D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[noparlpf]

What if, instead of providing a bonus, you could only increase your skill in something up to a maximum of your attribute bonus for that skill?

Like, Jim has Str 18, and starts with a +0 to Climb, but can train up to +4 in climb by adding skill points?
Might be interesting...I do think there should be also be a division between trained-only and untrained skills, like Knowledge is obviously a thing you need to train, but most people can at least try to climb without practicing good technique.

[obryn]

Like, Jim has Str 18, and starts with a +0 to Climb, but can train up to +4 in climb by adding skill points?
Might be interesting...I do think there should be also be a division between trained-only and untrained skills, like Knowledge is obviously a thing you need to train, but most people can at least try to climb without practicing good technique.

Savage Worlds does something similar - you can improve your skills up to their linked attribute easily. And anything over costs extra.

-O

[wadledo]

Huh? You're suggesting that we can't compare 5E to earlier editions, when it's being explicitly marketed as taking the best parts of and being an improvement over all earlier editions? I don't see how that argument makes sense.

The 5E rogue, in the current playtest, doesn't do what it's advertised to do; doesn't do what rogues do in earlier editions; and compares unfavorably to the fighter. That, to me, is a clear design flaw that needs to be remedied in the next playtest.

No, I'm suggesting that the comparisons are not equivalent, because 5e does things differently than 4e.
If 5e only gives 2 powers at level 1 rather than 5, then this is not a failing of 5e, but a difference in utility and power between 5e and 4e.

And, of course, as Draz74 pointed out, a Rogue can be good at what you say the rogue is supposed to do.

Edit: And if the rogue does not compare unfavorably to the fighter, what is the point of the fighter? If a rogue is better than a Fighter then why have a fighter at all?

[Surrealistik]

One of my biggest problems with the 5e Rogue is that the assassin archetype flat out doesn't work because Sneak Attack is far too weak.

[Clawhound]

When they add in damage dice for rogues, I think that assassin will work far better.

[Doug Lampert]

When they add in damage dice for rogues, I think that assassin will work far better.

Using a die for sneak attack should be harder than it is, and give a damage bonus beyond just what you roll (maybe add dexterity modifier to each die, maybe double the number of dice).

[Yora]

I just made half a dozen Characters of level 7 to 9 and I quite like both the results and the amount of work that went into it.
It's relatively quick, the NPC stat block is rather short, and the characters seem well rounded and ready to play without having to wait for anything to "unlock" at later points. Those are all quite decent "Endgame" characters.

[ThiagoMartell]

I want my level 10 Warlock

[Surrealistik]

Oh man.

Finished a session last night with an L4 Human (still the master race) Dex longbow Fighter with Improved Initiative, Bushwacker's Tactics, Volley, Spring Attack, Deadly Strike and Parry. Nothing like almost always going first, throwing down 1d8+5 + 2x2d6 damage at-will total with advantage and the ability to effortlessly kite melee only enemies (suck it no-charge mobs) in perpetuity. In cases where I can't run, Parry has me covered.

[Yora]

Why do you have 4 maneuvers at level 4?

[Surrealistik]

Why do you have 4 maneuvers at level 4?

Deadly Strike is complementary.

Fighting Style gives you an additional maneuver at levels 1, 2 and 4.

[Aricandor]

Having only the perspective of a wizard that's all I can really comment on with this last update.

I really liked being able to have a fair repertoire of minor spells for various tricks as a mage character. In between Arcane Dabbler and the high elf spell I was happily sitting at 6 minor spells, allowing for a nice choice of actual minor magic for use in various circumstances both in and out of combat.

While traditions and their benefits are a nice idea and mostly feel well chosen, I cringed at the thought of that unless a high elf or an academic, the wizard can so easily be reduced to a (admittedly not quite as bad as in the past) crossbowman again for the early levels, and that's something I can tell for a fact I did not miss from 3E. 15 foot cones is not something I would want to use with any kind of regularity with a great mighty 8 hit points, and on top of that the Dabbler feat now feels like a waste of space on the character sheet.

Also I find the flavour descriptions on spells ridiculous, but that's at least extremely easy to disregard.

[Surrealistik]

My Rogue fix:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thre...xing_the_Rogue

[Draz74]

My Rogue fix:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thre...xing_the_Rogue

I like the fix to Sneak Attack, but not the Level 6 features. They shoehorn the Rogue too much into one of two limited specialties, and don't really contribute to the way Rogues are supposed to find creative ways to fight.

[Surrealistik]

I like the fix to Sneak Attack, but not the Level 6 features. They shoehorn the Rogue too much into one of two limited specialties, and don't really contribute to the way Rogues are supposed to find creative ways to fight.

Skill advantage certainly does, especially if mechanical uses of skills become codified as is being discussed.

[Draz74]

Skill advantage certainly does, especially if mechanical uses of skills become codified as is being discussed.

I'd say "only" rather than "especially." I don't see skills mattering in combat in 5e even as much as they mattered in 3e combat, in the current rules packet.

[TheOOB]

My Rogue fix:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thre...xing_the_Rogue

I don't really like it. Apart from the fact that we really don't know what crits are going to do yet, you're taking away the ability to a crit sneak attack to mean something. Also damage multiplication is a)powerful, and b)almost certainly going to be unbalanced. Also, I don't think the rogue should have that much of a higher damage output than the fighter. Fighting is what the fighter does.

[Surrealistik]

I'd say "only" rather than "especially." I don't see skills mattering in combat in 5e even as much as they mattered in 3e combat, in the current rules packet.

The thing is that, at present, the impact of skills is literally and almost entirely undefined; it's a complete DM call with few exceptions (Stealth, Search and Spot). In otherwords, the current combat utility of skills is as strong or weak as the DM allows.


@ TheOOB:

Sure we know what crits do, at least presently; they maximize damage and add a scaling 1d6 bonus (up to a max 6d6).

As for removing the ability for a crit Sneak Attack to mean something, that's patently untrue (though I don't find it a particularly strong argument in the first place). A crit effectively allows you to circumvent the significantly more demanding prerequisites for a full effect Sneak Attack; something that under the present rules typically takes a turn to set up.

Third, damage multiplication as clearly demonstrated in the thread _is_ balanced. While it is obviously possible that this may be no longer the case with subsequent additions to the game, it is at the moment entirely fine from a comparative DPR vantage. It should be noted that this fix is done with the current playtest packet rules in mind.

Lastly, the Rogue does not have a higher effective damage output than the Fighter; unless you can somehow manage to get a full Sneak Attack each and every round without action investment. This is generally true even with Killing Stroke. Currently the only reliable (if that) way to get a full Sneak Attack is via Stealth, which requires a full turn. So, the effective DPR of the Rogue with Killing Stroke, assuming a turn is spent setting up a full Sneak Attack, works out to 31.395; scarcely above the Fighter's 28.35 which is much more flexible and reliable (requires no conditions, can target multiple enemies/spread damage and can be used with Volley or Whirlwind to deal even more damage). Without Killing Stroke, the Rogue's effective DPR is about 16 after adjusting for set up time.

[Madfellow]

Why exactly does the rogue need a fix? I'll admit that I've only played one game so far with the new packet (and it was a short one), but I don't see anything that sticks out to me as being a red flag. Sure, the fighter has more hit points, proficiencies, and maneuvers, but the fighter is The Fighter. His job is to fight, and to be the best at it. Mearles said as much in his column. The rogue's job is to be the best at everything that isn't combat, hence all the skills. Sure the rogue gets few hit points, but stealth easily makes up for that. It gets just as many expertise dice as the fighter, almost as many maneuvers, and a workable set of armor and weapon proficiencies. Yes, sneak attack is less powerful than deadly strike, but the rogue is not meant to be a damage-dealing powerhouse. Skills, for the most part, don't apply to combat because they're not supposed to. They're how you handle things out of combat. D&D is about more than just fighting, and not every class has to be a good fighter.

[Kurald Galain]

Skills, for the most part, don't apply to combat because they're not supposed to. They're how you handle things out of combat.

This I have a problem with. I do not want the game to be split into "combat mode" and "non-combat mode" and have powers/skills/spells that work in one mode but not in the other (or differently in the other).

[Madfellow]

Well you can use skills in combat. There's no universal law saying that once people start fighting they can't do anything else but fight. But a character's not going to use the swim skill, for example, to help him beat another guy with a stick. He'll use it to keep his head and arms above water so he can hit the other guy with his stick without drowning.

And if one PC is annoying another, and that other guy wants to hit him, he's going to have to make an attack roll to do so. He might not deal any actual damage (DM's and player's discretion), but punching a guy is still an attack, even if it's not technically combat.

[Craft (Cheese)]

This I have a problem with. I do not want the game to be split into "combat mode" and "non-combat mode" and have powers/skills/spells that work in one mode but not in the other (or differently in the other).

Plenty of games have this distinction at least informally: WFRP3 even does it formally through the action economy. What, in your mind, makes this approach unfit for D&D?

(Not to say I necessarily disagree with you, I'm just curious what your own reasons are.)

[Kurald Galain]

Plenty of games have this distinction at least informally: WFRP3 even does it formally through the action economy. What, in your mind, makes this approach unfit for D&D?

It goes against immersion. Whenever the DM has to say "you can't do that, you're in combat now" that underlines that I'm playing a game rather than taking part in a fantasy world.

I'm not familiar with WFRP3 so I can't comment on that. Note that I'm fine with certain actions being automatic when you have time, but requiring a check if you're rushed (and combat a common example of being rushed, but not the only one).

[Surrealistik]

Why exactly does the rogue need a fix? I'll admit that I've only played one game so far with the new packet (and it was a short one), but I don't see anything that sticks out to me as being a red flag. Sure, the fighter has more hit points, proficiencies, and maneuvers, but the fighter is The Fighter. His job is to fight, and to be the best at it. Mearles said as much in his column. The rogue's job is to be the best at everything that isn't combat, hence all the skills. Sure the rogue gets few hit points, but stealth easily makes up for that. It gets just as many expertise dice as the fighter, almost as many maneuvers, and a workable set of armor and weapon proficiencies. Yes, sneak attack is less powerful than deadly strike, but the rogue is not meant to be a damage-dealing powerhouse. Skills, for the most part, don't apply to combat because they're not supposed to. They're how you handle things out of combat. D&D is about more than just fighting, and not every class has to be a good fighter.

The Fighter has more hit points, proficiencies, maneuvers, a higher attack bonus, and a powerful feature at L6 for which the Rogue has no equivalent whatsoever. Literally the only thing the Rogue has on him is some skill training (which adds a mere +3), and access to Skill Mastery. Even if you think the Fighter should be hands down better in combat (which I disagree with seeing as encounters are so central to DnD as a rule), the Rogue's superiority out of combat isn't nearly enough to compensate for his laughable deficit of performance otherwise. Further, I believe the Rogue should be devastating in combat and competitive with the Fighter if you specifically build him for it, albeit in the capacity of a spike damage assassin that relies on advantageous circumstances, stealth and cunning, rather than the blunt and reliable turn after turn damage dealt by the Fighter.

[Madfellow]

Well there are specialties the rogue can take to help it in combat, which is equivalent to "specifically building him for it." However, the rogue is not an assassin. An assassin is a type of rogue that is made for killing people, but people can and do make rogues for other things. And the mere existence of the rogue as a noncombat specialist is proof that combat is not the core of the game.

[Flickerdart]

And the mere existence of the rogue as a noncombat specialist is proof that combat is not the core of the game.

Considering that the rogue's "non combat specialist" is just +3 to a skill, that shows exactly how important non-combat is to 5e (hint: not very).

[Dublock]

Considering that the rogue's "non combat specialist" is just +3 to a skill, that shows exactly how important non-combat is to 5e (hint: not very).

That at least goes into 5E's Skill system, they are trying really hard to limit skill boni to much smaller numbers. This of course has been debated in this thread a lot (implying all 7 threads, not just this one) if thats for the best, but given how 5E is set up, +3 is a lot.

With that said I would hope that the Rogue can and would use skills during combat so that the +3 does get some use.

[Kurald Galain]

That at least goes into 5E's Skill system, they are trying really hard to limit skill boni to much smaller numbers. This of course has been debated in this thread a lot (implying all 7 threads, not just this one) if thats for the best, but given how 5E is set up, +3 is a lot.

No, it's not. The value of a bonus is not relative to other bonuses, but relative to what dice you're rolling. A +3 bonus on 1d6 is a lot. A +3 bonus on 1d20 is not. It doesn't matter whether the other bonuses are +1, +5, or nonexistent.

[Knaight]

No, it's not. The value of a bonus is not relative to other bonuses, but relative to what dice you're rolling. A +3 bonus on 1d6 is a lot. A +3 bonus on 1d20 is not. It doesn't matter whether the other bonuses are +1, +5, or nonexistent.

What dice is part of it, though there is also the matter of how they are used. A +3 bonus on a 1d6 is much more significant if it doesn't explode, and only gets better if opposed rolls and such get in play.

[Surrealistik]

Well there are specialties the rogue can take to help it in combat, which is equivalent to "specifically building him for it." However, the rogue is not an assassin. An assassin is a type of rogue that is made for killing people, but people can and do make rogues for other things. And the mere existence of the rogue as a noncombat specialist is proof that combat is not the core of the game.

The thing is, even if you specifically build the Rogue for combat, he's still godawful under the present rules. You can't really exact the major assassin archetype.

Further, the intermediate, experimental (and poor) implementation of the Rogue is not proof of anything.

Also what Flickerdart said, though I expect skills will be getting some kind of major upheaval.