Scott Rouse blog - Rogue ability

[mmu1]

I think the 15' foot move is potentially an important part of their defined class roles. Previously a big problem that rogues had was that they would run up to the enemy, do a bunch of damage and then have to pray that the enemy did not turn around and tear them into meaty chunks because they had little defence and low hit points.

Now with the rogue designed to be a striker and the fighter as a defender, the rogue has a way to attack while still having the defender be the only one in melee range to the enemy. Thus their class rolls are maintained.

It's funny you should say that, considering that Scott Rouse specifically mentions how he got behind the Hobgoblins, they all moved in to surround and pound on him, but through luck, he only took 7hp of damage and was able to use that "cool attack" the following round to get out of there.

And I really, really hope that - all the talk about "clearly defined roles" aside - they have the presence of mind to make the Defender something other than a class whose main ability is "you get the crap beat out of you so others, who do more damage, can stab the enemies at their leisure". Ideally, defenders will actually have ways of protecting their friends by hurting enemies that try to attack the party, rather than simply by being damage sponges while everyone else gets the glory.

I don't know which MMORPG designer had the brain-fart that made him go "Hey, I know what'll make for a great class! A character that's all about taking damage! We'll call it "the Warrior", beacuse "the Gimp" is already taken!" but that (and the fact a lot of people actually got so used to it they think it's ok, the result of some inevitable natural law - "For every DPS, there has to be a sucker to soak it up", or something) is probably the single worst thing those games have to answer for.

 

[The Little Raven]

That's actually pretty close to how I'll run hobgoblins, weirdly enough. I'm the weird guy out who doesn't use hobgoblins in their militaristic fashion that is so popular, but rather uses all the goblinoids as more classically fey-type goblins. Froud and Diterlizzi-type stuff.

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.

Thanks very much!

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

 

[Dave Turner]

Well duh, of course I read the rest of the sentence.

Including the conjugation 'and'.

It doesn't have to imply that what comes after the 'and' is directly a result of what comes before it. It might do, but equally it might not.

Quoting the whole sentence "I was then able to use a cool attack that gives me a 3 step shift and got back behind our two tanks." I think that the most sensible reading of this could be phrased:
"I was then able to use a cool attack that gives me a 3 step shift"
"and got back behind our two tanks" (e.g. by taking a move action?)

"3 step shift" seems like an unlikely, clumsy, description of movement; as a result I think it is more likely to be referring to something else.

Cheers

Using strict rules of logic, Plane, I'm with you. If you were a lawyer, you'd be approaching this the right way. Put away the ban-stick, that's a compliment from me!

However, it's reasonable to step away from the strict logical meaning of "and" as a conjunction and consider common (sloppy?) usage of "and." In casual conversation, which blog posts often are and this one appears to be, people often do use "and" to indicate a relationship between the first and second premises in the conjunction. I appreciate your attention to logical detail, but I'm with those who suggest that the two premises are related.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

And I really, really hope that - all the talk about "clearly defined roles" aside - they have the presence of mind to make the Defender something other than a class whose main ability is "you get the crap beat out of you so others, who do more damage, can stab the enemies at their leisure". Ideally, defenders will actually have ways of protecting their friends by hurting enemies that try to attack the party, rather than simply by being damage sponges while everyone else gets the glory.

I don't know which MMORPG designer had the brain-fart that made him go "Hey, I know what'll make for a great class! A character that's all about taking damage! We'll call it "the Warrior", beacuse "the Gimp" is already taken!" but that (and the fact a lot of people actually got so used to it they think it's ok, the result of some inevitable natural law - "For every DPS, there has to be a sucker to soak it up", or something) is probably the single worst thing those games have to answer for.

I get the impression that the fighter will be split between:
1. soaking damage
2. dealing damage
3. using effects like trip, stand still (XPH), knockback, and other effects that control how other characters are allowed to move.

Standing next to a fighter should just suck in every possible way. You can't hurt him, he can really hurt you, and he won't let you move away from him. The best way to deal with a fighter should be to use controller effects to hamper him, and then run around him to get at the tender, chewy party members behind him.

 

[Grog]

I don't know which MMORPG designer had the brain-fart that made him go "Hey, I know what'll make for a great class! A character that's all about taking damage! We'll call it "the Warrior", beacuse "the Gimp" is already taken!" but that (and the fact a lot of people actually got so used to it they think it's ok, the result of some inevitable natural law - "For every DPS, there has to be a sucker to soak it up", or something) is probably the single worst thing those games have to answer for.

I can agree with this to a certain extent, but taking damage so that weaker characters don't have to has always been one of the fighter's main roles, in every edition of D&D.

 

[The Little Raven]

I can agree with this to a certain extent, but taking damage so that weaker characters don't have to has always been one of the fighter's main roles, in every edition of D&D.

Which is why the fighter has a d10 for his hit points. He is supposed to be taking damage, while the wizard is not.

 

[mmu1]

I can agree with this to a certain extent, but taking damage so that weaker characters don't have to has always been one of the fighter's main roles, in every edition of D&D.

It's all a matter of degree, and balance. There's a big difference between being the one who faces the most dangerous enemies because you're the toughest and can hit real hard, and being a damage magnet whose ability to dish out damage is completely secondary.

 

[med stud]

It's all a matter of degree, and balance. There's a big difference between being the one who faces the most dangerous enemies because you're the toughest and can hit real hard, and being a damage magnet whose ability to dish out damage is completely secondary.

I think defenders will be as good at damage as in 3.5. I think the main difference between a striker and a defender will be more about maneuverability and/or range than damage output.
For example, a striker like a monk or a rogue has the speed to reach the mage of your opponents and has the ability to get away if things heat up. For compensation, the defender gets hit points, AC and ability to withstand much more damage than the striker. A striker like an archer can use her weapon to deal damage at range instead of getting there in person.

As a summary, here is what I think about striker vs defender:

-Their damage output is about the same.

-The defender has more HP, AC and stuff like that.

-The striker in turn gets a bigger "action radius" and greater maneuverability. The rogue ability described by Scott seems to tie into that.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Using strict rules of logic, Plane, I'm with you. If you were a lawyer, you'd be approaching this the right way. Put away the ban-stick, that's a compliment from me!

Hey, I'll take compliments in any form!

I'll be very interested to see what Scott's statement means when we see the final context, and I don't have any axe to grind on the subject. I feel that despite the number of things that have been revealed so far, there are some major elements that have only been hinted at, and which we just don't have any handle on yet - and martial 'powers' - especially of the per encounter and per day form - are one of the big black boxes at the moment.

Cheers

 

[Scott_Rouse]

Dear Scott:

Please stop talking in WoWisms.

Thanks.

Would you prefer 1st grade reading style instead?

The rogue attacked the hobgoblins.

The hobgoblins were hurt.

The hobgoblins friends were angry.

The angry hobgoblins ran to help their friends.

The angry hobgoblins hurt the rogue.

The rogue was worried.

He didn't like being hurt.

The rogue's big, strong friends came to help.

Some hobgoblins died.

The rogue ran away.