Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6184080" data-attributes="member: 42582">This isn't an edict from on high. It's a deliberate design choice. And without any particular basis in the genre - Conan and Batman, for instance, are both clearly able to adjust their features to fit the setting!But it doesn't have to be damage. Nor single-target debuff. The controller in my 4e game (an invoker/wizard) does pathetic damage but does multi-target debuff (daze, blind) and area control via zones. Given that, in the real world, the ability to deceive, ambush and manipulate can make a real difference in small group combat, shouldn't it be all the moreso in a genre-emulating fantasy RPG with larger-than-life roguish PCs? I'm not offering mechanics - that's the designers' job (though there are examples from other RPGs that they could look at, from the old Tactics skill in Traveller to linked tests to augment combat in Burning Wheel to descriptor-based conflict resolution in HeroWars/Quest). But surely it's not beyond the scope of D&D to address this issue.Obviously in a combat-heavy campaign an assassin is probably better than a con-artist. But who says all campaigns have to be combat heavy? I thought D&Dnext was meant to support action across the 3 tiers, and without the sort of build-and-resolution quaranting that is characteristic of 4e.What happens if those same players build illusionist wizards? Or 20th level knights, and then can't think of anything to do with their followers? Or, in 4e, specialised ritual casters? It's enough that the game points out that certain options are more demanding on players than others. 4e does a poor job of this - as best I recall, its PHB doesn't really tell new players that they're better off with an archer ranger than a warlock or wizard - but 13th Age shows how a rulebook can tackle this issue without being condescending.Also, how do we know that damage-dealing combat is a significant portion of the game?Last time I started an AD&D campaign as GM (25 years ago now) both players built multi-classed thieves (dwarven F/T, gnomish I/T). At 6th level they both transitioned to thief-acrobats. And they used those abilities to advantage in combat - mobility, surprise, escape (by running/jumping across rooftops), etc. The mechanics for resolving all this in AD&D were pretty underdeveloped and a bit GM-fiat-y, but as I mentioned above there are a lot of good examples that could now be drawn on.My default thief would play like an AD&D F/T - more fragile in both hp and AC, marginally weaker in to-hit (because 1 level lower) and damage (because of the STR/DEX trade offs), but compensating for both with abilities that mitigate damage taken (via stealth, evasion, deception etc) and allow spike damage (via ambush, surprise etc). The current packet, in my view, makes the rogue too fragile (in hp terms) and too reliant on sneak attack for damage (no multi-attack) and provides too little support for sneaky things being the underpinning of combat efficacy.</blockquote>

Verification