Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6178952" data-attributes="member: 6681948">It seems somewhat splitting hairs to say that fighters/clerics are impaired from sneaking or climbing because they have heavy armor but not that they can be just as effective at sneaking and climbing (within the bounds of DEX and STR respectively) if they have non-heavy armor.  Can the rogue not choose to wear heavier armor at the cost of any resulting impediments to climb and sneak? I believe they can. Just as the Fighter or Cleric can choose lighter armor to enhance their ability to climb and sneak.Further, I expect the rogue to be able to routinely contribute in combat.  Being able to contribute when he chooses the time and place so he has lots of time to sneak in, locate and climb to a good vantage point and throw oil down is not “routine”.If it were, the fighter would also have time to creep in, and climb up – the extra time he would need is not the difference between combat time and non-combat time.  Or is it the other characters’ role to bring the battle back to where the rogue skulks so he might be permitted to have an impact on the combat?  I’m typically focused on how my melee character can help the rogue flank, but not to the level I will lure the enemy a few hundred feet back to the rogue’s agreed hidey hole.I also note the role of STR on climbing, which (if we use 3e armor check penalties) seems likely to equalize that armored warrior and dextrous rogue in that field. Can we now sneak in the midst of melee, already observed? If not, then while I might agree a Hide in Plain Sight type ability might replace, in whole or in part, Sneak Attack, I do not believe simple stealth skills do.They can take proficiency in the bow and everyone can hide and climb.  Plus they have  spells.  Have most characters lost the Crossbow?  Has the bow become a head and shoulders superior weapon?Decoys tend not to sneak.  If they can’t see you, they don’t follow you.In 1e and 2e, it was widely considered no other class could climb or sneak.  3e eliminated that.  Trap finding remains an out of combat rogue specialty, but other classes encroach there as well.  I don’t see a rogue with a shortbow and rapier (and no other combat abilities) as equal to a fighter with a longbow and longsword (with no other combat abilities).  The rogue is clearly not markedly superior. And the fighter gets a bunch of other combat abilities.  As such, I believe the rogue needs some combat abilities so he can contribute in combat, reasonably though perhaps not as his forte. Whether every character type should be viable in combat is a separate question, so let’s leave that for now.  This question is whether, without sneak attack and without a combat-viable replacement ability, rogues are able to contribute reasonably in combat.  I say they are not, given the array of combat abilities the other classes possess.I agree that, in 1e and 2e, the rogue (or thief) was perceived as unique in the ability to climb and be stealthy, and backstab was very situational and rarely used, so a minor ability.  In 3e, and all subsequent versions, climbing and stealth were opened to all classes, so that uniqueness was lost.  The sneak attack was a much enhanced version of backstab which the rogue gained.  Even in 1e/2e, the rogue/thief wasn’t much of a combatant, and we saw a lot of grudging “well, we need one” characters, often wizard or warrior multiclasses.We are not discussing removal of backstab for some enhancement in social skills in 1e. We are discussing it in Next. I believe Next has little in common with 1e as far as social, climbing or stealth mechanics and rules go, nor are backstab and sneak attack very similar.  With that in mind, and assuming Next is not returning wizards, clerics and fighters to their 1e limits and mechanics, I suggest the rogue should also evolve, not revert to his 1e abilities.OK, now we are talking about whether all characters should be expected to be viable in combat, or whether it is a small enough aspect of the game that some characters who just aren’t useful in combat should be allowed/encouraged.At the very outset, an adventure assumes you will follow a hook and join, not walk away from, the adventure. While a good adventure can accommodate many different approaches, they all have limits.  I also think that is the default expectation of the game, and we are talking about default rules, not specialized modular add-ons.I think buying a sword or getting a room at the inn are encounters, and I don’t expect the players to decide to slaughter the townsfolk rather than pay for these services, so there is some level of expectation.If there is no expected anything, how can there be unexpected things?1e provided precisely nothing towards resolving such encounters with negotiation.  We rarely had more than an inkling of the enemy’s goals, objectives, motivations or personalities.  Many could not rationally be expected to be communicated with.  Sure, we had encounters where Mama Bear was calmed with a Speak with Animals spell and a night spent digging up truffles, but that was the (memorable and enjoyable but) exceptional encounter, not the standard.Combat stat blocks and tactics occupy far more of every adventure I’ve ever seen than negotiation and interaction notes, especially if we focus only on those entities who are opposed to, rather than allied with, seeking aid from, or providing commercial services to, the PC’s.  The length of the combat rules is a pretty fair clue as well.Other games like Heroquest (Burning Wheel, I think – pemerton?) provide a much more balanced challenge resolution rules set that, I think, is far less focused on assuming combat. So does Call of Cthulhu (early editions, anyway), now that I think of it.OK, that’s one playtester with this view, and you are more qualified than I to assess that, as I have not been a playtester.  But this is not what I’m hearing from others who appear to have been much more involved in Next than I am. If 9 of them say it’s needed, and you say it’s not, I can only conclude it is needed in a significant majority of playstyles.By the way, we’re back to “does the rogue need sneak attack to have a reasonable level of combat ability”.No, actually, he  has not.  Rangers are quite stealthy in 3e up, and I believe the same can be said of some other classes.  Anyone with a good DEX is good at ranged attacks, and I’ll put a mid-level Archer fighter or ranger up against a Rogue (especially one with no sneak attack) any time.  Even in 1e, a mid-level fighter’s THAC0 advantage and longbow didn’t take that long to surpass the rogue’s DEX bonus.Moving from any sort of rogue ability discussion, if I read this correctly, Next is moving us from defined bonuses/penalties to “hey just wing it”. So you may decide Chain Mail means -10 to Sneak or Climb, with no penalty for leather, and ThirdWizard may decide it’s -3 while leather is -2. I don’t want character viability to be a whim of the GM. I want it to be a product of the rules.Using a bow is a quality of having a bow, isn’t it? And heavy armor a quality of the armor, not the wearer?Silence spells level that field a lot, though.OK, to me, this is a great ability of the rogue.  But it is a noncombat skill.  How does he use it in combat to get a reliable, consistent benefit?I’ve seen a number of comments on Next’s bounded math that indicate (or just SAY) the differentiator between higher and lower power in combat in Next is hit points (possessed and inflicted), so again, I think you are the odd man out on that issue.Agreed.  It’s about as likely as, say, routinely being able to sneak around the combat location and set up a position in advance from which to ambush.Just as a character with a Sneak roll of -3 is able to Sneak, but the character with a +23 is BETTER equates, in most of our eyes, to the former character really being unable to sneak, the ability to do damage must be consistent (bounded accuracy says it is) and meaningful (therein lies the question) to be relevant.  Compared to other characters, and to their typical opponents, how meaningful is short bow or rapier damage inflicted by the thief (damage per attack and number of attacks), who I assume is at or below (not above) Fighter consistency (to hit rolls) when compared to a Fighter (with all his combat bennies), a cleric or a wizard (both with spells).I’d expect him to have meaningful damage compared to F (who has better defense but less noncombat), W (who has noncombat spells but is squishy) and in the range of C (who also has decent noncombat abilities and better defenses).  Without Sneak Attack, does he meet that test? I’d welcome input from as many playtesters who care to comment. Agreed. That guides my vision that every class should have an array of combat and non-combat abilities to choose from, but should not be able to focus on one area of the game to the exclusion of one or more others (including trading away combat abilities so they are not contributing there to be hyperspecialists who make others feel they cannot contribute in that noncombat area).With no spells, I find F and R the best to compare.  I think your comments above are dead on.  That doesn’t mean “all rogues should have Sneak Attack”.  It means there should be an array of abilities (combat tricks) for them to choose from – but they don’t get to trade them in for more non-combat abilities.</blockquote>

Verification