bedir than
Hero
My speculation is that the pdf's url is going to be "the big one"
Speculation on the next UA in April
- Thread starter Henadic Theologian
- Start date
For me, it's more of a case that there are different classic rogue archetypes that should all be equally playable and therefore equally common. If dual wielding has no opportunity cost, will there ever be any circumstance in which a player would not play a dual wielding rogue? Any other archetypes could be dead in the water.
Most people can't disengage after attacking once, let alone twice, although swashbuckler rogues or those with the mobile feat could still do both I suppose. If you mix too many colours together though, you just end up with everything being brown.
FitzTheRuke
Legend
I... really don't see that being the case here, but I get your concern. It would help if they could wield two handed weapons (oh no! so broken! /s) or had something else to do with an empty off-hand (filch?).
Honestly, if there's anything threatening your 'other archetypes', I think you'll find it's lack of support for THEM, not a tiny boost to dual-wielding.
As someone who has been playing for 30+ years, I think this edition does a great job of representing many different 'classic' types of rogue. While I agree that you could give added support to other archetypes, I'm not sure what form that could or should take. I don't see people complaining about the rogue in general - it's one of the more popular classes and great fun to play. Similarly, I have seen plenty of dual-wielding rogues, even at the cost of the bonus action, which suggests to me that the cost does not always outweigh the benefit. It's more a case that dual-wielding rogue players would rather avoid the cost. The death of the single dagger sneaky rogue would be a shame.
On the other hand, fighters don't seem to benefit that much from dual wielding. If they can widen the gap and the various pros and cons for the basic combat styles for fighters, I think there would be more mileage in that than giving rogues a boost.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
My friend ran a post-apocalypse Marvel game for me in 3e for my birthday. We met a memory scrambled Wolverine, and I was carrying a heavily painted-over Captain America shield. It was great.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I’ve no problem with advanced fighting styles, but I think it’s place to be careful.
Agreed. Giving rogues a benefit to having a free hand vs dual wielding vs using a bow would really open the class up for the people who can’t help but try to win character creation.
WanderingMystic
Adventurer
I don't care if my rogue can dual weild but if the ranger doesn't get that ability then I will be more than a little upset.
FitzTheRuke
Legend
I honestly don't care if the Rogue can dual-wield either. I just think that the mechanics for dual-wielding is unnecessarily fussy and I find the current OneD&D version to be more elegant.
Myself, I've only talked about the Rogue here because I don't think it's a big deal to let them have it. But you're right: The Ranger practically needs it. (Though I suppose it would be easy enough to throw the Weapon Mastery version onto the Ranger the same way that they get Fighting Style Feats.)
OldSchoolGamerGirl
Adventurer
this is what I mean, most rogues are using short swords or knife as concept, so there is no cost to just adding a second one. RIght now somewhere around half maybe a little less then half the rouges I see wield two weapons, and when they do they have to choose how to spend that bonus action. If this goes through I expext 90% or more of rouges to fight with 2 light weapons.
Last night it was brought up that my bestie played an armor artificer with the two weapon feat and was tripple thunder punching and by the new rule that would allow them to do this AND cast a bonus action spell or use bonus action to give themselves temp HP. That is aa big buff we had not even thought of until now.
edit to add she was using bonus action to make an extra attack before she got the feat, but I forgot it was fighting style: two weapon is the exact name... I forgot there was another feat CALLLED two weapon fighting
WanderingMystic
Adventurer
Well it looks like the monk is not ready yet and will not be in this is. This is probably why it is a little late
FitzTheRuke
Legend
Yup. Looks like they pulled the Monk. I wonder what they're doing to it...
WanderingMystic
Adventurer
They said that they do an internal playtest of the material and don't make it public until they feel like it is ready. So I am assuming that those playtesting the monk were not happy with how it performed compared to the barbarian and fighter.
FitzTheRuke
Legend
Yeah, maybe.
I discovered with the D&DNext Playtest, that though they always treat each UA as if it's the way things will be for that class/whatever going forward, sometimes they have already moved on to another iteration internally.
Perhaps a new design for the monk was so fundamentally different than the one that was going to be in this UA, that there was no point in including it for feedback. They'll "have to" (obviously they don't have to anything, really) give us a monk in the next UA, though, or there will be riots.
the Jester
Legend
I think it's a real shame that they put metamagic in the sorcerer instead of having more robust upcasting mechanics. I'd rather see upcasting expanded to swallow up metamagic and sorcerers given more specific, subclass-derived ways to modify their spells, so a spider sorcerer could make their magic missile (or other spells) entangle an enemy for a round or something.
WanderingMystic
Adventurer
From the sounds of it at least with this ua they are trying not to do that. Now I know that after the first few days the olaytests drops they sometimes have already decided to scrap or changes so mething just based on how loud the public outcry is long before the official feedback is happening. I also know that they have multiple concepts that they sometimes will playtest separately because they don't know which rules variant they want
LuisCarlos17f
Legend
I was right about it was going to be "fat pack". Tomorrow.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
My guess is that the Monk is going to be making some controversial changes in regards to de-Orientalizing it (which they have indicated that they are doing), that they may want to focus on without confusing feedback with half the Classes in the game.
the Jester
Legend
During a series of games set during a magical apocalypse, I had my group run into the Hulk.
This is the Way.
Neonchameleon
Legend
There's only one place where I disagree with you. I think they have dumped the Bloodline, other than for the dragon blooded and Bloodlines are a Pathfinder thing. I mean the three most recent sorcerer subclasses are the Aberrant Mind, the Clockwork Soul, and the Lunar - and although they mention bloodlines as a possibility they explicitly mention other possibilities.
An alien influence has wrapped its tendrils around your mind, giving you psionic power. You can now touch other minds with that power and alter the world around you by using it to control the magical energy of the multiverse.
The cosmic force of order has suffused you with magic. That power arises from Mechanus or a realm like it-a plane of existence shaped entirely by clockwork efficiency. You, or someone from your lineage, might have become entangled in the machinations of the modrons, the orderly beings who inhabit Mechanus.
You or someone from your lineage has been exposed to the concentrated magic of the moon (or moons) of your world, imbuing you with lunar magic. Perhaps your ancestor was involved in a druidic ritual involving an eclipse, or maybe a mystical fragment of a moon crashed near you.
Similar Threads
