Make Bounty Hunter like Ranger's Track? A DM plot device disguised as a class (background) feature? :smallsmile:
Printable View
Re: rogue SA.
ALL rogues get SA with advantage (which attacking from unperceived stealth gives).
THIEF rogues also get SA when attacking from stealth, EVEN if they were spotted (and thus don't have advantage).
THUG rogues also get SA when attacking an enemy in melee with 2 friendly creatures. This lets the melee rogue flank with one other person (with lenient flank rules, they don't need to be opposite). It also lets a ranged rogue flank if 2 of his allies are flanking an enemy.
In terms of skills, the rogue is VERY strong. I ran the playutest today at GenCon. I was apparently the FIRST person this weekend that that GM encountered using Take 10. Take 10? Oh, I roll the skill, but I can choose to take either the die roll, or 10. So basically, as is currently, a rogue NEVER rolls less than 10 on a skill check, and there's no non-threatened language in the skill.
In addition, I want to make a knowledge check but dumped int? That's fine, I can treat my int bonus as +3 instead of the -1 from that 8 I rolled. AND I still can't roll less than 10 on the die. So at 1st level, the worst a rogue can get on any skill without external modifiers is 13. 16 if it's a trained skill. My min was a 17 on my hide/stealth roll (dex 18, I had rolled a 17, 16, and 15 in my stat array (before race/class mods), my Mistborn dice loved me).
I also loved being a Halfling Rogue with a Katana, who could ray of frost and mage hand. Loved the mental image. Ok, the Katana meant I couldn't use a shield, but I had a shield/short sword as backup if I needed (short sword did the same damage as katana due to halfling, but dude, little man, big sword).
The look on the group's faces when I said "I unsheathe my Katana and attack the zombie" was priceless.
Only issue I really had with the module was that we had an 8 person party, and some strong characters. Second combat I think almost half the group didn't even get to go, as the 3 stealthed folks shredded half the enemies, leaving the other 5 people to mop up the last 2. I felt bad as I was often going near the front of things, killing something outright, I was the one who searched for and found the trap, etc. I was prominent in both combat and exploration. I was also the only one who took damage though (4 of my 7 hp, shoulda used a hit die before the last big fight, forgot).
Also, our cleric crit on the channel divinity attack on the undead Drow at the end...yeah, think it came to 31, 41 damage or so? Pile of dust after the second person's move that combat. Big bad didn't even get to do anything other than talk trash.
Yeah, that 'boss' was a complete joke; our rogue basically one shot it with a sneak attack after it dismally missed on a Defender disadvantaged attack vs 19 AC.
Good question, because I can't find anything like that in the Thief Scheme either.
I dislike the notion of a rogue who gets to apply his sneak attack pretty much all the time. I'd prefer if it's a substantial bonus that you have to work for.
I recall how 4E rogues started as the latter and quickly became the former as more splatbooks were released.
Okay, so any rogue, either a thief rogue or a thug rogue, can make a sneak attack against a target that did not see you at the beginning of your turn, when he has the Lurker specialization.
That's the Ambusher feat, that allows you to make a sneak attack when you begin your turn hidden, but reveal yourself before you make the attack. Like when you run out of your hiding place and cross the room to get close enough for an attack, and you are plainly visible as you close the distance.
Debatable, as it says "your skills" and the 1st playtest package was quite explicit about the fact, that this ability applies only to skills that the rogue has training in.
Which for a thief background rogue would be Find Traps, Open Locks, and Stealth. Not any other skill he might use without having special training in it.
The problem with the Sorc for me in the playtest is their DCs and attack rolls don't scale (or even start at the same level as the Wizard, leaving them 2 points behind in both by level 5), they get spell levels a level after the Wiz/Cleric, and they get an oddly abbreviated magic list. I'd say this was because they were gishes, except the way the class is broken down seems to indicate that's purely a function of the Draconic Heritage. As such, it's a weird bias in the direction of the vancian casting classes.
Warlock's better, but they need a few more options before I can really tell what's going on with the class.
I agree with the lack of progression being lame, but I'll take Sorcs over Warlocks any day, seeing as they're basically indestructible in heavy armour with the Shield spell and Defender feat, while outputting respectable damage at-will, in both melee and range. 1d6+3+Cha mod/1d8+4+Cha mod with penalty kickers aren't at all shabby.
You are correct on the lurker thing, I had mis-remembered. I was not the Thief type rogue, and just assumed he had his "SA when not spotted at start" from his thief choice, not from the lurker. That was my error. I heartily apologize, as I hate giving misinformation, especially when trying to clarify a confusion.
Note that rogues get two backgrounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Scheme
So rogues get 6 skills trained.Quote:
Originally Posted by Backgrounds
The language in "When you determine the bonus for each of your skills," does not indicate at all to me trained only. Though I guess, hmmm, could be interpreted that way as the sheets son't list the skills individually. When I roll a skill check I'm making an ability check with a possible bonus from the skill, as opposed to a skill check with a modifier from the ability. Subtle, but possibly distinct difference, could be important for them to clarify. Especially since the sheets don't list all the skills, for you to add ability modifiers (which saves space). It seems more of the format "I want to do this" "Make a Dex check, with +3 if you have the slight of hand skill." I had not noticed that.
Edit: So it's still good, if you trained a skill that has a weak attribute for you, but it's not bard "jack of all trades," which is what I thought was borked.
Does anyone know how monstrous PCs will be handled? I can't seem to find any info about it, and was hoping someone knew.
I really like the idea of electrum, because it helps gold seem more rare and valuable and makes it easier to carry around coins. However, the name bugs me. It doesn't seem to fit into the standard D&D fantasy world. The only alternative names I can think of (with the help of Wikipedia) are "white gold" or "half-gold". Am I just being silly?
I agree. I'm not sure the 2e standard (i.e. the back-stab multiplier) is the one to go back to, but making the rogue set up the perfect opportunity to backstab an opponent once a combat/scene sounds more interesting than basing it around the rogue having reliable access to it (such as via flanking).
I think he's talking more in a fluff sense. However, you should know that the name electrum actually isn't out of place at all. It's derived from an ancient Greek word, electron. It doesn't have the same meaning as the modern English electron, but it goes to show that the name is older than you might think.
What I can't figure out is why they're throwing in another useless currency when they've already got two other ones they don't use.
I played in a game once where Electrum was similar to residiuum; basically a magical material highly prized by mages, could be used to power certain items or to create powerful focii. In practice it was an extra special material that also doubled as a high level currency. I actually kind of liked that. Thinking about it, it makes me think other fantastic materials (like Adamantium or Mithril) might not also be made into coins/currency, that would be used primarily by high level adventurers, while the gold/silver standard is where more mundane things are handled.
But that is kind of off-topic. On topic, the current implementation of Electrum is pretty useless. I really doubt anyone ever said "You know what I really need? A coin that is worth more than silver but less than gold"
I'm inclined to agree. A 3 tier currency system (copper, silver, gold), using silver as the center where gold used to be would likely work much better. I'd rather they just abstract currency completely already, but that's not going to happen, so they might as well trim it down a little.
"We need to give the appearance that we're trying to appeal to fans of every edition, even the extreme minority players who mostly play pre-3rd edition D&D. Let's add in some useless cosmetic stuff from earlier editions to show how much we 'care'!"
On a more serious note, they said in earlier podcasts they wanted to have most things are priced in silver and copper so gold is made more valuable. That hasn't been reflected in the playtest yet, but hey, that's they claim their intention is.
The playtest adventure also contains a generic +1 weapon, something the designers stated they don't like either (which I wholeheartedly agree with). I think its safe to assume that what we see here in the playtest of loot an currency is not the finished product.
Yes. And yet, they have every first-level character start with a ludicrous amount of 150 gold pieces.
I also see that the equipment table inherits 4E's model of paying exponentially more money for the same armor with a +1 bigger bonus; I really don't like medium-level PCs carrying enough wealth to match the GDP of the local kingdom.
I already made my first homebrew class. :smallbiggrin:
The Witch
Based on Wizard.
Wizards Arcane Magic replaced with sorcerers Sorcery.
Spells known and Max Spell Level taken from 3.5e psion.
Arcane Knowledge and Cantrips are kept.
No Spellbook.
Instead the warlocks Ritual Magic.
Good work. :smallbiggrin:
Oh, I do know, I read the Wikipedia page. :smallwink: However, Greek also has different words for gold, silver, copper, etc. Chalkos, Chryso, and Asami may work for some people, but it doesn't fit in my concept of a world based on medieval England/France/Germany. I was just wondering if anyone else felt the same and if those people thought of a different name that fit a world where things were called "Hallowfell" and "Firespike".
Because it makes sense for people who care about a modicum of mundane realism. Having only three kinds of coins would be like having only pennies, $1 bills, and $100 bills in American coinage, and the bills would be ten times heavier than they are now. We have pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters, $1 bills, $5 bills, $10 bills, $20 bills, $50 bills, $100 bills, and a few larger that are only used by the extremely wealthy. I like my D&D world having iron, copper, silver, electrum, gold, platinum, palladium, and varieties of bars and notes. Coins of the same metal would come in different sizes with different values to make it easier to produce the currency and use it.