D&D 5E The Rogue: Are skills enough?

[Ultimatecalibur]

I think that the Rogue needs maneuvers like Jab and Snap Shot to allow them to participate in combat while doing other things and also maneuvers that let them make multiple skill check rolls per round (i.e. pick multiple locks per round or make multiple checks to disarm a complex trap).

 

[Pour]

I'm going to say there is no huge difference between Fighters and Rogues to begin with beyond a couple of build choices to facilitate a certain play style and character type. It's mostly what we bring to the table that divides them, but I find it so marginal I think the Rogue and Fighter classes should be combined, and their union be the exclusive holders of Expertise Dice- perhaps allowing for a third Warlord type to offer non-magical recoveries/buffs. This singular melee class would remove a lot of complexity, fiddliness, balance issues, role identity crises, and fan uncertainty, and also take pressure off healers and the supposed necessity of the cleric (freeing him to be something cooler, anyway). I rather a lot of people have the freedom to tailor their own versions of the three archetypes.

 

[pemerton]

I don't want the Rogue to be as hard to hit as the Fighter - not as a default atleast. In other words don't let light armor give as good AC as light armor.

Adding to this - d8 hp! It's ridiculous (in a B/X kind of way) to have rogues on the same HD as wizards.

 

[pemerton]

Do we want skill use to be considered important enough to be a factor in combat power....or should we return to combat specific abilities as the primary drive for such?

On other threads I've suggested that the rogue should be using skills to help in combat.

But there is a bit of a problem for that, namely, the lack of adjudication guidelines.

How many rounds should it take for the rogue to use Engineering to pull down the pillars? And when the roof caves in, how much damage do the monsters in the room take?

At the moment, the game seems to assume that the GM will adjudicate this based on his/her knowledge of real-world building collapses. I think if the game had page 42-style guidelines, and the rogue player knew how these worked, then we could see more skill-use in combat that was meaningful and effective - the condition list could be used, for instance - without being broken, or being merely an alternative source of mathematical bonuses. Functionally, it would be skills used in the style of "clever uses of magic".

GMs would also need encounter-building advice to help them set up situations in which the rogue can do interesting stuff.

 

[Li Shenron]

But the rogue does have a unique ability all of its own, its skill bonus maneuver. Presentation wise, its a little hidden, its not put on the class sheet in bold letters like sneak attack once was....but yet it is an ability unique to rogue, at least this far.

...

So what do we want as a community? Do we want skill use to be considered important enough to be a factor in combat power....or should we return to combat specific abilities as the primary drive for such?

I think generally those skill maneuvers and saving throws boosts are nice and interesting.

The whole thing falls shorts because it is based on a mechanic (Fighter's expertise dice) which is solid and GREAT when entirely focused on combat actions, some of which may require some trigger (thus are situationals) but their numerica effects are still pretty much comparable.

That's not true when the same mechanic is applied to a series of Rogue's abilities that are partly for the combat pillar and partly for the exploration pillar. Numbers don't compare anymore. You just can't have the same expertise dice for saving throw / skill bonuses and sneak attack, or either the first will be too large or the second will be too low.

Furthermore, ED works wonderfully for the Fighter because even if some maneuvers are situational, you can always fall back to Deadly Strike and thus you'll always have the ED benefit once per round. But if at least one situation occurs, you have a choice.

Some Rogue maneuvers for skills may not give you a choice: if you have it, you'll apply it for each and every skill check, and this might be too much at high levels (so long for bounded accuracy on skill checks).

At the other end of the ED spectrum, Sneak Attack is now totally worthless and tasteless. They are forced to lower the requirements to make it useful nearly all the time (tasteless, this is why it tastes like a lesser Deadly Strike).

I am just afraid that Sneak Attack cannot fit at all into the current ED mechanic together with totally different and non-comparable stuff. And they added ED to the Rogue specifically to make Sneak Attack optional!! If this is the result, I prefer SA not to be opt-out-able at all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In a lot of ways... I wish WotC would integrate their combat mechanics system and their skills system together into one single system. That way making attacks and making checks occur the same way, both have balanced modifiers you add in based on Ability Modifier, training/proficiency, magic etc. etc. so that during combat you can swing a sword *or* make a STR check to Intimidate the enemy and they both work and the numbers involved are both balanced, and they both have concrete results when you do so. That way... instead of needing to create a maneuver using "Expertise dice" for Tumbling Dodge for example... you can just have them make DEX check to Tumbling Dodge instead.

A large number of maneuvers that are triggered using Expertise Dice could be replaced by just having PCs make ability checks... so long as they balanced both systems equally.

 

[pemerton]

I wish WotC would integrate their combat mechanics system and their skills system together into one single system. That way making attacks and making checks occur the same way, both have balanced modifiers you add in based on Ability Modifier, training/proficiency, magic etc. etc. so that during combat you can swing a sword *or* make a STR check to Intimidate the enemy and they both work and the numbers involved are both balanced, and they both have concrete results when you do so.

Completely agreed. The lack of this in 4e is very irrirating.

And flat maths should make it pretty easy to achieve.