatic flair as strategy, you can do cool things and they have a special mechanical effect, but it won't be like playing as some kind of a chess piece. I have some concerns of the functions of the classes being railroaded to some degree, but as long as there are a good breadth of options that won't be a problem.

I can see a valid complaint though for people who like to play more loosely, without counting squares and whatnot. But even then, if the '3 step shift' is as tactical as it gets then it's not much of a problem, it just becomes 'move past who I'm next to'. And if it doesn't provoke AoOs, then it becomes even better, since you aren't worried about exactly whose space is being crossed.

 

[Testament]

It has been said that work on 4E has been going on for 2 years. if you look back at the releases over those 2 years, it is readily apparent. It starts with Complete Arcane. This wasn't when the 4e work started, but when the seed was planted. WotC did something very different with Complete Arcane -- it created the Warlock, the first "at will" D&D caster. And as much as there has been and continues to be controversy over the class specifics, the concept must have taken hold. That was 2004. 2005 was likely spent thinking about how that one little change, that very "video game" change, has created such a stir and what to do about, and with that.

By 2006, a lot of those ideas were ready for production. Book of Nine Swords and Tome of Magic both provided experimental ideas intended to change the game, "feelers" for 4e, as it were. Some ideas stuck, others didn't. Player's Handbook II, althougha great book with a great number of cool ideas, was like an MMO supplement: more "at will" casters, an actual, honest to goodness D&D tank, "respec" quests -- the whole nine yards. Since, the second round of Complete books have pushed this playstyle and set of assumptions -- which are far from the original set of assumptions of the game -- more and more.

Now, some people don't think this is bad. In fact, they think it is good. That's great. But, it is a simple fact based upon all the evidence that WotC is both using the "video game" and "MMO" play model as a template for the future of D&D, and that in doing so they are sacrificing the former, successful-for-30-years model.

And yet you seem to be treating this as a priori bad. Just because something has persevered for 30 years does not make it automatically good. The success of such concepts as BO9S and the Warlock seems to indicate to me that players like the more dynamic options that make the 9-9:15 adventuring day NOT happen, that are able to do funky things every round and play more dynamically in combat, which, at the end of the day, is what D&D is about.

Just saying...and for the record, I started with 3rd Ed, so no, I don't have anywhere near the legacy that a lot of other users here have, and have more contempt than fondness for a great deal of D&D's 'sacred cows'. I play and love video games, especially WoW. And the examples I've given are ones that have really resonated and gained traction in my group.

 

[Barastrondo]

I vary how I portray certain races, but I've always liked the fey-type goblins and such. I've got a bunch of Froud books that I often pull off my shelf and flip through before pointing one out to my players.

I try to paint goblin miniatures with roughly the same color schemes, though I'm a little inconsistent about it (don't write down enough painting recipes, don't paint lots at a time).

Do you know if there's any plans over at the Wolf to fire up Sword and Sorcery again for 4th edition?

I probably couldn't say if I did at this point.

 

[Gloombunny]

Wait, adding an at-will spellcaster was a very videogame thing? Even though the vast majority of D&D-like video games use some kind of mana points system for their spellcasters?

 

[FadedC]

I actually seem to remember far more people accusing 3E of being "video gamey" then 4E. Many accused wizards of designing the 3E rules with the sole purpose of selling their future computer games. Of course there was no WOW at the time so nobody used that argument, but I last track of how many video game arguments I heard and how many times people would defend 3E against the video game claims.

Some things never change I guess

 

[WayneLigon]

Now, some people don't think this is bad. In fact, they think it is good. That's great. But, it is a simple fact based upon all the evidence that WotC is both using the "video game" and "MMO" play model as a template for the future of D&D, and that in doing so they are sacrificing the former, successful-for-30-years model.

I think you're seeing something that simply is not there. There is no fact to it, no evidence, no anything. You can wish and wish but the statement simply is not true and hasn't been true. People have been blowing that little tin horn for seven years now and it's gotten as old as 'D&D's spikey armor fashions killed my dog' threads, and 'D&D is way too anime'. None of those arguements hold an ounce of water and neither does this one.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I agree with the logic, but there should be some kind of roll or chance of failure. Making rolls is fun, because succeeding at something is fun. No roll = no chance of failure wich = boring.

Remember that article about the "martial power source": fighters are defined by their weapons, and rogues by their skills. It seems likely that this "manuever" (if that's what it is) basically allows the rogue to do some Xtreme Tumbling, which may very well involve a skill check.

 

[PeterWeller]

I think you're seeing something that simply is not there. There is no fact to it, no evidence, no anything. You can wish and wish but the statement simply is not true and hasn't been true. People have been blowing that little tin horn for seven years now and it's gotten as old as 'D&D's spikey armor fashions killed my dog' threads, and 'D&D is way too anime'. None of those arguements hold an ounce of water and neither does this one.

I don't think he's so much seeing something that isn't there as he is seeing something that is there and treating it as bad just because of what it is. There's nothing wrong with D&D learning from what is and isn't successful in the MMO model and applying that to D&D in some way, shape or form. The PnP community bashes MMOs for obvious faults, but often ignores where their strengths lie and how these strengths can improve the table top experience. Giving Fighters, Rogues and their ilk more abilities than just "I (sneak) attack" is one example of where 4E D&D has apparently absorbed and integrated lessons learned by MMO developers; evening out the power balance between different classes of like levels is another.

I think the problem many PnP gamers have (and I think this because it is the problem I have) with MMOs is that they can't provide the, in simplest terms, sense of impact that playing at the table can. Due to artificial limitations (because of the limitations of a computer game), you simply don't have the freedom of decision and action in an MMO or other CRPG that you have at the table. You can't interact with the NPCs and the environment in a MMO like in you can at the table because of the limitations of computing power. At the same time, you can't feel the sense of achievement in a MMO like you can at the table because of the scripted, pre-plotted nature of the story. You're, no matter how harrowing and exciting the experience was, just another guy who completed the same quest a thousand other players have completed before, and because you are in a shared world with these thousands of other players, it is imminently obvious that this is the situations (as opposed to an adventure module, where while you will have completed the same adventure many other players completed, you have, generally, completed it in isolation from those other players). Now, there's a handful of MMOs that have fulfilled this. EVE is a good example, SWG and UO in their primes are others. Still, these had other problems, from balance to grind to bugs that have crippled them and left them huddling at the edges of the market dominated by WoW. Which brings me to the following: MMOs, of which WoW is the most successful have realized that it is easier not to try and emulate the freedom of action and impact of action that a PnP game can provide, and instead focus on the secondary, but still very important facet of almost all PnP RPGs, combat. MMOs have focused on combat to the almost exclusion of all other facets of RPing. In doing so, they have provided a great deal of insight into what makes fun, balanced RPG combat. Now, while because of this, the very idea of playing an MMO, or letting D&D become more like an MMO can feel downright disgusting. After all, we play PnP games instead of MMOs because they allow that freedom and impact of action that CRPGs often sorely lack, but applying the lessons learned in combat and class balance from MMOs to PnP games is nothing but taking advantage of the work done by MMO developers just like they took advantage of the work done by PnP developers.

And again, I feel bad for ranting. I'm just feeling particularly verbose tonight.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Most feats that a fighter would have would be just as inflexible. Can I do anything other than reduce my to-hit roll and increase my damage with Power Attack? No. It's bound to a single use, and is just as inflexible as, say, rope trick.

So, why would taking some of those feats and turning them into maneuvers change their feel, when they're have the exact same flexibility as they did before (which is to say... none).

Reminds me of attack, defense and skill challenges in Iron Heroes. Some of them gave you an ability similar to a feat, but not as strong. Taking the feat was better, but you could always try.

The question is: Will there be more maneuvers that anyone can perform, or will more of them become feats and talents? Or will feats and talents improve your ability to perform a maneuver, or give you the ability to combine maneuvers?

And which of these solutions is actually better, from a game design view?