Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6178896" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I do not see, nor have I seen, a single scenario expecting the vast majority of challenges to be resolved without combat activity. That doesn't mean I can't defeat the Caves of Chaos by hiding an unstoppered decanter of endless water at the top of the canyon and waiting for all the opposition that would ever come out and threaten the Keep to be drowned. It does mean that is neither a common approach nor the expected approach of the designers or the adventure authors.I'm assuming we're back to the old G Series, which in addition to "a long time ago" (assuming the reference is not to a later rewrite/sequel for another edition) is not the experience most gamers describe nor, I expect, the one anticipated given the array of combat statistics provided in the scenario. Again, when a best-selling series of adventures is designed to be largely resolved by non-combat means, with combat being a negligible and ancillary aspect of the adventure, I will see the potential for a character lacking combat options entirely. Note that I am similarly opposed to allowing any class to trade away its special abilities used out of combat.  I'm opposed to hyperspecialization in either form, so it's not 100% combat either, however this thread includes a component of "should the rogue be able to trade away his major special combat ability for greater noncombat competence?"I started playing in **God I feel old - second time this week I've had to think about this on the Boards** 1980 in high school.  Lots of leisure time then.  Played RPG's Friday evening and all day Saturday (the latter meaning "from just after lunch, often driving home as the sun rose" for several years after university.  With age and other responsibilities, my group is down to a 3-4 hour evening session every couple of weeks or so.  So I'd say the vast majority of my gaming precedes WOTC involvement, and certainly predates 3rd Ed (by which time we were probably down to an average of one game session a week, half in the 3-5 hour range and half in the 6 - 10 hour range).  And we took a few years before we even tried 3e after its Y2K release, by which time we were gaming less than that.So I'd say I've played extended D&D games long before WOTC came along, much less bought TSR or published 3e.  Not that I'm sure why 33 years of backstory is overly relevant to a thread on what the new edition should hold.That said, I was not part of the ilk that considered the game was made "better" by claims that Magic Missile could specifically target each of an opponent's eyes, unfailing blinding the target, or that Create Water might be cast to appear filling the target's lungs, or that a Wall of Force might be cast on a plane such that anything contacting it would be sliced in half.  To many back in that time, this was considered the height of "gaming creatively".Enough people have addressed the extent to which Sneak Attack contributes to the Rogue's ability to contribute in combat. Perhaps the difference in perception relates to too much OD&D/BECMI (or just Basic)/AD&D 1st/2nd Ed, back in the day when the Fighter would contribute 1 to 2 attacks, doing 1d8 + 3 to +6, the spellcasters husbanded their spells rather than casting every round because they didn't have cantrips, bonus spells, etc. and the rogue's 1d8 Longsword or 1d6 arrows were meaningful, even to that 88 hp Huge Ancient Red Dragon, and Backstabs were rare opportunities.  Both PC classes and opponent power have grown markedly in the intervening years.  To return the Rogue to his 1e/2e level of combat prowess while leaving all else at a level commensurate with 3rd or 4th Ed would leave the Rogue sadly behind his teammates.  The state of the Sneak Attack ability implies this is not the direction in which Next is heading.And there's another clear statement of how the Rogue's combat ability is largely linked to Sneak Attack.It isn't? I thought the main differentiator between high and low levels was trending to how many hp you have, and how much you can take away.  Please cite a designer comment refuting that.As indicated elsewhere, these are largely things the rogue is no better at than anyone else, by default.  They are things the rogue did in prior editions because, while anyone could do them, everyone else had equal or better things to do in combat, or they required the ability to Hide, be Stealthy or Climb, which is no longer exclusive to rogues, has not been for several editions and is, to some, not believed ever to have been the intent.To "wealthier", the focus on wealth was a problem with "thieves", which is a key reason they became "rogues" in second edition.  Give them different choices of combat powers, sure. I vote for that, not "they are all sneak attackers".  But not a structure where rogues can do what anyone else can do if they don't use their own special abilities, and not a structure where rogues only get to do anything impressive if they have extended periods to prepare in advance, or get a lucky break and get to use an ability that has not come up in weeks because it is overly situational.So how often should rogues, and any other characters, be able to retrain, and how much can they change at each such increment?  As it stands, I don't believe there is any indication a rogue could ever reverse the trade-away of his sneak attack, so I am assuming the default, non-modularized rules will not provide for this at all, much less quickly. A module allowing retraining would fit nicely with one allowing greater specialization.I don't believe you are responding to my actual comparison, hence your disagreement with my framing. IOW, I disagree with how you are framing my comparison.The 1 minute wizard is a comparison to a rogue who trades away sneak attack for non-combat abilities.  I oppose that. All rogues should have  combat abilities beyond "stab it with one of my simple/light weapons".A rogue with flash grenades or social skills usable in combat has selected from a group of combat abilities of equivalent power, across the levels, of sneak attack. I support that over "all rogues have sneak attack".If the answer is that sneak attack is overpowered, and that group of combat abilities the rogue may choose from should not include it, or include a less powerful form, we're no longer discussing whether Sneak Attack is mandatory, but whether it is balanced with the combat abilities of other classes.  My contention is the Rogue should have combat abilities that allow him to contribute consistently with other classes in combat. He should neither overshadow other classes (especially any class with less noncombat punch) nor should he be overshadowed by them (same caveat). All classes should have some ability in combat and out, so no one is wholly overshadowed in either.Precisely!</blockquote>

Verification