Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7598149" data-attributes="member: 12731">I'm entirely up for another DPS King class. As long as that class doesn't do all the things the Rogue does in combat, and then gets a shitload of magical toys, while the Rogue only gets thievery.Take 5E for example: the Warlock and Sorcerer can dish out frightening amounts of DPS - they're blasters. The Rogue certainly doesn't best them. Then they get to penetrate magical darkness or turn invisible. It just doesn't come close to my ideal.If a class is to share the top DPS tier with the martial melee striker, it better not get any cool stuff cooler than mundane lockpinging and trapdetection, and it better operate under the same restrictions as the martial melee striker - that is, not be able to what the Rogue does but from 150 feet away and with force damage that nobody is resisting, and potentially push away the monster with such strength it actually never comes closer to the warlock. The Rogue-hose is strong here, folks!Since you love to talk about 4E, tell you what. I loved the 4E fighter. Give me some of that in an otherwise AD&Dian game like d20 or Pathfinder! Those things you speak of remain weak-sauce in comparison. Not to mention how cluttery and complex it got for its modest benefits.  Not sure what you're talking about. I want the complete opposite of merged classes. I hate D&D-like games with "generic" classes (Strong, Quick, Smart and so on *blech*). Let me emphatically make it clear I see Fighters and Rogues as extremely vital class concepts that definitely should remain separate. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I just think Blizzard was onto something when they broke the classic idea that "fighters are obviously best at fighting, both at dishing out damage and preventing others from damaging them".I just don't see "fights in the open" and "fights in the shadows" as nearly enough of a differentiator, in the context of a game where everybody in the party fights together. I am sick and tired of D&D's take on Rogues: "you should be happy you deal the same damage as the non-tricked out fighter if all your sneak damage goes through. After all, you gain pickpocketing and stuff. Sure, the Wizard can just Hold Person and then rifle through his pockets at his pleasure. But you can do that stuff all day long, even though the game is never interested in more than a few dozen combat rounds each day at the very most. But hey, you get bonuses when you sneak off by yourself, even though that goes directly against what the game is all about."In short, the Rogue is one of the foremost casualties between background atmospheric abilities and stark gameplay reality, and I would like it changed, please. Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Nobody thinks it is any fun to force Wizards to trudge on without any spell slots, so don't pretend that's something good to balance the game around.In short: the ability of Rogues to keep dealing their DPS all day long is worth diddly squat.If the game was balanced around 12 core combat rounds between long rests, that would be huge step forward in matching theory with practice. (By "core" I mean that any given day might feature more combat of the filler sort. Who performs well and less well under those circumstances is of little importance.)Anything less is equal to telling the Rogue: you don't get any Nova abilities so you contribute the least when it really matters. But hey, you get to do comparatively well when the others decide their efforts aren't really needed.This is what I mean by my example, to add a rule that lets the 5E Rogue multiply melee sneak damage by 1d6. Yes, it's drastic. It's meant that way - as a wake-up call.  Yes, the Rogue gets to shine when it matters, if she's prepared to risk her ass. But equally important: that the Rogue shines when it doesn't matter is not important. The lesson here is that nobody cares what happens when things doesn't matter.Okay?Thanks for the history lesson, I guess. That's not relevant to D&D today, though.Hmm. I guess the most direct way to answer this is with: Don't use out of combat abilities to balance combat abilities.Good design treats lockpicking and whatnot as ribbon abilities when balancing combat prowess. (The corollary is also true: good design treats great combat ability as mere ribbons when it comes to out-of combat abilities)Does that mean Fighters will then be considered a sub-par class? Yes, that feels logical. Does that then mean Fighters should gain a load of out of combat abilities, in exactly the same way a load of vocal forumists want?Well, I for one don't care. I am personally entirely fine with the idea that you choose to a play a Fighter if you foresee a lot of fighting. I am personally fine with Fighters playing second-fiddle in games focused on social or exploratory.Edit: 5E Fighters also make an excellent multiclass "partner". That is, thumbs up for that game's ability to say "if you want your Bard or Ranger to be a little more fightery, two or five levels of Fighter isn't too bad". But does that mean I am opposed to granting Fighters non-combat stuff? Heck no.In fact I think it's rather easy to give stuff to Fighters that (presumably) will make these people happy yet keeps Fighters to their traditional roles: limit the Noble background to Fighters (i.e. require any exceptions to have the DM's approval). Re-use the old D&D idea of "name" levels that give fighters castles and titles as they level up. Heck, even the Action Surge ability is so generically useful as to count as both a combat and OOC ability if phrased better.You could even have subclasses that give these peeps what they want: Cavaliers that romance the ladies or Samurai that write the best poetry, and so on.But the main point here is: don't take away my DPS and expect me to be happy about pickpocketing and secret doors. All that does is relegate the Rogue as a weakish class in D&D campaigns focused on group-combat.Sure, you might counter by "I'm not phased by Fighters doing only fighting" with "I'm not phased with Rogues being fragile in fighting since their forte is in exploration and things like city-based skulking scenarios". Fair enough, except D&D is so very clearly a combat-focused game.And Rogues is one of few magic-less (or magic-light) classes. It feels like a waste to have to accept that in so many campaigns (much combat, no solo adventuring) one of the few alternatives to the Fighter should be relegated to a lower tier.Consider Gloomhaven. It was pure joy to see a Brute and a Scoundrel advance side by side, both complementing each other. Why do we need so very many words just to see this happen in our favourite TTRPG!? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification