Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6178901" data-attributes="member: 2525">First, given your multi-quote, it's going to be impossible to really reply to everything you posted, as I have no idea which paragraph was addressed to me and which was addressed to someone else.&nbsp; So I will try and reply to the beginning, and if I miss something later that you want a response to, then let me know.OK, that said, adventurers don't &quot;expect&quot; you to do anything, and if they do, they're not good adventures.&nbsp; They should &quot;expect&quot; you to move through encounters - not tell you how the encounter had to be resolved with combat.I think any good encounter design doesn't have an &quot;expected&quot; anything.&nbsp; Otherwise, it wouldn't be role playing, just wargaming.&nbsp; Players doing unexpected things is pretty much a defining characteristic of it being a role playing game.&nbsp; If all you guys are doing with these adventures is going from room to room killing things, I suggest you might be missing out on some even more fun things you could be doing.Nothing was anticipated.&nbsp; They give you the stats, a single line for each creature, to help the DM deal with what the players do - not to tell the DM the players must engage in combat to resolve it.Where are you getting from these adventures any expectation of combat to begin with? Because that's the way your players have been resolving it?My belief that the rogue remains highly viable in combat even without backstab comes from current playtesting of the existing 5e rules.&nbsp; Our rogue hasn't been using sneak attack very often, and they are highly effective in combat with that rogue despite the lack of sneak attacking.&nbsp; I mentioned the TSR editions because those sorts of tactics are the ones this player has been using with 5e, to very good effect.&nbsp; Not that players &quot;compete&quot;, but to make that comparison, I'd say the rogue has been &quot;competitive&quot; in combat with the other classes.In my experience, this is not the case, and it's not required for the rogue &quot;keep up&quot; with the other classes in combat, for 5e.Something I refuted.The rogue has always been &quot;better&quot; at sneaking, hiding, traps, and targeting things from range, in all editions of the game.&nbsp; Being &quot;better&quot; at a set of skills than everyone else is &quot;exclusive&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 6178901, member: 2525"] First, given your multi-quote, it's going to be impossible to really reply to everything you posted, as I have no idea which paragraph was addressed to me and which was addressed to someone else. So I will try and reply to the beginning, and if I miss something later that you want a response to, then let me know. OK, that said, adventurers don't "expect" you to do anything, and if they do, they're not good adventures. They should "expect" you to move through encounters - not tell you how the encounter had to be resolved with combat. I think any good encounter design doesn't have an "expected" anything. Otherwise, it wouldn't be role playing, just wargaming. Players doing unexpected things is pretty much a defining characteristic of it being a role playing game. If all you guys are doing with these adventures is going from room to room killing things, I suggest you might be missing out on some even more fun things you could be doing. Nothing was anticipated. They give you the stats, a single line for each creature, to help the DM deal with what the players do - not to tell the DM the players must engage in combat to resolve it. Where are you getting from these adventures any expectation of combat to begin with? Because that's the way your players have been resolving it? My belief that the rogue remains highly viable in combat even without backstab comes from current playtesting of the existing 5e rules. Our rogue hasn't been using sneak attack very often, and they are highly effective in combat with that rogue despite the lack of sneak attacking. I mentioned the TSR editions because those sorts of tactics are the ones this player has been using with 5e, to very good effect. Not that players "compete", but to make that comparison, I'd say the rogue has been "competitive" in combat with the other classes. In my experience, this is not the case, and it's not required for the rogue "keep up" with the other classes in combat, for 5e. Something I refuted. The rogue has always been "better" at sneaking, hiding, traps, and targeting things from range, in all editions of the game. Being "better" at a set of skills than everyone else is "exclusive". [/QUOTE]

Verification