TheRPGSite

I know I am not really allowed to ask questions about 5e as it is quickly becoming sacred text equivalent to one of Gary's shopping lists or a note he once wrote on the back of a pizza menu... nevertheless I will push on regardless.

The weapon style options.

The great weapon style gives you the option to reroll the damage dice but you must take the new roll even if its less.

The Single handed style gives you +2 damage.

This basically equates to ...

1d10 if you don't like it reroll.
1d8 +2.

there are loads of situational benefits for a one handed weapon. Ease of use, space, free hand can be used for a shield (?) or anything non-weapony, like a torch, or to cast spells etc.

On paper the one handed weapon option looks far stronger.

I was thinking of either reversing them or making the 2 handed weapon style out and out advantage.

I think reversing is the better option and then allow the environment contain the two handed specialist.

Opinions, experience?

The Great Weapon specialist really shines with multiple die weapons (i.e. Greatsword, Maul). 2d6 (average 7) are already better than 1d10 (average 5.5) - and without having the time now to run the entire stochastics, I'd claim that a 2d6 weapon with re-rolls on 1-2 on either die still is better than 1d10+2 on average.
And especially for fighters with their multiple attacks, the gap widens even more as the levels progress.

The choice between single-handed weapons and great weapons is essentially the choice if you want to be "tank" with sword&board (especially with magical shields later, which can become a HUGE factor with bounded accuracy) that can hold its ground longer without needing that much HP upkeep, of if you want to be the "damage-dealer" that wears down the enemy HP quicker. A large part in that decision will also be party composition - with a life cleric, paladin and bard HP upkeep is less of a deal, while in a party with a warlock, an evocation wizard and a rogue damage output is already very good and HP attrition for the front-line is a concern and weakpoint.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799309I know I am not really allowed to ask questions about 5e as it is quickly becoming sacred text equivalent to one of Gary's shopping lists or a note he once wrote on the back of a pizza menu...

OK, stop.  Just please stop.  The criticism you got wasn't because people who disagreed with you think 5e is some holy writ.  It's because in those other threads, you went on rants and complaints about things that were flat out wrong, and people just told you to either play the game, or at least get familiar with the rules before you start complaining.

This victim complex thing is weak sauce, man.

Quote from: Skyrock;799312The Great Weapon specialist really shines with multiple die weapons (i.e. Greatsword, Maul). 2d6 (average 7) are already better than 1d10 (average 5.5) - and without having the time now to run the entire stochastics, I'd claim that a 2d6 weapon with re-rolls on 1-2 on either die still is better than 1d10+2 on average.
And especially for fighters with their multiple attacks, the gap widens even more as the levels progress.

The choice between single-handed weapons and great weapons is essentially the choice if you want to be "tank" with sword&board (especially with magical shields later, which can become a HUGE factor with bounded accuracy) that can hold its ground longer without needing that much HP upkeep, of if you want to be the "damage-dealer" that wears down the enemy HP quicker. A large part in that decision will also be party composition - with a life cleric, paladin and bard HP upkeep is less of a deal, while in a party with a warlock, an evocation wizard and a rogue damage output is already very good and HP attrition for the front-line is a concern and weakpoint.

For us two handed weapons back in the day were generally limited by space more than anything. I guess because we were generally city based two handed swords and halberds were just not practical.

On the bounded accuracy deal AC numbers stay flat right and attack numbers increase slower but still increase so we predict a guy at say 11th level will be attacking at +4 + Stat so a +8 to hit will be fairly common and we will be looking at an ac of say 19 as towards the top end (to make the maths easier as its a 50% chance to hit then). With damage numbers being so high but the HP numbers for classes being fairly similar to earleir editions (an 11th level fighter will prolly have 66 +(CON x 11) ) is there any evidence that damge growth more than outgrows HP and AC?

That was very confused when I read it back.

What I am asking is as damage is much higher than old editions, ACs are lower but HPs are roughly equivalent do we expect Damage to dominate as it can become so overwhelming?
I have seen examples of say a barbarian dealling 2d6+8 +2d6 on each strike with 3 strikes at 11th level so that sounds like its an average damage of say 33 HP a round (average 22 per hit with a 50% chance of hitting from 3 attacks)  so a fighter of the same level could easily drop in 2 or 3 rounds and if we include crits or similar less still.  
This is very different to older editions

1d8+2 averages 6.5
2d6 reroll 1-2s once averages 8.33.
1d12 reroll 1-2s once averages 7.33
1d10 reroll 1-2s once averages 6.3

The only one that does less damage is using like a pike, but that also has reach.

(I'm 100% sure on the 2d6 one. I'm fairly sure I got the other two right).

Quote from: Emperor Norton;7993311d8+2 averages 6.5
2d6 reroll 1-2s once averages 8.33.
1d12 reroll 1-2s once averages 7.33
1d10 reroll 1-2s once averages 6.3

The only one that does less damage is using like a pike, but that also has reach.

(I'm 100% sure on the 2d6 one. I'm fairly sure I got the other two right).

I never said d10+2 I said d8+2

Are you numbers using advantage as I think the rules says you must use the second number not take the highest (just checking)

Quote from: jibbajibba;799332I never said d10+2 I said d8+2

Are you numbers using advantage as I think the rules says you must use the second number not take the highest (just checking)

I edited that back out because I noticed it was someone else mentioned 1d10+2

I basically used anydice and created a die that had 18 sides. 1-6 once, then 3-6 three times. Basically, it has a 1/3 chance of being a regular d6 (the 1-6 once, being when it originally lands on a 1 or 2), then an addition 1/6th chance each for 3-6 (since 18/6 = 3, 3 additional permeations of each).

Then I did the same for the other two.

http://anydice.com/program/4be4

Damage shouldn't outpace AC or HP given without magic items ability bonuses are capped at +5(+7) for a 20th level Barbarian. Magic seems to be capped at +3 so even at 20th level a Barbarian would be +6+7+3(+16) to hit and 2d6+7+3 damage per hit (2x per round). Even at total maximum without certain exceptions like Rage etc. The Fighter with the same weapon does a bit more though if speced out though of course. The Barbarian and Paladin are better at spiking in trade.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799332I never said d10+2 I said d8+2

Are you numbers using advantage as I think the rules says you must use the second number not take the highest (just checking)

You take the highest.

Quote from: Marleycat;799353You take the highest.

Um ... don't think so.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;799336I edited that back out because I noticed it was someone else mentioned 1d10+2

I basically used anydice and created a die that had 18 sides. 1-6 once, then 3-6 three times. Basically, it has a 1/3 chance of being a regular d6 (the 1-6 once, being when it originally lands on a 1 or 2), then an addition 1/6th chance each for 3-6 (since 18/6 = 3, 3 additional permeations of each).

Then I did the same for the other two.

http://anydice.com/program/4be4

Yeah that all makes sense and the math looks good

So in effect two handed weapon really works better with 2 dice rather than one big dice
So a great sword 2d6 is going to improve more than a great ax 1d12 ?

that looks right I think

Long Sword (d8) w/o and with "Duelist" =  4.5 and 6.5
Great Axe (d12) w/o and with "Great Weapon Fighting" = 6.5 and 7.33
Great Sword (2d6) w/o and with "Great Weapon Fighting" = 7 and 8.33

So as written the duelist option improves your damage by the highest amount but the great sword looks better. I do worry it relies on a quirk of rules "re-roll a dice".

If you made the GFW advange that would go to

Great Axe (d12) w/o and with "Great Weapon Fighting" = 6.5 and  8.5 (ac 8.49)
Great Sword (2d6) w/o and with "Great Weapon Fighting" = 7 and 8.5 (ac8.46)

If you did a full switch then
Long Sword (d8) w/o and with "advantage" =  4.5 and 5.8
Great Axe (d12) w/o and with "+2" = 6.5 and 8.5 (max now 14)
Great Sword (2d6) w/o and with "+2" = 7 and 9 (max now 14)

So I think giving 2 handed weapons advantage looks like the best bet.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799366Um ... don't think so.

Dude. Wtf?

Stop right now and at least sit your ass down and read the basic rules front to back, or you are wasting everyone's time.

Quote from: Will;799376Dude. Wtf?

Stop right now and at least sit your ass down and read the basic rules front to back, or you are wasting everyone's time.

Dude the text reads -

When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll. The weapon must have a two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit.

You  do not take the higher roll you MUST use the new roll so stop wasting everyone's time and sit your arse back down etc ....

Quote from: Will;799376Dude. Wtf?

Stop right now and at least sit your ass down and read the basic rules front to back, or you are wasting everyone's time.

Actually, he was right. With great weapon fighting style you reroll 1 and 2 and keep the second result, not the highest. (And Emperor Norton averages accord with this way of rolling).


It must be noted that with critical hits the bonus of great weapon fighting style get more relevant while the dueling bonus stay flat.

Advantage only works on things like to hit rolls.

Great Weapon Fighting is indeed take second roll. Even if it is less.

It is a pretty good track too as usually you are going to roll better.

A single weapon fighter, say going Duelling, will be doing pretty good too, moreso if you have a strength bonus, (or DEX if finesse).

Longsword for example as it works with both.
Great Weapon is 1d8, reroll 1-2 and take that. You have a 25% chance per attack of it triggering I believe.
Duelling is 1d8+2. This is constant.

With a 2d6 weapon like the Greatsword as someone noted above, Great Weapon gets a bit better as you have a slightly higher chance of the effect triggering, but a slightly lower chance of bettering.

They even out in the long run. Its more a choice of style. Gamble vs constant.

Quote from: Omega;799381Advantage only works on things like to hit rolls.

Great Weapon Fighting is indeed take second roll. Even if it is less.

It is a pretty good track too as usually you are going to roll better.

A single weapon fighter, say going Duelling, will be doing pretty good too, moreso if you have a strength bonus, (or DEX if finesse).

Longsword for example as it works with both.
Great Weapon is 1d8, reroll 1-2 and take that. You have a 25% chance per attack of it triggering I believe.
Duelling is 1d8+2. This is constant.

With a 2d6 weapon like the Greatsword as someone noted above, Great Weapon gets a bit better as you have a slightly higher chance of the effect triggering, but a slightly lower chance of bettering.

They even out in the long run. Its more a choice of style. Gamble vs constant.

well advantage on works on to hit saves etc because they haven't extended it anywhere else :) The mechanic is perfectly reusable.

If you look at my numbers on advantage for GWF you get a boost more comparable to the Duelist benefit.

Again from our game when teh goblins attacked the cart there were 2 PCs still on it. The paladin which GFW and a Glaive and a dex based duelist fighter (he is a professional duelist). Over 4 rounds the Paladin's GFW only kicked in once when he hit and got a 1 and rerolled. The duelist got +2 damage on three hits.
Now part of that is that Glaive is probably a suboptimal choice. Although the reach was useful in this corner case. But the duelist style certainly felt a lot more useful to the players.
I think advantage will make GWF very tough but then no shield, no off hand actions etc and the +2 to average damage is a good match for the duelist but its still mechanically distinct.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799371So as written the duelist option improves your damage by the highest amount but the great sword looks better. I do worry it relies on a quirk of rules "re-roll a dice".

Greatweapon Fighting has alot of quirks. Note that it says two-handed, but later says two-handed or versatile. So yes, you reroll both dice if both rolled 1-2. I think the wording was meant to prevent someone from rerolling both dice when only one triggered.

Quote from: Omega;799383Greatweapon Fighting has alot of quirks. Note that it says two-handed, but later says two-handed or versatile. So yes, you reroll both dice if both rolled 1-2. I think the wording was meant to prevent someone from rerolling both dice when only one triggered.

Yes. The issues comes when you have varied the dice to make a greatsword and a great axe different (2d6 vs d12) but in an almost CCG like rules move the text says a dice.
I think advantage woudl be more fun to play through as the issue the guys had was that the effect of GWF doesn't kick in very often with some weapons (1 time in 5 on the glaive) and so it feels a bit weak.
I also think that any effect that has a very marked difference because of the dice type used for the damage (GWF with a 2d6 Great Sword as opposed to a 1d12 great axe) tends to move us to more system mastery position.

I'm with jibba on that one: I'm just gonna house rule it to be rolled like Advantage. One less rule to keep track of (I just tell the player that they get advantage on damage rolls).

Well, you do get the chance to take Great Weapon Master with 2-handed weapons, if you're allowing Feats.

I've been studying GWF for my maul-wielding Paladin. The style benefit definitely seems to be reroll all dice that roll 1-2, but must keep the reroll. I'm a bit concerned that this may be weaker than sword & board for our clericless party - we have a Bard plus two Paladins, it looks like. It seems balanced vs duellist style, but perhaps not so well balanced vs raising AC with a shield.

Quote from: One Horse Town;799400Well, you do get the chance to take Great Weapon Master with 2-handed weapons, if you're allowing Feats.

Yes but you don't need GWF to get the mastery feat. It doesn't have any prerequisites.
Also perhaps oddly one of the two GW mastery effects doesn't require a great weapon but applied to any weapon. basically if you attack with any melee weapon and get a crit or drop it to zero hp you get a bonus attack action.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799405Also perhaps oddly one of the two GW mastery effects doesn't require a great weapon but applied to any weapon. basically if you attack with any melee weapon and get a crit or drop it to zero hp you get a bonus attack action.

Huh, didn't notice that. Just presumed it was only for 2h weapons. Maybe it'll get an errata.

I also agree that Advantage/disadvantage could get rolled out for any dice-roll. Not sure why they didn't do that to be honest.

Trigger Warning: Math and discussion of "elegance"

http://anydice.com/program/4beb

By the way, here is the math of if you replace the reroll 1/2s with the advantage rules. Pike and Greataxe get a boost (actually making Greataxe the best average weapon damage to use) while the Greatsword stays nearly exatly the same.

Personally, I find it might be a slightly more elegant solution, except that rolling the best of 2 rolls of 2d6 can be a lot wonky. With the one dice one you can just roll 2 dice, pick the best.

To keep the whole roll all at once thing, highest 2 of 3d6 on the Greatsword is about on par with highest 1 of 2d12.

So if the rule was changed to: Add one die of appropriate type, keep the number you would originally roll, it would probably be the fastest way to roll, and therefore the most elegant, in my opinion.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;799412Trigger Warning: Math and discussion of "elegance"

G'AH!

Quote from: Emperor Norton;799412So if the rule was changed to: Add one die of appropriate type, keep the number you would originally roll, it would probably be the fastest way to roll, and therefore the most elegant, in my opinion.

Phew! The mysterious and esoteric art of Maths has revealed an elegant solution. Thanks Emperor! That actually works for me.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;799412Trigger Warning: Math and discussion of "elegance"

http://anydice.com/program/4beb

By the way, here is the math of if you replace the reroll 1/2s with the advantage rules. Pike and Greataxe get a boost (actually making Greataxe the best average weapon damage to use) while the Greatsword stays nearly exatly the same.

Personally, I find it might be a slightly more elegant solution, except that rolling the best of 2 rolls of 2d6 can be a lot wonky. With the one dice one you can just roll 2 dice, pick the best.

To keep the whole roll all at once thing, highest 2 of 3d6 on the Greatsword is about on par with highest 1 of 2d12.

So if the rule was changed to: Add one die of appropriate type, keep the number you would originally roll, it would probably be the fastest way to roll, and therefore the most elegant, in my opinion.

Yeah I did the numbers to and posted the result up thread.

the interesting thing to me is it feels like reroll 1n2s doesn't come into play so when the guys are actually rolling it kind of fizzles where as advantage would be always rolled so always feel relevant but adds very little time to the process. I would also do a great sword as roll 3 keep highest 2

Now it might all get a little wonky if we get to criticals and extra damage dice as I don't think you would want to extend to additional damage dice of any type.

More math to simplify rolls. I split it into the weapons cause it was getting a little bit difficult to read.

Using the Style with the houserule of "add one die, keep the original amount of dice" and having the critical rule happen BEFORE the style rule, you end up with this:

http://anydice.com/program/4bed Greatsword

http://anydice.com/program/4bee Greataxe

http://anydice.com/program/4bef Pike

Averages:
Style fighter RAW with Greatsword, 8.33 on normal hit, 16.67 on crit
Style fighter RAW with Greataxe, 7.33 on normal hit, 14.67 on crit
Style fighter RAW with Pike, 6.3 on normal hit, 12.6 on crit

Style fighter HR with Greatsword, 8.46 on normal hit, 15.93 on crit
Style fighter HR with Greataxe, 8.49 on normal hit, 15.98 on crit
Style fighter HR with Pike, 7.15 on normal hit, 13.48 on crit

Conclusion: Applying both house rules allows you to always use one roll. The math of this causes the Greatsword to be mostly the same, slightly less on crits, while the Greataxe is brought up to on par with the Greatsword, making it not as much of a chump choice. The Pike is also given a slight boost.

Overall, not enough deviation to really change the feel of the game in my opinion.

Think what you want troll. I would put you on ignore but  it's too much effort for too small of reward.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799379Dude the text reads -

When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll. The weapon must have a two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit.

You  do not take the higher roll you MUST use the new roll so stop wasting everyone's time and sit your arse back down etc ....

That has NOTHING to do with Advantage that is a completely different mechanic.

Aaaah, yeah, I was confused, jibbajabba, because you said 'Advantage' and the rule you are discussing has absolutely nothing to do with Advantage. At all.

You take highest when you have Advantage, but that only applies to 'to hit' rolls, not damage.

I apologize for the venom earlier, but MAN you are confusing to talk to.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799330I have seen examples of say a barbarian dealling 2d6+8 +2d6 on each strike with 3 strikes at 11th level

That is my game.  The damage is so high because of a magical sword he acquired in HotDQ adventure.  The barbarian will never have 3 attacks; he caps at two attacks.  Of course, the barbarian does not choose any fighting styles as is the subject of this thread.

Going by the Starter Set and HotDQ, it looks like additional d6es of damage will be very common in the magical items.  What magic item a PC has looks like it will be incredibly important on figuring PC damage.  You may want to wait until the DMG is available before going hog wild on the houserules.

Only the Fighter gets more then 2 attacks (3 at 11th level and 4 at 20th level). Barbarians, Monks, Rangers, Paladins and Blade Locks get 2 attacks at 5th level and Valor Bards get 2 attacks at 6th level.

Quote from: Marleycat;799564Only the Fighter gets more then 2 attacks (3 at 11th level and 4 at 20th level). Barbarians, Monks, Rangers, Paladins and Blade Locks get 2 attacks at 5th level and Valor Bards get 2 attacks at 6th level.

Well them and anyone that picks up Eldrich blast as a cantrip :D

Quote from: Old One Eye;799556That is my game.  The damage is so high because of a magical sword he acquired in HotDQ adventure.  The barbarian will never have 3 attacks; he caps at two attacks.  Of course, the barbarian does not choose any fighting styles as is the subject of this thread.

Going by the Starter Set and HotDQ, it looks like additional d6es of damage will be very common in the magical items.  What magic item a PC has looks like it will be incredibly important on figuring PC damage.  You may want to wait until the DMG is available before going hog wild on the houserules.

Cool.
But my point there was damage numbers look really high. Magic weapons or not the damage has grown a lot especially in relation to the HP numbers but I agree its not something I am worrying about now just curious as to experience on here.

Quote from: Will;799435Aaaah, yeah, I was confused, jibbajabba, because you said 'Advantage' and the rule you are discussing has absolutely nothing to do with Advantage. At all.

You take highest when you have Advantage, but that only applies to 'to hit' rolls, not damage.

I apologize for the venom earlier, but MAN you are confusing to talk to.

no I was saying I was thinking of replacing the GWF effect with advantage because its simpler, creates an effect more comparable to duelist's +2 damage but most importantly is seen to have an effect. If you use the GWF as written, in our experience from play, using a d10 weapon it simply comes up very rarely. 80% of the time it has no effect. That felt weak next to the +2 flat on all damage rolls.

I apologise if I am difficult to follow its probably cos I an having multiple conversations at once and some of them overlap.

Quote from: Old One Eye;799556Going by the Starter Set and HotDQ, it looks like additional d6es of damage will be very common in the magical items.

It is also common with many damage-boosting spells like Hex.

Makes me wonder if there is a pattern to keep magical attacks on par with mundane weapon attacks?

Quote from: jibbajibba;799570Cool.
But my point there was damage numbers look really high. Magic weapons or not the damage has grown a lot especially in relation to the HP numbers but I agree its not something I am worrying about now just curious as to experience on here.

There is something that i haven't really come across yet, and i wonder whether is a factor in play.

Basically, monsters have artificially inflated hit points compared to characters of a level they are expected to fight. I understand the reason for it - so that a single monster can be a proper threat to a party of characters.

Damage output of the characters seems to be designed to match this, but seems excessive if you apply it to other PCs.

To anyone who has had their groups fight other classed NPCs, how have the combats run? I imagine short and brutal.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799567Well them and anyone that picks up Eldrich blast as a cantrip :D

You could with the Magic Initiate: Warlock feat but it's not the best choice given EK's are fighters and already have enough stats to pump up without adding CHA in the mix or multiclassing into Warlock. It'd be better to be a Valor Bard and do it with that feat because at 14th level they could use EB at Disadvantage with a bonus weapon attack in melee to full effect. An EK could do the same at 7th level but it's doubtful that they would ever have maximum Charisma.

Also a VB could just use a spell instead as long as it's considered a Bard spell instead at 14th level or an EK can do the same at 18th level but by that time EK's can make 3 weapon attacks one round then whatever cantrip or spell with a bonus weapon attack the following round. You would be at disadvantage for your attack roll but they'd be at disadvantage to your spell save, you'd want War Caster in either case.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799570Cool.
But my point there was damage numbers look really high. Magic weapons or not the damage has grown a lot especially in relation to the HP numbers but I agree its not something I am worrying about now just curious as to experience on here.

The numbers are high but it's on both sides so it only LOOKS weird. Remember magic items aren't a requirement like 3/4e or highly suggested like 0-2e. Not sure about noncombatant NPC's I would guess it'd be short and brutal. Combatant NPC's in a group are absolutely deadly.

Quote from: Skyrock;799575It is also common with many damage-boosting spells like Hex.

Makes me wonder if there is a pattern to keep magical attacks on par with mundane weapon attacks?

Yes in a way, that is extra attacks are equated to specific spell levels (3, 6, 9). Spells typically are more powerful but spell slots are constricted so it comes out as spike damage not regular like a physical attack.

Evokers are pretty good blasters but sorcerers and warlocks are probably better because of metamagic and how you can use spell points to create spell slots or spell slots to create spell points and eldritch blast respectively.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799573I apologise if I am difficult to follow its probably cos I an having multiple conversations at once and some of them overlap.

Fair enough, sorry!

Quote from: One Horse Town;799576There is something that i haven't really come across yet, and i wonder whether is a factor in play.

Basically, monsters have artificially inflated hit points compared to characters of a level they are expected to fight. I understand the reason for it - so that a single monster can be a proper threat to a party of characters.

Damage output of the characters seems to be designed to match this, but seems excessive if you apply it to other PCs.

To anyone who has had their groups fight other classed NPCs, how have the combats run? I imagine short and brutal.

This is exactly my point.
My games have been people versus people most of the time for years. I tend to favour very small numbers of powerful monsters, that are really monsters, and then make most of the other enemies human. Occassional I skin them as a humanoid but often as not they are bandits, thieves, crusaders or whatever.
Now it might well be that this new model suits that mode of play, lots of glass canons knocking but we will see.

Quote from: Marleycat;799582You could with the Magic Initiate: Warlock feat but it's not the best choice given EK's are fighters and already have enough stats to pump up without adding CHA in the mix or multiclassing into Warlock. It'd be better to be a Valor Bard and do it with that feat because at 14th level they could use EB at Disadvantage with a bonus weapon attack in melee to full effect. An EK could do the same at 7th level but it's doubtful that they would ever have maximum Charisma.

Also a VB could just use a spell instead as long as it's considered a Bard spell instead at 14th level or an EK can do the same at 18th level but by that time EK's can make 3 weapon attacks one round then whatever cantrip or spell with a bonus weapon attack the following round. You would be at disadvantage for your attack roll but they'd be at disadvantage to your spell save, you'd want War Caster in either case.

Not a charop question just a point that the only people outside fighters who get more than 2 attacks a round are those that take the EB cantrip. Whatever class they are (although obviously that requires a feat).

Just a flag that the EB cantrip (and the cantrips in general) is a bit more than just a backup so the wizard doesn't need to carry a bag of daggers which was how it was origially pitched.

Quote from: Marleycat;799585The numbers are high but it's on both sides so it only LOOKS weird. Remember magic items aren't a requirement like 3/4e or highly suggested like 0-2e. Not sure about noncombatant NPC's I would guess it'd be short and brutal. Combatant NPC's in a group are absolutely deadly.

Damage is high compared to PC Hit points.
The ratio is very different from old editions.  

This is probably deliberate to create shorter combats but has a huge effect on things like when to start new characters as I suspect level differences will be pronouced, not to mention PvP combat.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799600This is exactly my point.
My games have been people versus people most of the time for years. I tend to favour very small numbers of powerful monsters, that are really monsters, and then make most of the other enemies human. Occassional I skin them as a humanoid but often as not they are bandits, thieves, crusaders or whatever.
Now it might well be that this new model suits that mode of play, lots of glass canons knocking but we will see.

The MM (both printed and free PDF) have quite a few NPCs to use for getting an idea of how many HPs works for the damage output of a party. Changing equipment will have a big impact, but it is pretty easy to gauge using the examples provided.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799602Not a charop question just a point that the only people outside fighters who get more than 2 attacks a round are those that take the EB cantrip. Whatever class they are (although obviously that requires a feat).

Just a flag that the EB cantrip (and the cantrips in general) is a bit more than just a backup so the wizard doesn't need to carry a bag of daggers which was how it was origially pitched.

Attack roll is not a seperate attack it's basically the same as magic missile except that you have to make attack rolls instead of autohit and it's a ranged attack that is subject to all the factors and possible penalties ranged attacks deal with. Very subtle but important differences there. And only two subclasses can even attempt it which the warlock can't without multiclassing and even then the best any subclass that has the ability (EK or VB) can do is attack with EB and ONE weapon attack as a bonus action regardless of how many weapon attacks they have normally.

So yes at 17th level you could average 42 points damage if all 4 beams hit and you have 20 CHA plus one weapon attack so, what a 1d8+11 and whatever extra damage your magic sword adds? 30-40 points on the generous side? So 70-80 points a round at that level is right on par and not gamebreaking by any means.

Running the premade adventures, I have not yet used NPCs with PC classes yet.  However, eyeballing it looks just fine.

A PC class level N is not equal to CR N.  PC classes look like they are in the ballpark of CR N-3.  As such, it is not accurate to look at, say, the ogre and say its HP are way higher than a 2nd level fighter.  Rather, it is more accurate to look at an ogre and say its HP are comparable to a 5th level fighter.  Your 2nd level party fights one ogre...or your 2nd level party fights one 5th level fighter...not rocket tag at all...should work just fine.

Quote from: One Horse Town;799576To anyone who has had their groups fight other classed NPCs, how have the combats run? I imagine short and brutal.

Short and absolutely brutal.

Quote from: Omega;799614Short and absolutely brutal.

Have you ran them say 100+ vs 4-5? (You decide to break up a big fight on the street or bar and can't kill anyone while they are possessed or in an alcohol rage etc) Because in my experience numbers really change things to being a serious threat to the PC's. If they are classed I would suggest a completely different tactic.

Quote from: Marleycat;799608Attack roll is not a seperate attack it's basically the same as magic missile except that you have to make attack rolls instead of autohit and it's a ranged attack that is subject to all the factors and possible penalties ranged attacks deal with. Very subtle but important differences there. And only two subclasses can even attempt it which the warlock can't without multiclassing and even then the best any subclass that has the ability (EK or VB) can do is attack with EB and ONE weapon attack as a bonus action regardless of how many weapon attacks they have normally.

So yes at 17th level you could average 42 points damage if all 4 beams hit and you have 20 CHA plus one weapon attack so, what a 1d8+11 and whatever extra damage your magic sword adds? 30-40 points on the generous side? So 70-80 points a round at that level is right on par and not gamebreaking by any means.

Um....
I was just agreeing with you that the only default class that can get more than 2 attacks is Fighter but ....
Anyone that takes EB (and using the feats anyone can) will get an at will ability that can for all purposes make more than 2 atttacks... at 11th level you can target 3 opponents or 1 opponent 3 times so each bolt is a separate attack.
Now it might be that at 11th level and beyond without the Warlocks Invocations to bump it the EB damage is too low to worry about versus CR equivalent foes but the fact that the only exception to a fairly strong rule on number of attacks is a cantrip is at least interesting no?

Quote from: Marleycat;799620Have you ran them say 100+ vs 4-5? (You decide to break up a big fight on the street or bar and can't kill anyone while they are possessed or in an alcohol rage etc) Because in my experience numbers really change things to being a serious threat to the PC's. If they are classed I would suggest a completely different tactic.

Im running an RPG. Not a wargame...

And the current group has enough sense to try and get the hell away from large groups they cant handle and go look for the source of the problem instead. Or just wait for the dust to settle.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799623Um....
I was just agreeing with you that the only default class that can get more than 2 attacks is Fighter but ....
Anyone that takes EB (and using the feats anyone can) will get an at will ability that can for all purposes make more than 2 atttacks... at 11th level you can target 3 opponents or 1 opponent 3 times so each bolt is a separate attack.
Now it might be that at 11th level and beyond without the Warlocks Invocations to bump it the EB damage is too low to worry about versus CR equivalent foes but the fact that the only exception to a fairly strong rule on number of attacks is a cantrip is at least interesting no?

Not attacks but the ability to hit multiple targets with ONE attack and unless you're a Warlock you don't have access to the invocations required to make it more damaging ie. not all the beams get the CHA damage adder, no push and you can only get the 240 ft range not the 600 ft range with a feat.

Again it works EXACTLY like Magic Missile in that you have the choice to target 1-4 targets but EACH target requires a subtraction from the total number of beams and you have to make a ranged attack roll for each. Remember a fighter gets 3 seperate attacks which can attack 3 seperate targets in melee within movement range anybody that has EB does the same but at range as a ranged attack even in melee. No appreciable difference from the damage perspective really.

Now to REALLY twist your brain...a 18th level Evoker can make Magic Missile at-will (1d4+1 per missile (3 missiles) +5 with INT 20) no attack roll, no save and you could overchannel it for maximum damage one time no ramifications and keep doing so every round after in exchange for 2d12 necrotic damage to yourself. So yes you could do that for 4-5 rounds pretty easily. Now image they have Meteor Storm prepared? Or Delayed Blast Firebolt, Prismatic Spray, Chain Lightning or whatever else prepared?

Quote from: jibbajibba;799573no I was saying I was thinking of replacing the GWF effect with advantage because its simpler, creates an effect more comparable to duelist's +2 damage but most importantly is seen to have an effect. If you use the GWF as written, in our experience from play, using a d10 weapon it simply comes up very rarely. 80% of the time it has no effect. That felt weak next to the +2 flat on all damage rolls.

But the duellist gives up +2 AC for using a shield, the greatweapon fighter doesn't give up anything. 1d8+2 is still lower than 2d6, never mind 2d6 reroll 1 & 2.

Looking at the styles, the +1 AC in armour one looks probably the strongest.

Quote from: S'mon;799683But the duellist gives up +2 AC for using a shield, the greatweapon fighter doesn't give up anything. 1d8+2 is still lower than 2d6, never mind 2d6 reroll 1 & 2.

Looking at the styles, the +1 AC in armour one looks probably the strongest.

Actually there is a lot of debate about that as the wording says a weapon in one hand but doesn't mention a shield.

The great weapon fighter of course can't use a shield :)
And some of those weapons like the Glaive do 1d10 not 2d6.

Part of it is dependent on how you run the world of course. if you insist that a Great sword needs ten feet of space to weild to its full potential its utility drops significantly in most games. There is a reason they were mainly used in big open battlefields against horses ...

Quote from: jibbajibba;799687Actually there is a lot of debate about that as the wording says a weapon in one hand but doesn't mention a shield.

The great weapon fighter of course can't use a shield :)
And some of those weapons like the Glaive do 1d10 not 2d6.

Part of it is dependent on how you run the world of course. if you insist that a Great sword needs ten feet of space to weild to its full potential its utility drops significantly in most games. There is a reason they were mainly used in big open battlefields against horses ...

In any rational world the shield is certainly a weapon.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;799701In any rational world the shield is certainly a weapon.

1d6 damage. Next playtest Shield Master feat.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;799701In any rational world the shield is certainly a weapon.

typical threads on the topic -

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370228-Fighter-Dueling-Style-and-Shield

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/45094/duelist-and-shields

http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4106756 (Q5)

Etc

Personally I would say the point of duelist is to be sans sheild but dueling rapier and buckler was common and if you extend "duel" back to the medieval period then tournaments with sword and shield so ....
not black an white.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799741typical threads on the topic -

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370228-Fighter-Dueling-Style-and-Shield

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/45094/duelist-and-shields

http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4106756 (Q5)

Etc

Personally I would say the point of duelist is to be sans sheild but dueling rapier and buckler was common and if you extend "duel" back to the medieval period then tournaments with sword and shield so ....
not black an white.

Sword and buckler is certainly a legitimate historical style. The issue isn't one of denying the possibility of fighting that way but of not permitting the cheese of claiming that because the very lethal object you are wielding in your off hand happens to provide more effective defense than another weapon that it is not in fact a weapon.

I would say that anyone using 5E rules that fights with sword and shield and chooses a fighting style that stipulates using a one handed melee weapon and no other weapons is incorrect on the matter.

Protection or two weapon fighting styles would be appropriate, dueling would not.

Rapier and dagger was also a popular dueling form. Should someone choose to do this and take the dueling style I suspect there would be more objections than those given for using a shield?  Why?

From a game balance perspective, such a style would be weaker than two weapon fighting since there is no defensive bonus for the off hand weapon in this case and the +2 damage gained may be less than the damage bonus potential from the off hand attack.

The objections would come because people regard the dagger as a weapon but not the shield. Both are equally valid weapons. Those trying to convince people that the shield isn't a weapon are just trying to get a free +2 to damage while fighting sword & board.

Official response from Jeremy in the Q&A thread on Reddit...

Quote from: Jeremy CrawfordA character with the Dueling option usually pairs a one-handed weapon with a shield, spellcasting focus, or free hand.

So weapon and shield fighter can use Duelist.

Quote from: jibbajibba;799687Actually there is a lot of debate about that as the wording says a weapon in one hand but doesn't mention a shield.

Oh you're right, I misread 'no other weapons' as 'nothing else'. Guess I'll be going Duellist at level 2 then. :)

Quote from: S'mon;799818Oh you're right, I misread 'no other weapons' as 'nothing else'. Guess I'll be going Duellist at level 2 then. :)

I find this really odd BTW. Sword & Board already looked to be the most powerful fighting style in 5e due to bounded accuracy. Then they add an extra +2 damage on top, vastly better than great-weapon fighting rerolls. My Paladin PC mini is carrying a Maul, but now I'm going to have to say it's actually a Warhammer and the mini is also carrying an Invisible Shield of Privilege (+2 AC) to go with his privileged Duellist Style +2 damage... compared to GWF style I end up with +2 AC for less than a 2-point reduction in typical damage output.

Quote from: S'mon;799906I find this really odd BTW. Sword & Board already looked to be the most powerful fighting style in 5e due to bounded accuracy. Then they add an extra +2 damage on top, vastly better than great-weapon fighting rerolls. My Paladin PC mini is carrying a Maul, but now I'm going to have to say it's actually a Warhammer and the mini is also carrying an Invisible Shield of Privilege (+2 AC) to go with his privileged Duellist Style +2 damage... compared to GWF style I end up with +2 AC for less than a 2-point reduction in typical damage output.

Yeah but these type of discussions are just pointless cos no one learn anything real about the game obviously .... :D

Quote from: jibbajibba;799911Yeah but these type of discussions are just pointless cos no one learn anything real about the game obviously .... :D

Yeah, I think looking back over the thread you were right & they were way over-harsh on you. Just that your initial language describing the (real) problem was a bit confusing.

Without the fighting styles, I thought two-handed weapon was maybe just about viable vs sword & board in 5e, though when I played the Starter Set Fighter I soon swapped out my great axe for a longsword. Giving sword & board another boost on top seems really weird; it's close to AD&D where a longsword d8 & +1 AC for shield was clearly better than two-handed sword d10.

True. But better or "optimal" does not allways make for more interesting.

Quote from: Omega;799997True. But better or "optimal" does not allways make for more interesting.

Luckily "optimal" in 5e is barely different from damned good or "interesting". Whoopie you get10 points more damage then my 9/11 Abjurer/Eldritch Knight while I never let you even get wounded, awesome and so gamebreaking right?

Quote from: Marleycat;800009Luckily "optimal" in 5e is barely different from damned good or "interesting". Whoopie you get10 points more damage then my 9/11 Abjurer/Eldritch Knight while I never let you even get wounded, awesome and so gamebreaking right?

So you think the 9/11 Abjurer/EK is broken?

Quote from: Omega;799997True. But better or "optimal" does not allways make for more interesting.

No I totally agree and never optimise but ...

Some weapon combos are better. I have no problem with that it mirrors real life.
But in RL some weapons most weapons have a niche in which they are particularly good which is why they were developed.
I think the game should try to mirror that if it can. You can't go all the way the benefits of a fencing sabre over an epee, the small sword vs the rapier, these are marginal. However, if your game is say OD&D and all weapons do 1d6 damage then everyone should use a dagger. There are no rules for reach or anything. You can carry a lot of daggers they are light you can throw them.

So Handaxes, they don't deal as much damage as a long sword but they should be throwable. Shortswords, you can't mirror their advantages in tight millitary formation, but you can mirror the fact that you can use two of them at once and you can use them like a long knife if you are in a grapple situation. etc

I think GWF works much better with a straight advantage on damage. It prevents the Great sword becoming the only weapon you consider two handed and it compensates for no shield a little and and this is key you can see it working every go. As it stood GWF with most weapons rarely actually came into play.
If you can pick between 2 options and one you get to use each attack (+2 damage) and the other you get to use every now and then (20% of the time for a glaive, 17% of the time for a Great axe, but a whopping 54% of the time for a Great sword) it feels a bit useless. Stuff like feats and weapons styles and pacts and magical schools, all the choices you make in your character have to seem relevant as well as being relevant.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800015So you think the 9/11 Abjurer/EK is broken?

Reading comprehension dude. You're S&B Fighter is a DPR monster but my multiclassed Abjurer/EK can reflexively throw a ward around any of my allies that forces you to burn through to actually hit them. It's called a Shielding Swordmage I could make it a Conjurer instead to be an Attack Swordmage that teleports herself to anywhere or others in a switch anytime also. It's all about preferred tactics.

Being multiclassed like that means you lose big time abilities that the original classes have if you remain single class. But it allows for concepts a person likes regardless of IF they are strictly optimal or not.

But is a fighter with weapon 3 attacks and a wizard with 5th level spells so it's a good tradeoff IF you know what concept you want to play and accept the limitations for not remaining single classed (combining spells and weapon attacks simultaneously or being impervious to concentration breaks when controlling a summoned creature, massive spell resistance and having a 45 hitpoint ward up seperate from your actual hitpoints etc).

Basically it's different with unique abilities but by no means stronger than a single class character, in fact it can be argued to be weaker from a optimization standpoint.

Quote from: Marleycat;800023Reading comprehension dude. You're S&B Fighter is a DPR monster but my multiclassed Abjurer/EK can reflexively throw a ward around any of my allies that forces you to burn through to actually hit them. It's called a Shielding Swordmage I could make it a Conjurer instead to be an Attack Swordmage that teleports herself to anywhere or others in a switch anytime also. It's all about preferred tactics.

Being multiclassed like that means you lose big time abilities that the original classes have if you remain single class. But it allows for concepts a person likes regardless of IF they are strictly optimal or not. And is fighter with 3 attacks and a wizard with 5th level spells so it's a good tradeoff IF you know what concept you want to play and accept the limitations for not remaining single classed (combining spells and weapon attacks simultaneously or being impervious to concentration breaks when controlling a summoned creature etc).

Sorry I was just teasing you because you were being ridiculous.
You deny optimisation then throw arround terms and forms of language that would make the most avid Denner blush.

This isn't a discussion about is my xyz character tougher than your abc character. This is a discussion about I have a choice of what combat style to choose and one of them looks far weaker than the other and doesn't seem to have a benefit in kind elsewhere. Sure you can ignore it but the fact is that in the RAW GWF is weaker than Duelist and not marginally weaker much weaker. Within GWF RAW a Greataxe is a rubbish idea, the benefit of the skill only comes into play on 1 in six attacks compared to over 50% for a great sword. Now that isn't flavourful or a cool quirk at best it's bad math and at worst is deliberate anti-dwarf racism.
Changing it to simple advantage has a host of benefits. It is more elelgant, one less rule quirk to remember, it always gets used so you can see it at work, it makes the Great axe vs Great sword a much better debate as now you are back to the great sword having a higher average and the great axe being more likely to score maximum damage so its a genuine choice.

I don't care is the cool multi-clas combo you have come up with could totally burn my fighter with its kewl powerz. What I care about is that my players feel like the character choice they made was a reasonable one that looks about as good as the others they could have taken when they use it in actual play. I don't care about 20th level characters. I care about the first few levels cos my PCs are in the first few levels.After 6 months play they might be a 10th, chances are they will be closer to 6th because we spend way too much talking to barmen, haggling over the price of dinner, exploring ruins and running through city backstreets to maximise our XP per session, oh and I am a stingy fucker.

But the fact is the slight possible advantage damage wise you worry is negligible at best and something nobody BUT an optimizer would give two shits about yet you want to houserule a game you have no clue about based on your concerns. Just perfect and typically "Denner" of you.

Quote from: Marleycat;800030But the fact is the slight possible advantage damage wise you worry is negligible at best and something nobody BUT an optimizer would give two shits about yet you want to houserule a game you have no clue about based on your concerns. Just perfect and typically "Denner" of you.

No you see you misunderstand again.

My concerns are that people at my table notice things like "with that skill he adds 2 damage to every roll but with my skill every time I roll a 1 or a 2 I get to reroll. My skill is crap can I change it" or "he is doing the same damage with his cantrip as I am doing with my bow but I have to carry arrows, have room to use the bow and he just wiggles his hand and points his finger"

It doesn't actually matter if one is better or not as much as it matters how they are percieved by the players. I want my players to feel like their choices were suitable for their characters, weren't stupid and made them better at the thing they were supposed to be good at than the guy that does it as an afterthought.

By the way Optimisers rather than wanting balance generally want disparity. Optimisation is about spotting the expolits (like great sword vs great axe for example).

But again it falls back to a decision of playstyle rather than optimal damage output.

Jan plays an archer. But someone will say "But but! She could easily be playing a caster and have more powah!?!?!". Jan plays an archer because she LIKES playing an archer. She does NOT like playing a straight-up caster. Heck, she barely uses her ranger spells when playing a ranger. She enjoys keeping track of arrows and loves the new feature to recover arrows after a fight.

Kefra, one of the other players in my group, favours Great Weapon Fighting over Dueling when shes playing the fighter, which is often. It fits her style and preferences whereas Dueling does not. Her other favorite is the spear and the thrown axe.

If you have a player so shallow as to want to change styles because of a percieved difference like that. Then let them! Really its not going to end the world allowing someone to reconsider. Now if they play with duelling a while and then want to change back to GWF then tell them to go fuck themselves!

For the group I am DMing for the player with the Sorcerer realized that the wild magic wasnt triggering very often. Or at least not enough to make things "interesting" and asked to switch over to Dragonblooded. Since he was low level and hadnt yet used any wild magic tricks I said sure. If he asks later to switch back. Too bad. Im pretty sure though he wont.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800040No you see you misunderstand again.

My concerns are that people at my table notice things like "with that skill he adds 2 damage to every roll but with my skill every time I roll a 1 or a 2 I get to reroll. My skill is crap can I change it" or "he is doing the same damage with his cantrip as I am doing with my bow but I have to carry arrows, have room to use the bow and he just wiggles his hand and points his finger"

It doesn't actually matter if one is better or not as much as it matters how they are percieved by the players. I want my players to feel like their choices were suitable for their characters, weren't stupid and made them better at the thing they were supposed to be good at than the guy that does it as an afterthought.

By the way Optimisers rather than wanting balance generally want disparity. Optimisation is about spotting the expolits (like great sword vs great axe for example).

First you've never struck me as a person all that concerned with ultimate balance and second you're wrong about optimizers they prefer balance over obvious imbalance because it's more of a challenge to optimize which is their primary enjoyment in a game.

Quote from: Omega;800071But again it falls back to a decision of playstyle rather than optimal damage output.

Jan plays an archer. But someone will say "But but! She could easily be playing a caster and have more powah!?!?!". Jan plays an archer because she LIKES playing an archer. She does NOT like playing a straight-up caster. Heck, she barely uses her ranger spells when playing a ranger. She enjoys keeping track of arrows and loves the new feature to recover arrows after a fight.

Kefra, one of the other players in my group, favours Great Weapon Fighting over Dueling when shes playing the fighter, which is often. It fits her style and preferences whereas Dueling does not. Her other favorite is the spear and the thrown axe.

If you have a player so shallow as to want to change styles because of a percieved difference like that. Then let them! Really its not going to end the world allowing someone to reconsider. Now if they play with duelling a while and then want to change back to GWF then tell them to go fuck themselves!

For the group I am DMing for the player with the Sorcerer realized that the wild magic wasn't triggering very often. Or at least not enough to make things "interesting" and asked to switch over to Dragonblooded. Since he was low level and hadn't yet used any wild magic tricks I said sure. If he asks later to switch back. Too bad. I'm pretty sure though he wont.

The comparison between classes issue comes when the archer has designed their character to be the coolest archer they can be they picture themselves as Robin Hood, William Tell or Harding Grim. Then a caster picks up a cantrip from a list with out any thought other than they get to pick a new cantrip and voila they are suddenly as good as the archer. That stuff bugs people.
Its been a problem in D&D for ages. The thief is off scouting and the wizard says hold on I can do that better and turns into a bat or something. But the limiter was always that the caster had to have prepped that and could only do it once.
So being outshone once by a caster who planned stuff out is fine but when you see your character being outclassed continuously with no forethought it becomes more frustrating.  

As for the choices a character makes being relevant .... I think that is a key to good game design. No choice should seem weak. The GWF dwarf with his axe is much weaker under RAW than the guy using the Great sword, or the same dwarf dueling with a shield. That isn't weaker than the other characters that is weaker than he would have been had he made another choice.

As for WildMagic the Tides of Chaos power which lets the Sorcerer "buy" an advantage in return for a Wild surge once per "day" ensures some usage but I agree that the Wild magic stuff could be a little more impactful maybe randomising the known spells daily or something.

Quote from: Marleycat;800096First you've never struck me as a person all that concerned with ultimate balance and second you're wrong about optimizers they prefer balance over obvious imbalance because it's more of a challenge to optimize which is their primary enjoyment in a game.

Like I said the players have to feel that their choices are impactful and not obviously weak.

If optimizers loved balance then Fallen Empires would have been the best selling magic expansion of all time.

Quote from: S'mon;799906I find this really odd BTW. Sword & Board already looked to be the most powerful fighting style in 5e due to bounded accuracy. Then they add an extra +2 damage on top, vastly better than great-weapon fighting rerolls.

The great-weapon rerolls also apply to the damage dice you add to your attack from Smite, which makes it considerably better than +2 Damage for a Paladin.

Quote from: jadrax;800258The great-weapon rerolls also apply to the damage dice you add to your attack from Smite, which makes it considerably better than +2 Damage for a Paladin.

This is more the sort of stuff I was hoping for . Yes it does if you read the text straight up I agree and it also applied to Critical damage. As Duelist text says "+2 bonus to damage rolls" and GWF says "1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you made with a melee weapon ...".
I think it's a corner case for paladin's , and I think the divine smite is itself awesome but obviously curtailed by spell slots.
I also think its a little weird from an immersion perspective. The Divine strike always does d8s so its deliberately removed from the weapon itself. A dagger or a great sword divine smite is the same because its additional Divine damage, but if you are trained with a great weapon and have GWF its somehow more potent? Not sure that really works logically.

Crit damage is going to be bound by the size of the dice again.
I am going to use Advantage on the weapon damage roll so criticals will be a smidgen weaker (if you get a crit on a great axe you will roll 3d12 and take the highest 2, crit on a great sword, 5d6 highest 4 etc so only 1 additional dice) but the general damage improvement and the ability to see the bonus on each strike outweigh the loss I think.

Would be interested if anyone has done the maths...

Quote from: jadrax;800258The great-weapon rerolls also apply to the damage dice you add to your attack from Smite, which makes it considerably better than +2 Damage for a Paladin.

I was looking at that, but I'll only get a couple 2d8 Smites a day, the rerolls may not even come up.

If it were a straight choice between rerolls & +2 damage for my Paladin then they would be balanced. But giving up 2 points of AC in 5e needs a *lot* of extra damage to justify it. I have STR 16 so +3. I'd rather be Duellist & Smiting for '1d8+5+2d8 and +2 AC' than '2d6+3+2d8 reroll-1&2'. The latter gives higher damage in one round but the former's +2 AC keeps me standing much longer, which means my actually damage output over the fight is likely to be higher.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800232The comparison between classes issue comes when the archer has designed their character to be the coolest archer they can be they picture themselves as Robin Hood, William Tell or Harding Grim. Then a caster picks up a cantrip from a list with out any thought other than they get to pick a new cantrip and voila they are suddenly as good as the archer. That stuff bugs people.
Its been a problem in D&D for ages. The thief is off scouting and the wizard says hold on I can do that better and turns into a bat or something. But the limiter was always that the caster had to have prepped that and could only do it once.
So being outshone once by a caster who planned stuff out is fine but when you see your character being outclassed continuously with no forethought it becomes more frustrating.  

As for the choices a character makes being relevant .... I think that is a key to good game design. No choice should seem weak. The GWF dwarf with his axe is much weaker under RAW than the guy using the Great sword, or the same dwarf dueling with a shield. That isn't weaker than the other characters that is weaker than he would have been had he made another choice.

As for WildMagic the Tides of Chaos power which lets the Sorcerer "buy" an advantage in return for a Wild surge once per "day" ensures some usage but I agree that the Wild magic stuff could be a little more impactful maybe randomising the known spells daily or something.

1: Again we come back to the damn cantrips.

Ok. We've allready shown that if an archer tricks themselves out to be the bestest archer ever. Then there is no way even a dedicated Eldrich blaster can hope to even approach the archers level of damage output. Even the limited ammo of an archer isnt as limited as it seems. Jan carries 20 in a quiver. I have yet to see her run out simply because she effectively has 38 arrows due to the pick-up system. More if one of us carries an extra quivver for her. Even without Sharpshooter her damage output is slightly better than mine with basic EB. And she just picked up sharpshooter so her damage is now double mine and will stay double mine even if I pumped up EB.

This has been explained how many times now?

2: So the dwarf chose an great axe instead of a great sword? SO WHAT? That was his choice wasnt it? Its right there on the weapons page that the Great Sword does 2d6. Maybe he wanted an axe because he thought it fit the character and didnt give a flying fuck about optimal damage output?
But for old times sake lets look at it again...
GWF with Great axe = average of 7.3
GWF with Greats word = average of 8.3
Duel with the best possible one-hander which is a d8 = average 6.5

Great Sword does 1 more average than great axe. In the heat of battle no one should be bean counting that much to ever notice.
Duelling does less damage - but you can use a shield. Thats up to the individual if the extra AC offsets the lower output. Assuming they give a damn about output.

3: Agreed. Wild magic is a bit underwhelming. Though keep in mind that the surges are at the DMs option and can be called for every time the Wild Sorcerer casts a non-cantrip spell. But its a flat 5% chance.

Quote from: Omega;8002691: Again we come back to the damn cantrips.

Ok. We've allready shown that if an archer tricks themselves out to be the bestest archer ever. Then there is no way even a dedicated Eldrich blaster can hope to even approach the archers level of damage output. Even the limited ammo of an archer isnt as limited as it seems. Jan carries 20 in a quiver. I have yet to see her run out simply because she effectively has 38 arrows due to the pick-up system. More if one of us carries an extra quivver for her. Even without Sharpshooter her damage output is slightly better than mine with basic EB. And she just picked up sharpshooter so her damage is now double mine and will stay double mine even if I pumped up EB.

This has been explained how many times now?

2: So the dwarf chose an great axe instead of a great sword? SO WHAT? That was his choice wasnt it? Its right there on the weapons page that the Great Sword does 2d6. Maybe he wanted an axe because he thought it fit the character and didnt give a flying fuck about optimal damage output?
But for old times sake lets look at it again...
GWF with Great axe = average of 7.3
GWF with Greats word = average of 8.3
Duel with the best possible one-hander which is a d8 = average 6.5

Great Sword does 1 more average than great axe. In the heat of battle no one should be bean counting that much to ever notice.
Duelling does less damage - but you can use a shield. Thats up to the individual if the extra AC offsets the lower output. Assuming they give a damn about output.

3: Agreed. Wild magic is a bit underwhelming. Though keep in mind that the surges are at the DMs option and can be called for every time the Wild Sorcerer casts a non-cantrip spell. But its a flat 5% chance.

1. The pimped out archer will be better then the EB guy in a white room scenario that never happens in actual play. The sharpshooter feat is great but a 255 minus to add 10 isn't a minor risk. In actual play when in a long combat arrows run out or you are doing stuff that means a bow is too awkard to use ... meh. Maybe I put more emphasis on the surroundings etc in combat than most.
My concern is more "why does the damage cantrip need to stay combat relevant if casters get a range of spells." I guess it feels like balance for its own sake. But I can totally see that is only my opinion and everyone else loves it :)

2. The great ax isn't about actual damage its about the perception. If I have a power that only kicks in 17% of the time compared to a power that kicks in 54% of the time it just feels underwhelming and using advantage fixes it easily and elegantly.

3. I have tended to do that (may them roll after most spells) but as a sorcerer doesn't necessarily cast too many spells a day .. I mean using 11th which is to me the start of "high level" a sorcerer is going  to at most cast 15 spells a day (top end and unlikely ) if you made them roll for each spell it would give a 55% change of a wild surge happening at least once. 55% of something that might be bad for the party a day seems underwhelming. I like Tides of Chaos, and its possible that that advantage will be very useful but ... I just feel like something a little cleverer with spell acquisition would have been nice.

More importantly than the detail though is that I am merely trying to fit 5e into my style of play and asking questions seems a reasonable way to get answers. I am not even saying its a bad game, I think it looks great but I have a handful of concerns is all.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800233Like I said the players have to feel that their choices are impactful and not obviously weak.

If optimizers loved balance then Fallen Empires would have been the best selling magic expansion of all time.

Have you ever actually played MTG? Fallen Empires was not a "balanced" expansion by any measure. One the other hand the set that most players consider the best ever Ravinca was part of one of the most diverse and balanced formats in the history of Magic.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;800284Have you ever actually played MTG? Fallen Empires was not a "balanced" expansion by any measure. One the other hand the set that most players consider the best ever Ravinca was part of one of the most diverse and balanced formats in the history of Magic.

It was a throwaway comment and yes I played from Legends through to Tempest and then dipped back in later.

We always thought Fallen Empires was very balanced. Maybe we were playing it wrong?

Quote from: jibbajibba;800287We always thought Fallen Empires was very balanced. Maybe we were playing it wrong?

Fallen Empires was massively under-powered to the point that only 6 cards from that set have seen serious play over the course of the games history

Quote from: gamerGoyf;800299Fallen Empires was massively under-powered to the point that only 6 cards from that set have seen serious play over the course of the games history

Agreed and as such the cards in the set were very balanced with each other.
Just because a bunch of things are low powered doesn't mean they aren't balanced.

A race between overweight dwarves may well be a very close race but none of them are going to trouble Usain Bolt.

1: -5 to hit which can be offset by good stats in DEX. Jans allready pointed that out. Also applies to Great Weapon Master which has the same +10 damage for -5 to hit. So even the melee fighters can outclass EB at maximum pump.

And I agree. Why do they need to be so damn potent? Remember. They were more powerful during playtest! Aside from the Warlock none of the classes really need such overtorqued cantrips. A d6 would have been reasonable, or even a gradually increasing die after X levels. Such is.

2: The player has to A: Know the perentages and B: give a damn. And actually the advantage isnt exactly fixing anything. With the d12 weapon the average bumps up 1 point. whoopie. And with the 2d6 weapon it actually doesnt change at all really. Having advantage means its gone from a roll now and then, to a roll every single time. More rolling is not allways a good thing.

3: Yes. Or at least beefed up the path abilities. A once per day advantage isnt much. The bend luck power though is actually not bad when you realize its an at-will power. the next is kinda meh and Bombardment feels not all that great as well since its only going to add 1d to the damage.

Quote from: Omega;8003021: -5 to hit which can be offset by good stats in DEX. Jans allready pointed that out. Also applies to Great Weapon Master which has the same +10 damage for -5 to hit. So even the melee fighters can outclass EB at maximum pump.

And I agree. Why do they need to be so damn potent? Remember. They were more powerful during playtest! Aside from the Warlock none of the classes really need such overtorqued cantrips. A d6 would have been reasonable, or even a gradually increasing die after X levels. Such is.

2: The player has to A: Know the perentages and B: give a damn. And actually the advantage isnt exactly fixing anything. With the d12 weapon the average bumps up 1 point. whoopie. And with the 2d6 weapon it actually doesnt change at all really. Having advantage means its gone from a roll now and then, to a roll every single time. More rolling is not allways a good thing.

3: Yes. Or at least beefed up the path abilities. A once per day advantage isnt much. The bend luck power though is actually not bad when you realize its an at-will power. the next is kinda meh and Bombardment feels not all that great as well since its only going to add 1d to the damage.

Agree with 1 & 3 but on 2 the player doesn't need to know the % at all.
It doesn't matter if the numbers come out roughly the same the point is that the guy using the Great sword is going to get to use the power roughly every other swing and the guy with the great axe 1 swing in 6. At the table this is really noticeable. The fact that the Great axe will benefit more from that 1 in six occurrence (which is what the numbers tell you if you crunch them) doesn't matter because it feels less useful. Advantage means everyone gets to use the power each strike just like the Duelist. And roll 3 keep highest 2 or roll 2 keep highest 1 doesn't take any longer to roll. In fact it will save time on the current rule if its simplicity you are after.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800300Agreed and as such the cards in the set were very balanced with each other.
Just because a bunch of things are low powered doesn't mean they aren't balanced.

I'm not sure if anyone has ever tried to play A Fallen Empires only format but I'd think the white soldier deck would be the best by a country mile.

24 Plains

25 Creatures
4 Icatian Javelineers
4 Icatian Priest
4 Icatian Infantry
4 Order of Leitbur
4 Icatian Lieutenant
2 Combat Medic
3 Hand of Justice.

11 other spells
4 Aeolipile
3 Zelyon Sword
2 Icatian Town
3 Ring of Renewal

This deck actually plays like a real deck unlike the decks you can make with the other colors.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;800311I'm not sure if anyone has ever tried to play A Fallen Empires only format but I'd think the white soldier deck would be the best by a country mile.

24 Plains

25 Creatures
4 Icatian Javelineers
4 Icatian Priest
4 Icatian Infantry
4 Order of Leitbur
4 Icatian Lieutenant
2 Combat Medic
3 Hand of Justice.

11 other spells
4 Aeolipile
3 Zelyon Sword
2 Icatian Town
3 Ring of Renewal

This deck actually plays like a real deck unlike the decks you can make with the other colors.

They did OK at best back in the day, though we allowed Revised & Dark splash to flesh things out. Without the Ring of Renewal card draw you were soon SoL as white creatures are habitually squishy. The empires eventually succumbed to their internal horde threats; attrition wins.

Farrel's Zealots, Thrulls, & Dwarven Weaponsmiths were a nasty tri-color back in the day.

It's one of the few MtG settings that tops my list of Must Be Converted Into RPG Setting Now!

Quote from: Opaopajr;800316They did OK at best back in the day, though we allowed Revised & Dark splash to flesh things out.

If you're including Revised then that changes everything that set had stuff like Black Vise and Lightning Bolt. In that kind of format a deck with mostly fallen empires cards is going to be majorly behind the curve.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;800321If you're including Revised then that changes everything that set had stuff like Black Vise and Lightning Bolt. In that kind of format a deck with mostly fallen empires cards is going to be majorly behind the curve.

Depends. Hymn to Tourach was a staple in Hypnotic Specter decks. When Ice Age came out, before Alliances, Hypnotic Specter + Abyssal Specter + Hymn to Tourach basically meant empty your opponent's hand. No hand, no game. Throw in Necropotence for mid-late game salt in the wound.

Also the "pump knights" were good regardless.

High Tide was exponential mana ramp.

Night Soil and Breeding Pit were core to Ashnod Altar tricks back in the day. In fact, soon after FE tokens were ruled to enter the graveyard then immediately "exile" (modern term. remember, I played in the age of Interrupts). Yes, there was a brief period of token-on-token breed madness.

Also Zeylon Sword and Spirit Shield were about the earliest appearances of the modern game staple mechanic of Artifacts that Equip.

It's easy to look back and say it was a wasteland, but a lot more than remembered good ideas and strong cards popped up from that set. But yes, it is quite outclassed nowadays (but then so is quite a bit of Arabian Nights, Legends, Dark, and Antiquities). Block setting has allowed more sandboxed power creep per basic level play, along with fostering diversity away from ba-roken card dominance from past sets. Compared to the Age of Moxes, everything nowadays is "cute," moderately explosive power cards with pound-for-pound stronger commons.

Though I'm sure glad to be out of that rat race, let me tell you!

Yes but the cards the were playable were a much smaller slice of the pie. From Mirage onward you had not only type 2 but also limited. So almost every card in those sets is playable in at least one format.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;800328Yes but the cards the were playable were a much smaller slice of the pie. From Mirage onward you had not only type 2 but also limited. So almost every card in those sets is playable in at least one format.

I personally hate the formatting because of the planned obsolescence model. It's why I quite MtG and L5R almost back to back (give or take a couple years) when they switched to such formats. However, yes the new formats "unbanned" quite a few cards so as to open the play field.

Generally, since CCGs are directly competitive, each set pretty much printed a mere handful of competitive Broken-thru-Strong cards. And the rest were essentially uncompetitive garbage, de facto banned by the sheer competitive environment. It was a rather accepted paradigm up until Mirage.

Mirage, and block sets from then on, basically plays really well with itself. And because previous card pools are inaccessible, commons and uncommons that were previously accepted de facto garbage had to up their game to cover design gaps. It explains why so many of the earlier sets had such a swing between power levels.

The price for such a happy secret garden was a treadmill. Not a price I was willing to play.

Besides, home games allowed us to micro-manage the power level of cards without pissing around with WotC approved formats. Yes, you could play Sol Ring, Swamp, Dark Ritual, and up to 4x Black Vise turn one in a friendly Fallen Empires+ matchup, but in practice it was frowned upon (excess Black Vises) because there was no point. Might as well escalate dick measuring contests until someone whips out the Alpha rares and who Channel+Fireball-ed in their neighborhood first.

At some point "pro play" expectations are just stupid; it adds nothing to the pick-up game.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800330At some point "pro play" expectations are just stupid; it adds nothing to the pick-up game.

That's a big assumption, MtG is a competive game and I'd wager that the decisions that the "pro play" expectations WotC trickle down to make casual experience better. The fact that they design for limited for example means when new players open a bunch of packs and make a deck out of those cards they end up having a better time.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;800340That's a big assumption, MtG is a competive game and I'd wager that the decisions that the "pro play" expectations WotC trickle down to make casual experience better. The fact that they design for limited for example means when new players open a bunch of packs and make a deck out of those cards they end up having a better time.

It's an assumption born out of experience, especially after returning to observe the past 5+ years from a long hiatus. The design is tighter, but the environment is just more poisonous, the "winning pool" more obvious faster, and chased harder. Unless you get sponsored, burn money chasing pro-play (or Vintage foil dreams), or ghetto-ize yourself to a CCG circuit junkie in aspirations thereof, there's no there there anymore.

The block sets have tighter flavor and greater average card competitiveness. But they also get "solved" in record time now. End result is far less experimentation and exploration. Narrower pool, narrower parameters, narrower solutions.

(At this point we should move this to Other Games before we derail any more.)

Besides all the sturm und drang about DPR on GWF and great axe v. great sword, I notice no one is talking about the annoyance of de facto restriction to Rogue's weapon choice by Sneak Attack's swing.

Sneak Attack pretty much allows only 7 weapons to choose from, for the most part only really 4 without optional feats and multi-classing. Sneak weapons must either have finesse or be a ranged weapon. And of finesse melee you need light keyword or Dual Wielder feat so as to milk two-weapon fighting for all its worth. It makes the range of weapon builds very narrow.:

Simple Melee
Dagger (because all the others do not have the critical finesse keyword. the light and thrown keywords just pushes it over the top early game.)

Simple Ranged
Lt. Xbow (just for d8 love, and little loading worries for most builds)
Dart (cheap, mid-range, until enough gold for more daggers)
S. Bow (go to ranged weapon, with no loading worries)
Sling (the ONLY native ranged bludgeoning, and the ONLY bludgeoning that works with Sneak Attack. Yes, that matters.)

Martial Melee
Rapier (needs Dual Wielder feat.)
Short Sword (Two-weapon finesse d6s, however you cannot throw. solid early, later Sneak Attack makes it forgettable.)

Martial Ranged
Hand XBow (feat tricks builds.)

Longsword is ignorable, even with Dual Wielder feat. Sneak Attack. must. have. finesse. Further, its better to have two melee chances to trigger Sneak Attack, so its versatile property is pointless.

It makes alternate thief equipment builds almost untenable by the sheer rapid increase of SA damage. Further with DEX doing most of the light and medium armor AC heavy lifting, SA + AC demands really curtails the diversity of Rogue builds. I'd excuse the poor armor/defense options as tradition, but weapon funneling is really annoying.

I really hope the DMG has an option to pitch that class feature into some old school Backstabbing.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800415Besides all the sturm und drang about DPR on GWF and great axe v. great sword, I notice no one is talking about the annoyance of de facto restriction to Rogue's weapon choice by Sneak Attack's swing.

Sneak Attack pretty much allows only 7 weapons to choose from, for the most part only really 4 without optional feats and multi-classing. Sneak weapons must either have finesse or be a ranged weapon. And of finesse melee you need light keyword or Dual Wielder feat so as to milk two-weapon fighting for all its worth. It makes the range of weapon builds very narrow.:

You omit scimitar, which pairs nicely with short sword for dual wielding without the Dual Wielder feat, because it's finesse and light and does slashing where short sword does piercing.

QuoteIt makes alternate thief equipment builds almost untenable by the sheer rapid increase of SA damage. Further with DEX doing most of the light and medium armor AC heavy lifting, SA + AC demands really curtails the diversity of Rogue builds. I'd excuse the poor armor/defense options as tradition, but weapon funneling is really annoying.

I really hope the DMG has an option to pitch that class feature into some old school Backstabbing.

I guess I'm OK with sneak attacks not being delivered via halberd. Why are you bothered by this? All I can think of:

• It's boringly the same that all rogues have (almost) the same weapons.
• Enemies are going to guess it's a rogue because of the finesse weapons.
• You want to squeeze out an extra point or so of damage on top of the d6 per two levels from sneak attack.

My answers to those objections:

• House rule that any reasonable one handed weapon can be used for sneak attack as if it were Finesse and Light, but only gets d6 damage (or d4 if it's also Thrown). Won't it be boringly the same that all rogues use two weapons to get the best result out of sneak attack?
• Enemies are probably going to see lots of dual wielders with Finesse weapons (Light or not according to Dual Wielder feat) who aren't rogues, because they have much better dexterity bonus than strength (my ranger and my sorcerer, for examples).
• :boohoo:

Hey, Deep Spawn was a pretty hefty beating (when combined with Basalt Monolith, you could get that thing out reasonably fast, and 6/6 trample untargettable is pretty decent), and it seems like Blue had one or two other cards...been too long for me to remember it all. FE was underrated as a set, pump knights and hymn to Tourach were pretty strong and playable in darn near every deck.

One thing badly overlooked in the cantrips mess is resistances. Plenty of monsters are pretty resistant to weapons, but spells, especially cantrips? Nothing, or very, very few. Suddenly, that 90% effective cantrip is every bit as good as weapons that deal half damage when meeting undead, for example. Toss in those cantrips that shut down regeneration (functionally equivalent to +10 damage!), and I'm still thinking the "infinite magic spells" thing needs to be scaled back to something less than infinity.

"I waste 'em with my crossbow" has been replaced with "Eldritch Blast ftw!"

Hey Doom, Jibba and Rawma why don't every last one of you whiny pussies open a winery in Petaluma? Don't forget the cheese while your at it also. Get over the fact that magic users don't need a weapon used by peasants and rogues to consistently miss with for your misguided and bullshit version of immersion.

You ignorant fucks act like magic users get EVERY possible cantrip when in fact they get 3-5 total and likely because of that probably take 1-2 combat cantrips by 20th level unless they take a feat mostly useless to them or another feat that requires said cantrip to have an attack roll (extremely limited choices there and even more useless unless you're an Evoker, Sorcerer or Warlock). About the ONLY class that would have multiple combat cantrips is the Eldritch Knight or possibly the Valor Bard (Shocking Grasp and Viscous Mockery come to mind as the best options).

Much better is to take Elemental Adept and alter your single goto combat cantrip IF desperate.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800415Besides all the sturm und drang about DPR on GWF and great axe v. great sword, I notice no one is talking about the annoyance of de facto restriction to Rogue's weapon choice by Sneak Attack's swing.

Sneak Attack pretty much allows only 7 weapons to choose from, for the most part only really 4 without optional feats and multi-classing. Sneak weapons must either have finesse or be a ranged weapon. And of finesse melee you need light keyword or Dual Wielder feat so as to milk two-weapon fighting for all its worth. It makes the range of weapon builds very narrow.:

Simple Melee
Dagger (because all the others do not have the critical finesse keyword. the light and thrown keywords just pushes it over the top early game.)

Simple Ranged
Lt. Xbow (just for d8 love, and little loading worries for most builds)
Dart (cheap, mid-range, until enough gold for more daggers)
S. Bow (go to ranged weapon, with no loading worries)
Sling (the ONLY native ranged bludgeoning, and the ONLY bludgeoning that works with Sneak Attack. Yes, that matters.)

Martial Melee
Rapier (needs Dual Wielder feat.)
Short Sword (Two-weapon finesse d6s, however you cannot throw. solid early, later Sneak Attack makes it forgettable.)

Martial Ranged
Hand XBow (feat tricks builds.)

Longsword is ignorable, even with Dual Wielder feat. Sneak Attack. must. have. finesse. Further, its better to have two melee chances to trigger Sneak Attack, so its versatile property is pointless.

It makes alternate thief equipment builds almost untenable by the sheer rapid increase of SA damage. Further with DEX doing most of the light and medium armor AC heavy lifting, SA + AC demands really curtails the diversity of Rogue builds. I'd excuse the poor armor/defense options as tradition, but weapon funneling is really annoying.

I really hope the DMG has an option to pitch that class feature into some old school Backstabbing.

You can't use dual wield on sneak attacks. You can only make 1 sneak attack per turn.
Also the sneak attack damage doesn't vary by weapon unlike in early editions which means that you don't need to worry so much about the weapon to get the same bonus out of the sneak attack. Sneak attack with a d4 knife or a d8 rapier and .... the bonus is still d6

Quote from: jibbajibba;800503You can't use dual wield on sneak attacks. You can only make 1 sneak attack per turn.

You can only add the damage on one successful attack per round, but if you get two chances to hit you're more likely to get the bonus damage in that round. That is, if you miss with the first attack but hit with the second, you get the bonus damage on the second attack.

Quote from: Marleycat;800501Hey Doom, Jibba and Rawma why don't every last one of you whiny pussies open a winery in Petaluma? Don't forget the cheese while your at it also. Get over the fact that magic users don't need a weapon used by peasants and rogues to consistently miss with for your misguided and bullshit version of immersion.

You ignorant fucks act like

What did I do to get included in this rant?

Quote from: rawma;800508You can only add the damage on one successful attack per round, but if you get two chances to hit you're more likely to get the bonus damage in that round. That is, if you miss with the first attack but hit with the second, you get the bonus damage on the second attack.

Correct. You have a lesser chance with the off-hand attack. But its still another chance if the main hand misses.

Quote from: rawma;800510What did I do to get included in this rant?

I mistakenly thought you were whining about at-will cantrips I apologize. From my own play experience I have used a combat cantrip ONE time in 2 levels. I do use the non combat ones all the time though.:)

Quote from: Marleycat;800512You're whining about at-will cantrips. From my own play experience I have used a combat cantrip ONE time in 2 levels. I do use the non combat ones all the time though.:)

In what post did I whine about cantrips? I'm whining about being lumped in with those other whiners, not about cantrips.

Quote from: rawma;800514In what post did I whine about cantrips? I'm whining about being lumped in with those other whiners, not about cantrips.

See my above edit.;)

Quote from: Omega;800511Correct. You have a lesser chance with the off-hand attack. But its still another chance if the main hand misses.

You may get less damage (because no damage bonus from your characteristic, unless you have a feat or a class feature that says otherwise), but the chance to hit is the same, isn't it?

Quote from: rawma;800508You can only add the damage on one successful attack per round, but if you get two chances to hit you're more likely to get the bonus damage in that round. That is, if you miss with the first attack but hit with the second, you get the bonus damage on the second attack.

Fair enough but you would have to be using the "adjacent to an ally" trigger as the second attack from hidden wouldn't get advantage as you would no longer be hidden.

Quote from: rawma;800516You may get less damage (because no damage bonus from your characteristic, unless you have a feat or a class feature that says otherwise), but the chance to hit is the same, isn't it?

As I understand it, yes. Attack rolls are usually never messed with unless advantage/disadvantage is in play.

Quote from: rawma;800516You may get less damage (because no damage bonus from your characteristic, unless you have a feat or a class feature that says otherwise), but the chance to hit is the same, isn't it?

oop. True dat. So the off-hand attack has the same to-hit. Even more reason to go with two.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800517Fair enough but you would have to be using the "adjacent to an ally" trigger as the second attack from hidden wouldn't get advantage as you would no longer be hidden.

See my above post but yes you're basically correct. It should just be a second attack no advantage or disadvantage possibly at a negative to the damage roll  IF the attack roll is successful.

Quote from: Marleycat;800512I mistakenly thought you were whining about at-will cantrips I apologize. From my own play experience I have used a combat cantrip ONE time in 2 levels. I do use the non combat ones all the time though.:)

PCs in my games using them all the time. Also maxing out use of Minor illusion and mending.

Typically, as you yourself pointed out in another post, they use their cantrips for combat, save their toughest slot for another combat spell and the other slots are utility.
We have played for 4 sessions and the party are just reaching third level. They have been in 5 fights in that time, mostly with goblin patrols.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800517Fair enough but you would have to be using the "adjacent to an ally" trigger as the second attack from hidden wouldn't get advantage as you would no longer be hidden.

Some might read the missing attack as not dropping you out of hidden. YMMV.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800522PCs in my games using them all the time. Also maxing out use of Minor illusion and mending.

Typically, as you yourself pointed out in another post, they use their cantrips for combat, save their toughest slot for another combat spell and the other slots are utility.
We have played for 4 sessions and the party are just reaching third level. They have been in 5 fights in that time, mostly with goblin patrols.

Maybe throw a twist like humans in a group that aren't obvious combatants? What do you mean by maxxing out MI and Mending though? Because that tells me another issue is at play then pure combat.

Minor Illusion, and Mending should be used all the time though because those are tricks that seperate the PC's from the regular people but they have their own downsides if used indescrimitably. I'm totally sure either or both are used by any typical High Elf shopkeeper.

Quote from: Omega;800523Some might read the missing attack as not dropping you out of hidden. YMMV.

Nah if you make an attack you are no longer hidden. Just like invisibility back in the day.

Quote from: Marleycat;800524Maybe throw a twist like humans in a group that aren't obvious combatants? What do you mean by maxxing out MI and Mending though? Because that tells me another issue is at play then pure combat.

Minor Illusion, and Mending should be used all the time though because those are tricks that seperate the PC's from the regular people but they have their own downsides if used indescrimitably. I'm totally sure either or both are used by any typical High Elf shopkeeper.

the first part of your comment I can't understand you will need to unpick it for me.

The second part I agree with totally but can't really see any downsides.
the MI has worked really well to confuse enemies in combat as well with orders shouted from behind groups of troops, or magical warriors stepping out of fires.  All in all some interesting applications.

As for mending we are still wondering how far you can push it. I haven't decided yet.

Quote from: rawma;800460You omit scimitar, which pairs nicely with short sword for dual wielding without the Dual Wielder feat, because it's finesse and light and does slashing where short sword does piercing.

Rogues do not have class proficiency with Scimitars. It was omitted on purpose.

Quote from: rawma;800460I guess I'm OK with sneak attacks not being delivered via halberd. Why are you bothered by this? All I can think of:

• It's boringly the same that all rogues have (almost) the same weapons.
• Enemies are going to guess it's a rogue because of the finesse weapons.
• You want to squeeze out an extra point or so of damage on top of the d6 per two levels from sneak attack.

My answers to those objections:

• House rule that any reasonable one handed weapon can be used for sneak attack as if it were Finesse and Light, but only gets d6 damage (or d4 if it's also Thrown). Won't it be boringly the same that all rogues use two weapons to get the best result out of sneak attack?
• Enemies are probably going to see lots of dual wielders with Finesse weapons (Light or not according to Dual Wielder feat) who aren't rogues, because they have much better dexterity bonus than strength (my ranger and my sorcerer, for examples).
• :boohoo:

Wrong assumed question. I don't care how Sneak Attack is delivered. I care that I must make an effort to deliver it. I don't like that it exists at all.

The damage swing is just that beneficial, and readily combat available, that to build remotely against it makes. no. sense.

Have you tinkered with low DEX build permutations already? I have, along with other low stat experiments. There's some real potential in 5e to mitigate just about any stat penalty.

Except for Rogues. It's really hard to fight against that one-two combo of needing high DEX for AC and Sneak Attack favoring finesse or ranged weapons. It's painfully close to 4e's "drop an 18 in this stat by hook or by crook to ride this ride." It's straight up boring.

Try making a DEX mediocre Rogue focused on social skills. Quite doable. Now try to keep them out of harms way without being a social monster, either before combat (positioning via Stealth, Acrobatics, Athletics, etc.), or during (armor AC, cover, range, higher DPR to end fights earlier, etc.). You rapidly end up returning to the same answer.

One of the few I could come up with was high STR, low DEX, Mt. Dwarf who used Darts, Athletics to Shove, L. Swds to crit Prone targets, caltrop/ball bearing floor control, darkvision w/ nets... etc.

It gets quite oblique. And leaves little interpretation for basic tropes, like Thugs with clubs, or Bandit King with Longsword, Old Apothecary Poisoner (wish Blowguns had finesse), and so on. And a lot of that could still be permissible if Sneak Attack didn't exists.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800503You can't use dual wield on sneak attacks. You can only make 1 sneak attack per turn.
Also the sneak attack damage doesn't vary by weapon unlike in early editions which means that you don't need to worry so much about the weapon to get the same bonus out of the sneak attack. Sneak attack with a d4 knife or a d8 rapier and .... the bonus is still d6

Quote from: rawma;800508You can only add the damage on one successful attack per round, but if you get two chances to hit you're more likely to get the bonus damage in that round. That is, if you miss with the first attack but hit with the second, you get the bonus damage on the second attack.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800517Fair enough but you would have to be using the "adjacent to an ally" trigger as the second attack from hidden wouldn't get advantage as you would no longer be hidden.

Quote from: Marleycat;800521See my above post but yes you're basically correct. It should just be a second attack no advantage or disadvantage possibly at a negative to the damage roll  IF the attack roll is successful.

Quote from: Omega;800523Some might read the missing attack as not dropping you out of hidden. YMMV.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800529Nah if you make an attack you are no longer hidden. Just like invisibility back in the day.

*sigh* :banghead:

Have you all forgotten Appendix: Conditions already? Do I have to quote that, too?

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Opaopajr;800540Rogues do not have class proficiency with Scimitars. It was omitted on purpose.



Wrong assumed question. I don't care how Sneak Attack is delivered. I care that I must make an effort to deliver it. I don't like that it exists at all.

The damage swing is just that beneficial, and readily combat available, that to build remotely against it makes. no. sense.

Have you tinkered with low DEX build permutations already? I have, along with other low stat experiments. There's some real potential in 5e to mitigate just about any stat penalty.

Except for Rogues. It's really hard to fight against that one-two combo of needing high DEX for AC and Sneak Attack favoring finesse or ranged weapons. It's painfully close to 4e's "drop an 18 in this stat by hook or by crook to ride this ride." It's straight up boring.

Try making a DEX mediocre Rogue focused on social skills. Quite doable. Now try to keep them out of harms way without being a social monster, either before combat (positioning via Stealth, Acrobatics, Athletics, etc.), or during (armor AC, cover, range, higher DPR to end fights earlier, etc.). You rapidly end up returning to the same answer.

One of the few I could come up with was high STR, low DEX, Mt. Dwarf who used Darts, Athletics to Shove, L. Swds to crit Prone targets, caltrop/ball bearing floor control, darkvision w/ nets... etc.

It gets quite oblique. And leaves little interpretation for basic tropes, like Thugs with clubs, or Bandit King with Longsword, Old Apothecary Poisoner (wish Blowguns had finesse), and so on. And a lot of that could still be permissible if Sneak Attack didn't exists.

Finese weapons can base off STR or DEX.
Haven't tried it as I have zero interest but a grappler rogue could get advantage on all attacks post grapple and so have guarenteed SA on all hits.

Also not sure why you can't have a rogue poisoner with a blowpipe, as its a ranged weapon so you would get sneak attack with ranged weapons so finese is immaterial.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800542*sigh* :banghead:

Have you all forgotten Appendix: Conditions already? Do I have to quote that, too?

:rolleyes:

Actually page 195 at the end of "Unseen attackers and Targets" spells it out. The first attack, hit or miss, drops you out of hidden.

Quote from: Marleycat;800501You ignorant fucks act like magic users get EVERY possible cantrip when in fact they get 3-5 total and likely because of that probably take 1-2 combat cantrips by 20th level unless they take a feat mostly useless to them or another feat that requires said cantrip to have an attack roll (extremely limited choices there and even more useless unless you're an Evoker, Sorcerer or Warlock).

I'm running two 5e games at the moment. One has reached 4th level and the other has reached 7th level.

Party 1 (7th level) = Fighter (Champion), Rogue (Thief), Druid (Land), Bard (Valor), Wizard (Evoker)

Party 2 (4th level) = Cleric (Storm), Rogue (Assassin), Warlock (Fey Chain), Sorcerer (Wild), Monk (Fist)

Between the two parties I don't think any of the magic using types have gone for more than two offensive cantrips.

The druid has Produce Flame, but tends to use a sling instead.

The bard liked her vicious mockery at lower level, but now she gets two attacks per round she uses weapons more often than combat spells (she's taken mostly healing spells anyway - she likes being the party buffer/healer).

The wizard has fire bolt, and used it at lower level when she ran out of spells, but now she's 7th level she doesn't get to that stage very often unless things are going badly wrong.

The cleric tends to prefer melee, and I don't think she's ever used a combat cantrip. In fact I can't even remember whether or not she has any.

The warlock uses Eldritch Blast (obviously), but hasn't taken any invocations that boost it. He's not a very combat-oriented character, having taken mostly utility spells and invocations, but with his naturally invisible familiar he's very useful to the party anyway and no-one minds his relative lack of combat ability.

The sorcerer uses Chill Touch a lot against minor things when she doesn't think it's worth getting out the big guns (and risking Wild Magic rolls).

So none of them use many cantrips and they certainly don't overshadow the non-spellcasters in combat. The champion fighter in particular is a complete beast in a fight (and the monk is great at moving around and controlling the battlefield). The two rogues hold their own too, and the bard and cleric both fight rather than casting most of the time.

White Room shenanigans might favour cantrip-using casters (slightly), but I'm just not seeing it at all in actual play. The casters have more interesting things to do than spam cantrips all the time.

QuoteViscous Mockery

That's not a bad typo.

My daughter (age 10, and playing the bard in the first party) misread the cantrip's name at first and thought it was "Vicious Monkey". My group have called it that ever since, and we joke that the damage is actually because you fling a vicious monkey at your enemy's face.

Quote from: Omega;800548Actually page 195 at the end of "Unseen attackers and Targets" spells it out. The first attack, hit or miss, drops you out of hidden.

True, but "hidden" and "unseen" are two different things.

If I'm in front of you (but hidden behind a pillar or in a bush or something) then when I make my first attack I stop being hidden and you can see me - so my second attack doesn't get Advantage.

But if I've sneaked up behind you then after making my first attack you become aware of my existence (I'm no longer hidden) but you still can't see me because I'm still behind you so I still get Advantage on my second attack.

Of course, if I simply stay behind you without hiding once more then you will be able to see me on your action and on subsequent rounds, because you're assumed to be able to turn and keep me in sight.

Naturally, we're talking about "common sense" interpretation of the situation here, since there are no strict rules for facing in the game (although I think there will be some optional ones in the DMG).

Quote from: Omega;800548Actually page 195 at the end of "Unseen attackers and Targets" spells it out. The first attack, hit or miss, drops you out of hidden.

I guess I actually do have to spell it out. :eek:

Conditions

Blinded
[...]
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, [...]

Paralyzed
[...]
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage. [...]

Petrified
[...]
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.

Prone
[...]
• An attack roll against the creature has advantage if this attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. [...]

Restrained
[...]
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, [...]

Stunned
[...]
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.

Unconscious
[...]
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage. [...]

And yes, they all matter in combat. Including Unconscious, because Healing Magic. And not all those conditions may last that long, so taking advantage of them matters, too.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800552I guess I actually do have to spell it out. :eek:

Which has what to do with being dropped out of hidden when you attack someone with two attacks such as dual wielding and the first misses?

Quote from: jibbajibba;800545Finese weapons can base off STR or DEX.
Haven't tried it as I have zero interest but a grappler rogue could get advantage on all attacks post grapple and so have guarenteed SA on all hits.

Also not sure why you can't have a rogue poisoner with a blowpipe, as its a ranged weapon so you would get sneak attack with ranged weapons so finese is immaterial.

Grappler Rogue is very underwhelming, unless the DM allows something ridiculous like "unlimited thigh grappling capacity" to get around that "Using at least one free hand, ..." clause. And then you lose Two Weapon Fighting multi-strike to help ensure Sneak Attack lands at least once. I've see single attacks with Advantage miss many a time already.

Besides, you then invest yourself into being locked too close to melee — and we get back to the whole low DEX screws over light & med armor viability. AD&D had a lot more leeway to mediocre DEX, and it in general did not cramp AC so fast. In 5e it's already a vicious combo cycle. Might as well introduce class pre-requisites for Rogue at this point.

And again, Blowguns are Ranged Weapons are thus tied to high DEX. A Dart has finesse, and like you mentioned above, can work either high STR or DEX. The point is to build something Rogue without relying on high DEX.

A lot of the old kits and archetypes from Complete Thieves Handbook are just better off being Fighter or Mage and dipping into Criminal. And the other non-high DEX 'good thief' legends, like Dwarven Locksmith, Religious Inquisitor, etc. you might as well say fuck it and drop in a high DEX.

It's very annoying.

Quote from: Omega;800553Which has what to do with being dropped out of hidden when you attack someone with two attacks such as dual wielding and the first misses?

There is more than one way to get advantage on both strikes without hiding. That has always been the point. I quoted the whole exchange in full so as to show the deliberate narrowed focus in thinking, overlooking other basics.

Here, here is where people got lost:

Quote from: jibbajibba;800517Fair enough but you would have to be using the "adjacent to an ally" trigger as the second attack from hidden wouldn't get advantage as you would no longer be hidden.

No, no you do not have to use "adjacent ally" trigger to get advantage on your second attack in order to trigger Sneak Attack. It helps a lot making it stupid easy to trigger, but it is not either a) Hide, or b) Adjacent Ally.

You are accepting a false premise without contestation from the beginning and thus getting lost.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800555There is more than one way to get advantage on both strikes without hiding. That has always been the point. I quoted the whole exchange in full so as to show the deliberate narrowed focus in thinking, overlooking other basics.

Here, here is where people got lost:



No, no you do not have to use "adjacent ally" trigger to get advantage on your second attack in order to trigger Sneak Attack. It helps a lot making it stupid easy to trigger, but it is not either a) Hide, or b) Adjacent Ally.

You are accepting a false premise without contestation from the beginning and thus getting lost.

No one is lost. 95% of the time you will get advantage through either being hidden or having an adjacent ally. You are more likely to have advantage from Inspiration or from having the drop on someone in the first round that have an opponent who is restrained, blind, paralyzed, petrified, stunned or unconscious.
Personally it's moot to me as I am a using a Wound/HP model and all attacks against restrained, unconscious or entirely helpless foes will come straight off their wounds (typically 5 points) as a coup de grace.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800554Grappler Rogue is very underwhelming, unless the DM allows something ridiculous like "unlimited thigh grappling capacity" to get around that "Using at least one free hand, ..." clause. And then you lose Two Weapon Fighting multi-strike to help ensure Sneak Attack lands at least once. I've see single attacks with Advantage miss many a time already.

Besides, you then invest yourself into being locked too close to melee — and we get back to the whole low DEX screws over light & med armor viability. AD&D had a lot more leeway to mediocre DEX, and it in general did not cramp AC so fast. In 5e it's already a vicious combo cycle. Might as well introduce class pre-requisites for Rogue at this point.

And again, Blowguns are Ranged Weapons are thus tied to high DEX. A Dart has finesse, and like you mentioned above, can work either high STR or DEX. The point is to build something Rogue without relying on high DEX.

A lot of the old kits and archetypes from Complete Thieves Handbook are just better off being Fighter or Mage and dipping into Criminal. And the other non-high DEX 'good thief' legends, like Dwarven Locksmith, Religious Inquisitor, etc. you might as well say fuck it and drop in a high DEX.

It's very annoying.

Sorry I didn't realise your apothecary poisoner was supposed to be a non dex build.  
Any reason a dwarf grappler wouldn't be able to wear armour?

Like I say I am not into builds and I would be every comfortable playing a rogue who was shit at combat but a great investigator, or a great card player or a great inquisitor all of which I have played and I think are playable in 5e due to the Expertise ability making the rogue the absolute skill boss.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800540Rogues do not have class proficiency with Scimitars. It was omitted on purpose.

Oh, yeah, sorry. Works well for rangers, though.

QuoteWrong assumed question. I don't care how Sneak Attack is delivered. I care that I must make an effort to deliver it. I don't like that it exists at all.

The damage swing is just that beneficial, and readily combat available, that to build remotely against it makes. no. sense.

Have you tinkered with low DEX build permutations already? I have, along with other low stat experiments. There's some real potential in 5e to mitigate just about any stat penalty.

Except for Rogues. It's really hard to fight against that one-two combo of needing high DEX for AC and Sneak Attack favoring finesse or ranged weapons. It's painfully close to 4e's "drop an 18 in this stat by hook or by crook to ride this ride." It's straight up boring.

Try making a DEX mediocre Rogue focused on social skills. Quite doable. Now try to keep them out of harms way without being a social monster, either before combat (positioning via Stealth, Acrobatics, Athletics, etc.), or during (armor AC, cover, range, higher DPR to end fights earlier, etc.). You rapidly end up returning to the same answer.

One of the few I could come up with was high STR, low DEX, Mt. Dwarf who used Darts, Athletics to Shove, L. Swds to crit Prone targets, caltrop/ball bearing floor control, darkvision w/ nets... etc.

It gets quite oblique. And leaves little interpretation for basic tropes, like Thugs with clubs, or Bandit King with Longsword, Old Apothecary Poisoner (wish Blowguns had finesse), and so on. And a lot of that could still be permissible if Sneak Attack didn't exists.

I guess I'm not so bothered that someone with low dexterity would not be a rogue, because that's the way most of the classes used to work relative to their prime requisite. What would you replace sneak attack with, given that it's a major advantage for the class?

It probably calls for another archetype (the club wielding Thug in particular), or maybe a custom background (Hermit, where the discovery is "how to use a different characteristic bonus for rogue abilities that depend on DEX" :) ).

(Have you posted ways for wizards to work around low INT? All I can see is avoiding spells that need to hit or have a saving throw; fortunately wizards have a lot more spell choice than rogues have skill choices, but the low-INT wizard still is going to be disadvantaged for combat, I would think.)

My best suggestion would be ditching stealth: using nets (restrained) or allies or disguise to get advantage for sneak attack; and taking double bonus on non-DEX skills, which you appear to be doing; otherwise you would have to use feats to compensate.

The thug and bandit king would seem to fit barbarian or fighter better; the con-artist might fit bard better. Throw in criminal background for the thieves tools.

Quote from: rawma;800695Oh, yeah, sorry. Works well for rangers, though.



I guess I'm not so bothered that someone with low dexterity would not be a rogue, because that's the way most of the classes used to work relative to their prime requisite. What would you replace sneak attack with, given that it's a major advantage for the class?

It probably calls for another archetype (the club wielding Thug in particular), or maybe a custom background (Hermit, where the discovery is "how to use a different characteristic bonus for rogue abilities that depend on DEX" :) ).

(Have you posted ways for wizards to work around low INT? All I can see is avoiding spells that need to hit or have a saving throw; fortunately wizards have a lot more spell choice than rogues have skill choices, but the low-INT wizard still is going to be disadvantaged for combat, I would think.)

My best suggestion would be ditching stealth: using nets (restrained) or allies or disguise to get advantage for sneak attack; and taking double bonus on non-DEX skills, which you appear to be doing; otherwise you would have to use feats to compensate.

The thug and bandit king would seem to fit barbarian or fighter better; the con-artist might fit bard better. Throw in criminal background for the thieves tools.

I still think there are non dex rogue archetypes that work, they will simply be weak at combat. From a roleplay perspective that isn't an issue though it might be an issue from a combat optimisation stand point.

There are certainly skill based archetypes You could build with a rogue. I could see a really good Investigator based on an Int/Wis Rogue maybe using the Arcane Trickster.
As a DM I would allow the PC to twist the Save Proficiency to Int & Wis and adjust the spell list to be more diviner based.
Should get your Investigation and Perception and Insight up to +8 or more at first level.
Add the Justicar Background that was added here and ... voila.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800715I still think there are non dex rogue archetypes that work, they will simply be weak at combat. From a roleplay perspective that isn't an issue though it might be an issue from a combat optimisation stand point.

There are certainly skill based archetypes You could build with a rogue. I could see a really good Investigator based on an Int/Wis Rogue maybe using the Arcane Trickster.

Yep. An INT based detective or Arcane Trickster style Rogue looks viable. And I think a STR based Assassin or swashbuckler style Rogue works fine.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800570No one is lost. 95% of the time you will get advantage through either being hidden or having an adjacent ally. You are more likely to have advantage from Inspiration or from having the drop on someone in the first round that have an opponent who is restrained, blind, paralyzed, petrified, stunned or unconscious.
Personally it's moot to me as I am a using a Wound/HP model and all attacks against restrained, unconscious or entirely helpless foes will come straight off their wounds (typically 5 points) as a coup de grace.

I completely disagree with your out-of-your-ass percentage, and from experience.

Go study the basic combat moves available to everyone, the lighting rules, the Battlemaster class (among many), the equipment section, and the big lump of low-level (3 or less) spells that cause conditions. Study them thoroughly. Next play with them in a RAW game of on-their-game players. And then come back to me.

And coup de grace not being in 5e, has really changed how many old stand-bys like Sleep work in practice. It makes a lot of those "I win!" situations not so much anymore. Enjoy your tweaked game, but know that your arguments repeatedly show how green your understanding of 5e is.

I wholly plan to tweak 5e in the future — but for reasons from experience for what I want. It's applied house ruling, no longer theoretical. I strongly recommend it, especially since this game has a lot of integrated bits v. AD&D's discrete sub-systems.

Quote from: rawma;800695I guess I'm not so bothered that someone with low dexterity would not be a rogue, because that's the way most of the classes used to work relative to their prime requisite. What would you replace sneak attack with, given that it's a major advantage for the class?

It probably calls for another archetype (the club wielding Thug in particular), or maybe a custom background (Hermit, where the discovery is "how to use a different characteristic bonus for rogue abilities that depend on DEX" :) ).

I already mentioned that I would replace it with actual Backstab. I also find even mediocre DEX to be a problem for Rogues during builds and actual play. A lot of it traces back to the easy access and high power of Sneak Attack. It's like in a CCG that powerful staple rare you kinda gotta build around.

Quote from: rawma;800695(Have you posted ways for wizards to work around low INT? All I can see is avoiding spells that need to hit or have a saving throw; fortunately wizards have a lot more spell choice than rogues have skill choices, but the low-INT wizard still is going to be disadvantaged for combat, I would think.)

They're fine. I've already seen Mt. Dwarf Wizards tank and be the party's melee fighters. And the funny thing is with feats or Mage Armor you can totally work around that for other races, too. High STR or DEX wizards are already quite viable.

For the most part your spell strategy is the way to go, btw.

Mage Armor alone + DEX 16 and you got a wizard archer (dagger, dart, sling, light xbow) essentially with AC 16. Who cares about 1x +5 atk 1d10 Firebolt when you got 2x +5 atk 1d4+3 Daggers and +3 AC. Throw in Sleep and TWF melee w/ daggers (or Dwarves w/ handaxes, or Elves w/ s. swds, etc.); first is Unconscious is Adv + Crit, second is Adv, target the biggest HP guy last and so on.

Quote from: rawma;800695My best suggestion would be ditching stealth: using nets (restrained) or allies or disguise to get advantage for sneak attack; and taking double bonus on non-DEX skills, which you appear to be doing; otherwise you would have to use feats to compensate.

The thug and bandit king would seem to fit barbarian or fighter better; the con-artist might fit bard better. Throw in criminal background for the thieves tools.

It's annoying because I just went and did Skyrock's last week 5e NPC Challenge, which was this:

STR 11, DEX 15, CON 11, INT 10, WIS 6, CHA 10

And decided to make a Cleric. It wasn't hard at all. In fact, I had several variants to take the character, but decided to only bother with posting one. A nice diverse spread to take advantage of weird tidbits from race and background here and there. It was one of those 5e things that restores faith that all may actually be right again with D&D Land.

And then I tried to do a Mt. Dwarf Rogue with the same spread. I get all these new axe and hammer weapons, with light or versatile property, and even had a decent STR & CON. Lots of potential directions, right? Didn't matter, Sneak Attack says no.

So I tried other races, other weapon advantages here and there besides DEX. No good, the viable pool of weapons is essentially fixed by SA. It's too big a design swing.

So I tried low DEX rogues. Odd, can't do what I've always been doing, going against class stereotype and make something solid. Alright, how about mediocre DEX Rogues? Odd, they too suffer immensely from SA and DEX AC. Hmm, a challenge! And slowly I came to realize I utterly hate Sneak Attack, and came here to kvetch.
-------------------

Now I have a challenge for everyone here for the 5e NPC topic. Make a combat viable (or for green character builders: survivable) "Adventure League" compliant character with DEX 8. You may spend your 27 points elsewhere on the other stats, but not DEX. Now the easy thing is choose a +2 DEX race and build from there (which I already did, and I'm testing all of you people on easy mode).

Moderate challenge mode is DEX 7, then go point buy build from there.

Hard challenge mode is DEX 5, then go point buy build from there.

Let's see if you can find something I haven't.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800730I completely disagree with your out-of-your-ass percentage, and from experience.

Go study the basic combat moves available to everyone, the lighting rules, the Battlemaster class (among many), the equipment section, and the big lump of low-level (3 or less) spells that cause conditions. Study them thoroughly. Next play with them in a RAW game of on-their-game players. And then come back to me.

And coup de grace not being in 5e, has really changed how many old stand-bys like Sleep work in practice. It makes a lot of those "I win!" situations not so much anymore. Enjoy your tweaked game, but know that your arguments repeatedly show how green your understanding of 5e is.

I wholly plan to tweak 5e in the future — but for reasons from experience for what I want. It's applied house ruling, no longer theoretical. I strongly recommend it, especially since this game has a lot of integrated bits v. AD&D's discrete sub-systems.

Hmmm yes I was exagerating for effect but... the main point is valid.

All the effects that might give a rogue advantage are niche cases, not all parties will have a battlemaster, few casters will have the right spells and those spells will be once per "day".

If the rogue gets a ring of invisibility, if rogue has darkvision and the enemies don't, if a caster can stun an enemy with a spell. Lots of exception based options in there.
The only options that will always be in place for the rogue are Hide and strike with advantage, because they control all elements of that, and attack a foe in combat with an ally, as it is highly likely for the rogue to have an ally.

I have run 4 sessions 4-5 hours and the rogue gained advantage once from inspiration outside of hide.
Now we have a figther who will select the Battlemaster route now he has hit 3rd level so we might start seeing some other situations but there is never going be a gaurentee round party make up.  

I would be very interested if you (or anyone else) has a break down of frequency of other instances and what they are so I can see how my group may develop.

But the whole thing is kind of moot. Yes a dual weild rogue will get an extra chance to get a sneak attack with adavantage where a number of niche situations will apply but they will constantly be in combat where they have allies and can make sneak attacks without advantage and they can only make 1 sneak attack anyway so we are arguing about the a sub case of a sub case.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800715I still think there are non dex rogue archetypes that work, they will simply be weak at combat. From a roleplay perspective that isn't an issue though it might be an issue from a combat optimisation stand point.

There are certainly skill based archetypes You could build with a rogue. I could see a really good Investigator based on an Int/Wis Rogue maybe using the Arcane Trickster.
As a DM I would allow the PC to twist the Save Proficiency to Int & Wis and adjust the spell list to be more diviner based.
Should get your Investigation and Perception and Insight up to +8 or more at first level.
Add the Justicar Background that was added here and ... voila.

I already did that with an Acolyte Rogue in a home game. I rolled 3d6 straight down (DM gave me an exception to randomly generate, and through the weaker 3d6 method). Insight (bkrd), Religion (bkrd), Investigation, Medicine, Perception, Persuasion. Extra languages in Latin & Greek.

Thus Cadfael was born in 5e (yes, like the murder mystery series). He still needs proficiency in Navigator Tools, Vehicle land, & Herbalist Kit in the future. But he started at level 1, so...

If only he was in a smaller & different party would all those soft skills matter.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800738I already did that with an Acolyte Rogue in a home game. I rolled 3d6 straight down (DM gave me an exception to randomly generate, and through the weaker 3d6 method). Insight (bkrd), Religion (bkrd), Investigation, Medicine, Perception, Persuasion. Extra languages in Latin & Greek.

Thus Cadfael was born in 5e (yes, like the murder mystery series). He still needs proficiency in Navigator Tools, Vehicle land, & Herbalist Kit in the future. But he started at level 1, so...

If only he was in a smaller & different party would all those soft skills matter.

So a great character but in the wrong game if you needed a murder hobo :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;800744So a great character but in the wrong game if you needed a murder hobo :)

Yes, essentially. But he also had solid DEX, too. In essence I was cheating "Ultimate Masters: Chargen"; I rolled too high on 3d6 for DEX. And after I rolled for my Rogue class ahead of time as well. Completely unfair meddling by fate. Deliberately avoiding DEX skills was my concession to make things harder.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800733Now I have a challenge for everyone here for the 5e NPC topic. Make a combat viable (or for green character builders: survivable) "Adventure League" compliant character with DEX 8. You may spend your 27 points elsewhere on the other stats, but not DEX. Now the easy thing is choose a +2 DEX race and build from there (which I already did, and I'm testing all of you people on easy mode).

Moderate challenge mode is DEX 7, then go point buy build from there.

Hard challenge mode is DEX 5, then go point buy build from there.

Let's see if you can find something I haven't.

I'll start, as I proposed the challenge, then I will do a weapon breakdown and why creating a common bandit or thug skirmisher ends up resenting Sneak Attack:

First, no points in DEX. I want to get high STR & CON for a Rogue bruiser. Mt. Dwarf is easiest point-wise for this, with +2 CON and +2 STR. The remainder drops into CHA to bully and trick, and WIS to be perceptive.

STR 7 pts for 14, DEX 0 pts for 8, CON 7 pts for 14, INT 2 pts for 10, WIS 4 pts for 12, CHA 7 pts for 14

Mountain Dwarf Rogue, Soldier
Lvl 1, Prof +2. Saves: DEX, INT. Alg: ??
HD: d8. HP: 11. AC: 13. Spd: 25'.

STR 16 (3), DEX 8 (-1), CON 16 (3), INT 10 (0), WIS 12 (1), CHA 14 (2)

Race: CON +2. Spd 25'. Darkvision 60'. Resilience - Adv save v. poison & Resist poison dmg. Dwarf Weapons - battle axe, hand axe, throw hammer, war hammer. Artisan Tool - 1x of Mason, Stonecutting, or Brewer.
sub-race: STR +2. Dwarf Armor - lt. & md. armor.

Lang: common, dwarf.

Next I want skills that fit the common archetype. I can net two wild card skills by mimicking Soldier's skill benefit, useful if I really care about something unavailable, like Survival.

Athletics gets me +7 to Shove or Grab targets, which is great with allies and very thematic. Intimidate similarly is thematic and combat useful. Solid CHA let's me net the rest and fulfills the alluring bandit/thug mystique.

Skill: Athletics (exp, bkrd) +7, Deception +4, Insight/Survival +3, Intimidate (exp, bkrd) +6, Perception +3, Persuasion +4.

Class: Expertise, Sneak Attack, Thieves' Cant.

Armor: Light, Medium (race).
Weapon: all Simple. Longsword, Rapier, S. Sword, Hand Xbow. (race) - Hand Axe, Battleaxe, Throw Hammer, Warhammer.
Tools: Thieves', Masons' (race), Game Set (bkrd), Vehicles Land (bkrd).

Background: Soldier. Specialty: Skirmisher. Feature: Military Rank.
Pers: stare down. Ideal: nationalism. Bond: band of brothers. Flaw: still fears the enemy.
Gear: rank insignia, war trophy, dice set, Common Clothes, pouch +10 gp.

Might as well get the best you can to CYA... still annoyingly extra squishy. Distance and good team tactics will have to save. This is one of the few races, besides var. Humans with a feat, to get better AC.

Armor: Scale Mail, AC 14+DEX (max 2).

Here's where it gets frustrating. All those weapon options, wasted.

Weapon:
Rapier. +5 atk. 1d8+3 P. finesse.
Warhammer. +5 atk. 1d8+3 B. versatile (1d10)
Longsword. +5 atk. 1d8+3 S. versatile (1d10)
Battleaxe. +5 atk. 1d8+3 S. versatile (1d10)

12x Dagger. +5 atk. 1d4+3 P. finesse, light, thrown (rng 20/60)
2x S. Sword. +5 atk. 1d6+3 P. finesse, light.
10x Darts. +5 atk. 1d4+3 P. finesse, thrown (rng 20/60).

Gear: Explorer's Pack, stuff...

Style/Bio: Bandit or Thug mercenary turned into army conscript.

So let's break down the weapons, and note this is "easy mode":

All of the versatile weapons are either 1H) +5 atk. 1d8+3 dmg. 2H) +5 atk. 1d10+3 dmg. But they are STR based, not finesse, therefore there is an opportunity cost dependent on what else STR v. DEX can give. You also can switch up mid-battle from 1H to 2H for "one free interaction with the environment" along with Use an Object (3rd lvl Thief Cunning Action Bonus) or extra damage.

Rapier is finesse, it is 1H) +5 atk. 1d8+3 dmg. However, it is one of few DEX melee weapons, and so that restriction to higher damage die weapons, for better AC, is the opportunity cost. You also retain "one free interaction with the environment" and Use an Object capacity with your extra hand free.

S. Swd & Dagger are light along with finesse, so they allow Two Weapon Fighting to trigger granting a conditional Bonus Action. That trick does also consume your single Bonus Action, so later powerful things like Cunning Action become an opportunity cost. You also lose out on a lot of "one free interaction with the environment" and Use an Object, a real cost.
S. Swd) +5 atk. 1d6+3 dmg.
Dagger) +5 atk. 1d4+3 dmg. plus optional range w/o improvisation.

So let's look at the damage averages before and after Sneak Attack!

Before
Versatile - 1H) 4.5+3=7.5 dmg, or 2H) 5.5+3=8.5 dmg. (lose distance as defense, but retain higher average damage & enviro interaction.)
Finesse - rapier) 4.5+3=7.5 dmg. (reserved for DEX builds w/ better AC & ranged weapons.)
Finesse & Light - s. swd) 3.5+3 + 3.5 = 10 dmg. (lose Opportunity for many "one free environment interaction" and Bonus flexibility.)
dagger) 2.5+3 + 2.5 = 8 dmg. (lose Opportunity for many "one free environment interaction" and Bonus flexibility. may throw & use distance as defense.)

As you can see these are quite close in cost benefit analysis. I could make arguments for any one of them as they are so similar in degrees.

After
Versatile - 1H) 4.5+3=7.5 dmg, or 2H) 5.5+3=8.5 dmg.
Finesse - rapier) 4.5+3 +3.5=11 dmg.
Finesse & Light -
s. swd) 3.5+3 +3.5 +3.5 = 14 dmg.
dagger) 2.5+3 +2.5 +3.5 = 11.5 dmg. plus optional distance as defense.

And every two levels add another 3.5 damage to Sneak Attack.

1st) 3.5 dmg. 3rd) 7 dmg. 5th) 10.5 dmg. 7th) 14 dmg. 9th) 17.5 dmg...

Which then rapidly outpaces the damage difference of 2x s. swd in the first place in favor of just caring about one Sneak Attack landing (maybe you can save your Cunning Action, maybe not):

2H s. swd: 3rd lvl) 3.5+3 +3.5 +7 = 17 dmg. 5th lvl) 3.5+4 +3.5 +10.5 = 21.5 dmg. 7th) 25 dmg. 9th) 29.5...
1H s. swd: 3rd) 13.5 dmg. 5th) 18 dmg. 7th) 21.5 dmg. 9th) 26 dmg...

2H dagger: 3rd) 2.5+3 +2.5 +7 = 15 dmg. 5th lvl) 2.5+4 +2.5 +10.5 = 19.5 dmg. 7th) 23 dmg. 9th) 27.5 dmg...
1H dagger: 3rd) 2.5+3 +7 = 12.5 dmg. 5th) 2.5+4 +10.5 = 17 dmg. 7th) 20.5 dmg. 9th) 25 dmg.

Sure the rapier damage progression is nicer than the other 1H s. swd and dagger weapons, but the key becomes landing the Sneak Attack. The opportunity to miss must be reduced, because the damage throughput is so swingy.

rapier: 3rd) 4.5+3 +7 = 14.5 dmg. 5th) 4.5+4 +10.5 = 19 dmg. 7th) 22.5 dmg. 9th) 27 dmg...

Throw in that DEX affects AC for light and medium armor so much, and that distance is one of the best defenses, and you get a very same-y build response again and again. I cannot in good conscience argue for anything but the same build because Sneak Attack damage progression is too good and locks tightly with DEX favoring ranged weapons and AC. Not even a mediocre DEX is as palatable; it's a build lock and I hate it.

So, the challenge continues: build me something that shows me I am wrong. Build me a better bad or mediocre DEX rogue than mine. See if it can build differently and meaningfully.

I may be alone here, but I just cannot see the point of this?

What character concept would ever require both levels in the Rogue Class and a low Dex?

Quote from: jadrax;800950I may be alone here, but I just cannot see the point of this?

What character concept would ever require both levels in the Rogue Class and a low Dex?

Require? None.

Work without. A few.

As mentioned. A combat focused Rogue could pump up strength in lieu of dexterity.

But more to the point. A rogue on the Assassin track can work without a good DEX as long as they have the STR to compensate.

And of course the Arcane Trickster can pull this off as well.

Its do-able. And if rolls were mostly low and only one was good then I could see someone dropping the good stat in STR or INT instead to fit their idea.

The reply ought to be #what the fuck is this Optimization wankery did I just walk into a 3.5 forum by mistake" .

There are plenty of cool rogue character with shit dex. They just won't be great at fighting so, who cares? one assumes that the player doesn't care or they would have used a higher dex.....

The Fence - play him like Ratso in Midnight Cowboy limp and all Ratso is actually a con man but would make a great fence PC)
The Con Man - play him like Nick Cage in matchstick men (or a trillion others)
The Forger, etc etc

If a PC chooses a character type that is atypical to the usual "adventurer" then the whole debate is moot.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800961There are plenty of cool rogue character with shit dex. They just won't be great at fighting so, who cares? one assumes that the player doesn't care or they would have used a higher dex.....

If a PC chooses a character type that is atypical to the usual "adventurer" then the whole debate is moot.

Yep. A rogue with good charisma could do well as the group negotiator too. Or even the go-to guy to do the shopping haggling deals. Or con men.

Courtly intrigue style set ups would be another area.

And still find ways to be usefull in a fight when those break out.

Or a thief with good wisdom turning to using trained animals for crimes.

I don't know, guys, 'you can sneak attack so long as one of your friends is 5' from the target' seems to be a very very very low bar to hop, unless your party mostly fights at range.

I mean, even in 3e, while flanking was a lot more demanding, the rogues still managed it fairly often.

I'd like a thug background or archetype that let you use non-Finesse weapons, just for variety (as folks have mentioned), and maybe some other archetypes that let you do skillish/weird things instead of sneak attack.

Quote from: Will;800975I don't know, guys, 'you can sneak attack so long as one of your friends is 5' from the target' seems to be a very very very low bar to hop, unless your party mostly fights at range.

I mean, even in 3e, while flanking was a lot more demanding, the rogues still managed it fairly often.

I'd like a thug background or archetype that let you use non-Finesse weapons, just for variety (as folks have mentioned), and maybe some other archetypes that let you do skillish/weird things instead of sneak attack.

I entirely agree. This will end up being the most common sneak attack. The second most will be rogue scouts and then get advantage from a hidden position. I estimated these will come to about 95% of instances but I was exaggerating. I think its about 90% and think that assassin's assassinate skill with figure fairly often as well as those payers that milk inspiration to get an advantage. That set will account for about 95+ %

The remainder will be corner cases and will usually overlap with one of the first two.

I just had a funny funny thought...

Ever have a party where people's tactics are godawful? Like, everyone running around and hitting random targets.

Well, the sneak attack rule helps! 'Look, you shits, FOCUS FIRE'

Quote from: Opaopajr;800733Now I have a challenge for everyone here for the 5e NPC topic. Make a combat viable (or for green character builders: survivable) "Adventure League" compliant character with DEX 8.

Do you mean a Rogue with DEX 8? Any heavy-armour class is viable with arbitrarily low DEX, AFAICS, since heavy armour is not affected by DEX either way.

You can make an adequate no-dex character, but, seriously, dex is overemphasized in this game. It's good for to hit, damage, ac, and initiative. No other stat covers more than 2 of those.

They probably should move initiative to be Intelligence based, and make strength more of a factor in the game (more severe encumbrance rules, auto-disadvantage  in melee against anything with over 4  points superior in strength, extra hp based on strength score, etc).

I had a vague idea of tying scores to defenses:
Dex, dodge/evasion (must be free to move and perceive attacks)
Con, armor/toughness (applies even if not moving or aware of attacks, must be armored)
Str, shield block/parry (must be able to move arm and perceive attacks)

My idea is that you have class proficiency, maybe fighters double armor profiency when wearing heavy armor or something

Quote from: Will;800975I don't know, guys, 'you can sneak attack so long as one of your friends is 5' from the target' seems to be a very very very low bar to hop, unless your party mostly fights at range.

I mean, even in 3e, while flanking was a lot more demanding, the rogues still managed it fairly often.

I have to admit I hate this, and hated it in 3e, because its very easy if a GM isn't stricter about it to end up with a situation where the Thief is better in combat than the Fighter.

I think that was definitely the case in 3e, in spite of having perhaps slightly more demanding rules.  In 5e, I think there may be other mitigating factors?

Ai-yah! Shit or get off the pot already. Where's your builds? Where's your play experience?

Quote from: jadrax;800950I may be alone here, but I just cannot see the point of this?

What character concept would ever require both levels in the Rogue Class and a low Dex?

I mentioned those concepts a few posts previous. I also have been repeatedly showing throughout this site how flexible 5e is against stereotype for other classes (just check my WIS 6 Cleric in the 5e NPC topic).

Flipping through my 2e Complete Thief's Handbook I am challenged by trying to duplicate familiar concepts into 5e, something I am not for other classes. The Beggar Thief (another common archetype like the Street Thug) is annoyingly challenging; all that Quarterstaff potential foregone to... carry another s. bow, dagger, & sling?

Quote from: Omega;800951Require? None.

Work without. A few.

As mentioned. A combat focused Rogue could pump up strength in lieu of dexterity.

But more to the point. A rogue on the Assassin track can work without a good DEX as long as they have the STR to compensate.

And of course the Arcane Trickster can pull this off as well.

Its do-able. And if rolls were mostly low and only one was good then I could see someone dropping the good stat in STR or INT instead to fit their idea.

Thank you, yes as mentioned, there are other thief tropes out there.

The Arcane Trickster I've seen at lvl 8 in play is not all that great for low DEX (his character is not low DEX, but I can already see that it would not work well with STR alternative). His situational defense (acrobatics, hiding, etc.) along with AC is heavily tied to DEX. His INT supports spells, yes, but in play the player eventually boiled back down to Sneak Attack. A lot of that spell creativity tended to fade, especially since there's so many other casting classes out there and we were relying in Sneak Attack for damage per round attrition. Quite annoying.

However, I cannot have seen all that there is to offer from 5e already, so throw up a lvl 5+ STR or INT focused Assassin or Arcane Trickster on here to share!
:)

Quote from: jibbajibba;800961There are plenty of cool rogue character with shit dex. They just won't be great at fighting so, who cares? one assumes that the player doesn't care or they would have used a higher dex.....

The Fence - play him like Ratso in Midnight Cowboy limp and all Ratso is actually a con man but would make a great fence PC)
The Con Man - play him like Nick Cage in matchstick men (or a trillion others)
The Forger, etc etc

If a PC chooses a character type that is atypical to the usual "adventurer" then the whole debate is moot.

That was my line of reasoning — and I would prove it, on this website and in actual AL play, time and again. I showed my work.

I walked my talk. I had the characters made, and I ran the legal ones through Organized Play adventures. Rogue is one of those classes that breaks the 5e mold on this because Sneak Attack is such an outpacing feature and DEX an outlier utility ability.

So, on your topic about 5e restricting choices through optimal output, for a game that you have repeatedly shown through overlooked rules that you have not read in detail thoroughly, I am bringing up a topic relevant complaint. And this complaint is of a magnitude greater than 1 damage point per round average of your example. In fact, it also covers greater character creation ground than the choice between two heavy weapons in the same Fighting Style of a class; it affects the diversity of class archetypal representation, it is beyond a mere palette swap of similar grade weapon art.

So you say Fence and Con Man. Easy INT & CHA builds, ones I already have sitting about in fact, including low DEX ones. But the challenge is to build them with some combat functionality in mind (combat survival is a function) without relying on DEX. The difference is big on paper, and in play.

But you say it can be done as easily. OK. Now why don't you and show your work.

Quote from: Omega;800964Yep. A rogue with good charisma could do well as the group negotiator too. Or even the go-to guy to do the shopping haggling deals. Or con men.

Courtly intrigue style set ups would be another area.

And still find ways to be usefull in a fight when those break out.

Or a thief with good wisdom turning to using trained animals for crimes.

Already done those. The difference is when the shit hits the fan, when the talking is done, you have to have a combat out. CHA Intimidate or Persuasion only goes so far during combat. DEX on the other hand provides that.

It deals heavy amounts of damage in combat, and at long, medium, and close range (covering what STR would do). It allows distance as defense to avoid necessity bloating with CON. It also raises survivability through environment exploiting skills (Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth), along with AC. It does offense, defense, and mobility/escape.

The only real room left is Arcane Trickster INT spells and funky Magic Initiate tricks I have yet to figure out. That's what this complaint is for: let's figure this space out already.

Quote from: jibbajibba;800981I estimated these will come to about 95% of instances but I was exaggerating. I think its about 90% and think that assassin's assassinate skill with figure fairly often as well as those payers that milk inspiration to get an advantage. That set will account for about 95+ %

The remainder will be corner cases and will usually overlap with one of the first two.

I already enumerated the Conditions that grant advantage and expressed how in actual play, especially as higher level spells get involved, that this estimate is wrong.

Quote from: S'mon;801012Do you mean a Rogue with DEX 8? Any heavy-armour class is viable with arbitrarily low DEX, AFAICS, since heavy armour is not affected by DEX either way.

Yes, that is a good one. But that also dips into multi-classing and sacrificing at least 20th lvl abilities.

I was loathe to do so, as a lot of the in-class archetypes and race features gave potential to other builds without dipping. But Mt. Dwarf medium armor proficiency, along with Dwarves ignoring heavy armor movement penalties in general, and Human variant to pick up an armor feat, etc. are just not enough to get heavy armor natively. Seems like dipping into 1 or 2 lvl Fighter is a solid choice to solve a lot of design restrictions, especially if you care more about playing up to higher tier play than lingering there... I was really hoping hoping otherwise though.

Stroke of Luck looks pretty disgusting, by the way. But my groups are not dealing in 20th lvl characters yet. And I don't know if I would really care about lengthy play in that tier, either.

Quote from: Doom;801040You can make an adequate no-dex character, but, seriously, dex is overemphasized in this game. It's good for to hit, damage, ac, and initiative. No other stat covers more than 2 of those.

They probably should move initiative to be Intelligence based, and make strength more of a factor in the game (more severe encumbrance rules, auto-disadvantage  in melee against anything with over 4  points superior in strength, extra hp based on strength score, etc).

It is over-emphasized, I agree. However, so far I could live with it as it allowed a lot more character concepts in other classes become more viable. The dead-eye shot of a wizened combat wizard, the stealthy criminal cleric, etc.

In fact, I can still live with it as long as there's still arguable reasons to choose between different weapon foci. That's why Sneak Attack draws my ire so much. It is this close ][ to being an ideal WotC D&D alternative, so why did they have to introduce MMO DPS shit like this into the process?

I just need to drop it from my home games entirely because it actively detracts from character creation, development, and play in my current actual play experience.

The challenge is what to replace it with?

I think the idea is to have rogues trade survival for damage. Very MMO! (Heh heh)

For what it's worth, I actually hate sneak attack. I'd much rather rogues be tricksters in combat, blinding or confusing enemies and setting them up to be massacred by the warriors.

I, alas, didn't get a vote.

Quote from: RPGPundit;801496I have to admit I hate this, and hated it in 3e, because its very easy if a GM isn't stricter about it to end up with a situation where the Thief is better in combat than the Fighter.

It's not an error, it is has been one of the goals of the game at that time. It was very much the intention in 3e to soup up the combat role of the rogue/thief and make him a "squishy glass-cannon" that is better in damage output, at the expense of AC and hitpoints compared to the fighter "tank".

5e continues the sentiment of the stabby rogue who is better at constant backstabbing than the fighter, but needs to hide, move and disengage a lot rather than to have any reliable hardiness.

As for mitigating factors, Fighters get more attacks than anyone else, have a second wind that makes them even better at tanking, and depending on sub-type they either gain passive bonuses (Champion) or maneuvres that allow to actively shape the flow of the combat (Battlemaster). (I will leave the Eldritch Knight out, as rogues have a very similar sub-type with the Arcane Trickster.)
They also have more attribute points, resulting in better overall bonuses or in feats.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801497In fact, I can still live with it as long as there's still arguable reasons to choose between different weapon foci. That's why Sneak Attack draws my ire so much. It is this close ][ to being an ideal WotC D&D alternative, so why did they have to introduce MMO DPS shit like this into the process?

Because in classic D&D the Thief class get double damage (and more later) when he does a backstab.

If Sneak Attack is an issue for your campaign then house rule the conditions under which it can be used. Limit it to back attacks/flanking in melee or surprise only. If that not good enough then go all the way back to 1e and limit it to a surprise back attack. Although I feel that is too much of a nerf myself.

If you have a problem with it in Organized play, well not too much you can do there. Just play from where the ball lies.

I will say that in my Phandelver campaign the fact that Sidwin the Rogue had sneak attack didn't mean he outshined the fighter. It was nice but he did not have the staying power the fighters in the group had.

I will go on further and say that most of the difference between the different classes' fighting abilities is just flavor. Most not all, each class has something unique but for the most part when their best abilities were expended they contributed equal to the outcome of the various fights. Every single fight I ran the primary element that shaped the fight was the circumstances of where the fight was, how it started, and how well prepared the party was.

The biggest issues with 5e with combat is that I feel that the accounting for PC parties that have 8 or 10 characters is way off. The rules for accounting for the effectiveness of monster in larger group is basically correct but you also need a factor for the size of the party. The effectiveness of the party increasing geometrically as the numbers increase.

A 8 man party isn't twice as effective as a 4 man party it is 4 or 8 times as effective. I ran Phandelver for two groups a 5 man group and a 10 man group. Doubling the size of the encounters in Phandelver did not produce the same result for the larger group. It was only when i upped to four times the book numbers when the fights stared becoming similar to those in the 5 man group.

The differences between characters classes are insignificant compared to that issue. And after seeing 15 characters in action over multiple sessions my feeling that combat wise the difference between character is exactly the same as OD&D core books only. That there are differences but in the end everybody is pretty much doing similar damage at similar odds.

Quote from: Will;801498For what it's worth, I actually hate sneak attack. I'd much rather rogues be tricksters in combat, blinding or confusing enemies and setting them up to be massacred by the warriors.

I, alas, didn't get a vote.

Y'know, I actually do love Cunning Action. The no-stacking rule prevents Bonus Action abuse. I think you are on to something...

OK. I actually like the old school Backstab with all its restrictions. A highly conditional multiplier effect, especially with the quite awesome Knock Out rules, would be my ideal.

However, I do understand it is a major dip in damage output (which I could honestly care less about). And if I were to reintroduce Backstab it would be roughly around 2nd level. So I would want to replace that 1st lvl Sneak Attack feature with something.

Here's what you inspired me to create: Just as the Fighter gets Extra Attack, where he uses an action to Attack he gets additional Attacks, do the same for Rogues and Use an Object or Help. That way they can pull all those levers and switches in combat, create hazards with oil and caltrops and ball bearings, use Help (another major source of Advantage), etc.

QuoteHelp
[...]
Alternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with Advantage.

Let's see, I do want Help to be a part, but I don't want it used to hand out Advantage out like candy. So I want to restrict that to only one. Let it be a trigger, but not grant itself again, not be part of the conditional extra action.

I do really like adding Search to the function, as it is highly thematic and fun. Thieves spotting things in the middle of stress, and then rapidly acting upon it, is about the oldest trope they have. But again I don't want WIS being the next dump stat to spot everything in sight and tip the Stealth v. Perception contest in any particular favor completely.

Also, during investigative periods I don't want to Rogue blowing everyone else out of the water. He's the skill monkey, but other people can contribute. I want this feature to be combat only, so as to show the resourceful nature during adrenaline moments, but without making traps and escapes a one-man-show.

OK, here we go, replacement to 1st lvl Sneak Attack, for the combat support Rogue:

Resourceful
Whenever you take the Help, Search, or Use an Object action on your turn during combat, gain an additional Use an Object action for this turn.

Whaddya think?

(Really, check out those Knock a Creature Out rules in the end of the Combat Chapter: choose at the moment of downing an opponent to 0 HP with a melee attack whether to leave unconscious and stable or unconscious and dying. There's fabulous little tidbit ideas in 5e.)

Quote from: estar;801506Because in classic D&D the Thief class get double damage (and more later) when he does a backstab.

It's really, completely, absolutely not Backstab in actual play. You and I both know that. The threshold to trigger, and thus subsequent frequency, is nowhere near in comparison.

Skyrock got it in one.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801508It's really, completely, absolutely not Backstab in actual play. You and I both know that. The threshold to trigger, and thus subsequent frequency, is nowhere near in comparison.

Skyrock got it in one.

You asked why sneak attack is part of the thief class, I answered. If you think it is too frequent change it.

I do think folks making too much out of nothing on this issue.

Quote from: estar;801510You asked why sneak attack is part of the thief class, I answered. If you think it is too frequent change it.

I do think folks making too much out of nothing on this issue.

It really doesn't map to 1e Backstab like you think. It maps hard to 3e & 4e.

And if you think it is a nothing issue show how you can readily build around it. Show it in char-gen. Or show your house rule replacement. People in general, contribute something to back up your statements. It isn't that hard, I've been doing it repeatedly in this topic alone.

I have repeatedly shown how it is an issue to build basic Rogue archetypes without returning to "gotta land the Sneak Attack each turn" compel.

Where's the modular support if we hate certain powers?

(I think a return to 1e/2e Backstab is perfectly fine. I might loosen the weapon restriction to Simple non-Ammo Weapons, but not much more. Really, if you're not landing the Sneak Attack on each of your turns, let alone getting a few landed on your reactions, you're doing it wrong.)

If you dislike sneak attack and its frequency, just play a different class and pick up the Criminal background.

If you are in a more tinker-happy mood and want to keep most aspects of the Rogue class like cunning action, you can also look at some of the ACFs of the 3e era that took sneak attack away from the rogue and gave him other things.

Opa: I like it.

I'd also like other kits, perhaps, like caltrops, flasks of oil, and similar, though I guess those would fall under 'use an object.'

Skyrock: The problem is when you are talking about 'a trickster who confounds enemies and is quick on the battlefield helping out and doing stuff,' what class fits that BETTER than rogue?

But when you have sneak attack, in a combat you're kinda daft to avoid using it if you have the tool available.

Opa: I'm borrowing those for microlite 5e I'm working on...

Quote from: Opaopajr;801511And if you think it is a nothing issue show how you can readily build around it.

I don't have to build around it because it not a major factor. It just a factor among others.

As for "showing my work".  I extensively document one of my groups activities, a group that happens include a rogue.

http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/search?q=Dnd+5e+majestic+Wilderlands

Quote from: Opaopajr;801511Show it in char-gen.

Sure at 4th level the fighter gains an extra attack over a rogue. At 6th level a fighter gains extra ability score improvements over a rogue. The combination of which means that the Rogue is never dramatically better than the fighter.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801511Or show your house rule replacement.

I told you earlier. Change the conditions of the extra damage. Limit it to Melee Flank Attack, melee or ranged back attacks, or Surprise. What makes Sneak Attack awesome for the rouge is the ally with 5' of the foe condition. Simpliest thing you can do is change the conditions under which it is used if you think it is an issue.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801511People in general, contribute something to back up your statements. It isn't that hard, I've been doing it repeatedly in this topic alone.

I have repeatedly shown how it is an issue to build basic Rogue archetypes without returning to "gotta land the Sneak Attack each turn" compel.

That because you are focusing on combat, you concern is combat. That not an issue for my campaigns because I run a game where the characters are part of the life of a larger world. In my OD&D + Majestic Wilderlands game Elves are a clear mechanical winner for combat and adventuring as well as Paladins and Clerics. But it is not a problem because how those three elements exist within the setting.

5e has backgrounds, feats, and skills which is more than sufficient to create any type of Rouge in the setting.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801511Where's the modular support if we hate certain powers?

5e is a simple game. It simple like B/X, and OD&D. It is simply not a hard thing to come up with new elements for the game including classes. If the default mix doesn't match your view on how a D&Dish setting works then change it for your campaigns.

As for Organized Play it will change depending on the specific campaign for the season. We will get to see what that like in the spring when the Handbook comes out.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801511(I think a return to 1e/2e Backstab is perfectly fine. I might loosen the weapon restriction to Simple non-Ammo Weapons, but not much more. Really, if you're not landing the Sneak Attack on each of your turns, let alone getting a few landed on your reactions, you're doing it wrong.)

Unless you scattered the party with a horde of zombies. Or divided them in a series of cavern passages. Or got them on the run trying to escape an ambush. If a rogue is landing sneak attacks every turn then it because the referee is doing too much white featureless room type of encounter and not incorporating enough of the life of the setting.

Quote from: estar;801517Sure at 4th level the fighter gains an extra attack over a rogue. At 6th level a fighter gains extra ability score improvements over a rogue. The combination of which means that the Rogue is never dramatically better than the fighter.

My argument never had any relation to wanting the rogue to keep pace with the fighter in terms of damage.

My argument was all about the various Rogue archetypes lost to the overwhelming combat utility of the Sneak Attack feature. It is literally not ignorable in terms of building a RAW character; the swing it provides is too great.

Quote from: estar;801517I told you earlier. Change the conditions of the extra damage. Limit it to Melee Flank Attack, melee or ranged back attacks, or Surprise. What makes Sneak Attack awesome for the rouge is the ally with 5' of the foe condition. Simpliest thing you can do is change the conditions under which it is used if you think it is an issue.

Yes, I know that. And that is what I have been trying to do, as my above post shows.

The problem is when you play Adventure League as it is trying to adhere to RAW tighter and not use house rules, like any Organized Play. The end result is a very staid spread of Rogues, something I find anomalous compared to the rest of the out-of-character class builds elsewhere.

Quote from: estar;801517That because you are focusing on combat, you concern is combat. That not an issue for my campaigns because I run a game where the characters are part of the life of a larger world. In my OD&D + Majestic Wilderlands game Elves are a clear mechanical winner for combat and adventuring as well as Paladins and Clerics. But it is not a problem because how those three elements exist within the setting.

5e has backgrounds, feats, and skills which is more than sufficient to create any type of Rouge in the setting.

However the structure of this feature is insistent by its power level. Regardless of how you build your character you still have to have an eye towards what happens when you slip between the three aspects of a campaign's role play: combat, social, exploration. To ignore any campaign aspect completely is an unreasonable expectation ("my character doesn't do social interaction, ever" "no, he may do it poorly, but HOW does he still do it?"). Thee best you can do is mitigate its frequency.

Now if the best you can do is mitigate its frequency, then the question becomes what do you do in that campaign aspect space when you encounter it. And for combat that is predominantly handled via mechanics. Mechanically the SA feature grotesquely overshadows other offense options not using it.

And DEX grotesquely overshadows other defense options (and positioning options, due to acrobatics and stealth skill. and also fleeing options, due to ranged weapon distance being great positioning to flee). The combined effect leads to favoring DEX builds far too heavily.

Quote from: estar;8015175e is a simple game. It simple like B/X, and OD&D. It is simply not a hard thing to come up with new elements for the game including classes. If the default mix doesn't match your view on how a D&Dish setting works then change it for your campaigns.

As for Organized Play it will change depending on the specific campaign for the season. We will get to see what that like in the spring when the Handbook comes out.

Yes, I am already changing it for my own home campaigns. I am already getting some player flak, though, that "Rogues won't be able to keep up with higher level monsters and will fall behind the curve." Basically Organized Play is setting up expectations of what D&D will be like and already the resistance to change is beginning. We've already seen this song and dance before.

Quote from: estar;801517Unless you scattered the party with a horde of zombies. Or divided them in a series of cavern passages. Or got them on the run trying to escape an ambush. If a rogue is landing sneak attacks every turn then it because the referee is doing too much white featureless room type of encounter and not incorporating enough of the life of the setting.

Absolutely not. Darkness, prone, spells that add Conditions, and the ever popular ally w/in 5' is so prevalent that it really is not hard to get your SA attempts. To speak nothing of hiding (like Lightfoot Halflings behind party members), Sneak Attack is like the sine qua non of Rogue combat functions as it stands.

That narrowing of class focus is annoying.

OK, I've been searching the WotC D&D 5e Rules Boards, along with Sage Advice blog, and ENWorld, and found a text to Mike Mearls that may expand the pool of Sneak Attack weapons — by five weapons.

RAW: Every weapon is classified as melee or ranged. (Basic. p.45.) And Thrown weapons can be thrown to make a ranged attack, but keeps the melee property in determining atk/dmg mods, unless it has finesse. Just like how Mike Mearls was interviewed on how Net works, and that it only uses DEX for atk/dmg mod as it does not have finesse. Which should mean Thrown does not change weapon classification.

RAI: However the separation in the weapon's chart between Melee and Ranged is not relevant anymore. Mearls tweeted that Thrown weapons are intended to qualify as Ranged Weapons, when used as either melee or ranged.

post by obsid in "Sneak Attack with a Handaxe" on ENWorld:

QuoteLooks like he responded twitter.com/mikemearls/status/485910280254541824

ETallitnics: Good day Mr. Mearls! Does the Thrown property satisfy the Rogue's Sneak Attack requirement of Ranged Weapon? #Thanks

mikemearls: Yes, at least that is the intent, both for melee and ranged sneak attacks.

So it looks like you can even use the handaxe in melee and sneak attack with it (at least as the designers understood it, your DM may vary). This does change many potential rogue builds.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356527-Sneak-Attack-with-a-handaxe/page3#ixzz3KfuwxvYA

So that adds Throw Hammer, Handaxe, Javelin, Spear, and Trident to the Rogue repertoire.

But still no long sword or club... :rolleyes:

Anyhoo, I'm working on a Backstab replacement for Sneak Attack. I am thinking of AD&D highly conditional Backstab, and the "damage multiplier" increase based on Proficiency Bonus. That way it goes up every 4 levels. I think it should be:

"Roll the weapon's damage die (dice) a number of times equal to your Proficiency Bonus."

So a 1st lvl Half-Orc Rogue Critical Hit on a 1d6 would be: 2x crit ( (2x backstab (1d6 weapon)) + (1d6 Half-Orc savagery) ) = 6d6 dmg.

Which for a 5% chance, of one race, of a highly conditional feature is something I can live with. Now I need to decide on the weapon restrictions. Opinions?

I'm inclined to houserule sneak attack to be 'anything except big two-handed melee weapons.'

Anyone think that's likely to run into problems?

Quote from: Opaopajr;801699My argument never had any relation to wanting the rogue to keep pace with the fighter in terms of damage.

My argument was all about the various Rogue archetypes lost to the overwhelming combat utility of the Sneak Attack feature. It is literally not ignorable in terms of building a RAW character; the swing it provides is too great.

I see the distinction.  My opinion is that your point is a non-issue. It is my experience for over 30 years is that most gamers have an image of the character they want to play. If they get really nice ability, like 5e's Sneak attack, great! If not then they will play that character. If it turns out to be really sub optimal for the campaign or rules then uncharitable gamers will bitch how they are being gimped.

But understand they will play what they want to play and not comb the system for the best options. If players are not playing beggars or other types of rogues you mention it is because they don't want too. Not because of the presence of a really good combat ability.

And I would point to myself as a counter example. When I play, I play to play a specific character. I use the rules to implement that characters as closely as I can regardless of how optimal or sub optimal my choices are.

If I played a beggar in 5e it will be a beggar. I will be glad to have the sneak attack but it won't influence how I roleplay the character. I had players in organized play look at me like was bat shit crazy for roleplaying the way I do. Not because I was being disruptive but rather sometime my choices were so suboptimal to defy their belief. But when I ask, but is what I do consistent with what you know of my character. And invariably they answer yes.

For me as a PC it about interacting with my fellow players with interacting with the setting, winning combat, and figuring out the solution to the latest puzzle. I been at long enough that I been there done it a lot. What most interesting to me are the people at the table. And for me to do what I do it doesn't really matter what the rules focus on as it fall in the realm of roleplaying which is the same for all RPGs.

When I referee my goal is to get the players to forget about the rules first. Not necessarily to be a actor  or speak in funny voices but to get them to act as if they are there with the capabilities of their characters. That coupled with how I present the setting during the session means that over time my games become more about what the players want to do. With the benefit that combat now because just a means to an end rather than the focus. So things like the Rogue having a really good sneak attack pales compared to the background you setup or how you interact with the setting. Because those was gets to the really interesting and fun parts of my campaigns.

To put it another way there are adventures in my campaign where being able to slaughter everything living thing will not help you resolve the conflict your character finds himself in. Doesn't mean that combat unimportant or good combat abilities don't have. What it does mean that combat is just another option among many.

If you feel that sneak attack utility that overwhelming then I submit that combat probably plays too much of a role in your campaign. Causing the players to prize combat efficiency over the other aspects of the game.

With Organized Play there is little you can do as the adventures are designed with many elements to cater to most common denominator. And that is for many to treat D&D has a framework for a series of wargame scenarios. Having run LARPs, and participated in Organized Play it just the way it is. However I found there are good ways of handling that and poor ways. The trick is to remember is that combat is roleplaying too just more structured then a verbal interplay between referee and player.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801699The problem is when you play Adventure League as it is trying to adhere to RAW tighter and not use house rules, like any Organized Play. The end result is a very staid spread of Rogues, something I find anomalous compared to the rest of the out-of-character class builds elsewhere.

Luckily the mechanic of roleplaying is part of RAW so while you can't control the actions of your players. You can control your own. If you are the referee then you need to emphasis the roleplaying element found in the organized play modules. Something I do when I run organized play. It won't initially effect anything but if you run games consistently then you will find your players loosing up in the characters they build. If you run it as one side of a wargame then all they will ever do is seek combat efficiency.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801699However the structure of this feature is insistent by its power level. Regardless of how you build your character you still have to have an eye towards what happens when you slip between the three aspects of a campaign's role play: combat, social, exploration. To ignore any campaign aspect completely is an unreasonable expectation ("my character doesn't do social interaction, ever" "no, he may do it poorly, but HOW does he still do it?"). Thee best you can do is mitigate its frequency.

What if I as a player chose to ignore one of your three aspect? There nothing to stop me in Organized Play. It not like Counterstrike where they can vote you out of a round.

You need to quit worrying about what others are doing and worry about what you can do especially in Organized Play.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801699Yes, I am already changing it for my own home campaigns. I am already getting some player flak, though, that "Rogues won't be able to keep up with higher level monsters and will fall behind the curve." Basically Organized Play is setting up expectations of what D&D will be like and already the resistance to change is beginning. We've already seen this song and dance before.

Yes I am not surprised because you dealt with the issue in a negative fashion by nerfing it. Players always despise that.

For example I always say fuck balance in using rules to implement a setting. The goal is for the rules to reflect the setting not the other way around. However the setup I published in my Majestic Wilderland in regards to humans and other races I found too unbalanced over time. Unbalanced that it didn't reflect the strength of humans in the setting. Finally a couple of years ago I decided to give humans a +15% bonus for all earned XP to reflect their ability to learn faster and their flexibility. That did the strict.

Now the point isn't the mechanic I used (+15%) but how i used it. Instead of nerfing the other races, I added a benefit to humans. My existing players did not complain and the game went on.

In your case, the solution I would recommend is to setup your campaigns to allow other types of rogues to shine. The mechanic is simple, act as part of the life the setting and you will get more opportunities for adventure, along with more lucrative options.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801699Absolutely not. Darkness, prone, spells that add Conditions, and the ever popular ally w/in 5' is so prevalent that it really is not hard to get your SA attempts. To speak nothing of hiding (like Lightfoot Halflings behind party members), Sneak Attack is like the sine qua non of Rogue combat functions as it stands.

Well you clearly haven't read my actual play accounts or you will see the numerous times where the Rogue of the party got isolated to the point where there no ally to confer the sneak attack bonus.

Quote from: estar;801743I see the distinction.  My opinion is that your point is a non-issue. It is my experience for over 30 years is that most gamers have an image of the character they want to play. If they get really nice ability, like 5e's Sneak attack, great! If not then they will play that character. If it turns out to be really sub optimal for the campaign or rules then uncharitable gamers will bitch how they are being gimped.

I usually see the opposite — except for the uncharitable gamers whinging about someone 'griefing' the table by deliberately playing junk. That happens plenty. Sneak Attack is not one of those useful cornercase features either; it's core to the class, like fighters & extra attacks.

Quote from: estar;801743If you feel that sneak attack utility that overwhelming then I submit that combat probably plays too much of a role in your campaign. Causing the players to prize combat efficiency over the other aspects of the game.

With Organized Play there is little you can do as the adventures are designed with many elements to cater to most common denominator. And that is for many to treat D&D has a framework for a series of wargame scenarios. Having run LARPs, and participated in Organized Play it just the way it is. However I found there are good ways of handling that and poor ways. The trick is to remember is that combat is roleplaying too just more structured then a verbal interplay between referee and player.

Yes, Organized Play is Organized Play. There isn't much you can do given how modules are written. Tried the horror of an illusionist in it already. The adventure structures rarely work with that style, if at all.

The thing is, even the INT/WIS/CHA Rogues with forgery & disguise kits, they still have to flop into Organized Play combat with the group. And they do not have to be completely useless in combat — through certain narrow band of combat builds. And that's the point: that band is just not supportive to many of the basic thief archetypes anymore, because landing the Sneak Attack is such a priority.

Quote from: estar;801743Luckily the mechanic of roleplaying is part of RAW so while you can't control the actions of your players. You can control your own. If you are the referee then you need to emphasis the roleplaying element found in the organized play modules. Something I do when I run organized play. It won't initially effect anything but if you run games consistently then you will find your players loosing up in the characters they build. If you run it as one side of a wargame then all they will ever do is seek combat efficiency.

Being on both sides of the AL screen I see that. But again, there's little incentive to bother with STR & CON emphasis of thugs & beggars outside of combat. And with the SA feature now there is little incentive for combat either.

The "striker rogue" is annoying modern design. The striker rogue limited in weapon choice and stat ability because of a sine qua non feature is even more annoying design. And in a game where you can heavily break stereotype just about everywhere else, I see it as eye rolling laziness design.

Quote from: estar;801743What if I as a player chose to ignore one of your three aspect? There nothing to stop me in Organized Play. It not like Counterstrike where they can vote you out of a round.

You need to quit worrying about what others are doing and worry about what you can do especially in Organized Play.

You can actually call people on such behavior as per AL rules. Disrupting the table is an actual thing. It is not as formalized as statutes as PFS, and often is up to GM and coordinator discretion, but creating a wholly dysfunctional character to be deliberately incompatible is not welcome. You are assumed to be helping each other, and not actively hindering. Oblivious guy blithely running point and setting off all the traps, high level non-combat character upping the Average Party Level of combat situations and not being support, social reject repeatedly interjecting as the party face and flubbing things, etc. these are not encouraged anti-social behaviors.

Quote from: estar;801743Yes I am not surprised because you dealt with the issue in a negative fashion by nerfing it. Players always despise that. [...]

In your case, the solution I would recommend is to setup your campaigns to allow other types of rogues to shine. The mechanic is simple, act as part of the life the setting and you will get more opportunities for adventure, along with more lucrative options.

As I've learned from CCGs, the cleanest solution is the ban hammer. With laser like precision it removes the offending piece without trying to work around it. While it still exists it alters the play field, so any new solutions have to take it in consideration and thus power escalation occurs.

This same principle is why the game proposed to be modular in the first place. This is why multi-classing and feats are optional. This is why so much of the DMG material outright replaces certain functions than merely add until something more palatable foments.

There is a reason why erasure and clean slates work — less variables to account for during creation.

Quote from: estar;801743Well you clearly haven't read my actual play accounts or you will see the numerous times where the Rogue of the party got isolated to the point where there no ally to confer the sneak attack bonus.

Yes, I read them. My party ran through those same challenges in record time. Your Old Owl Well Keep with the 12 zombies & red wizard? Lasted about 2-4 rounds for our group, IIRC. We plotted out our party formations ahead of time for potential threats (what would we do if encounter a flying monster?) and would wipe things out ASAP. We had mostly military or martial backgrounds & enough nova casting to finish things quick.

The efficiency has only gotten worse as the characters leveled, sadly.

Half the party was green to rpgs, too. We just took to direction well when stakes were on the line. Oh and the veteran players actually played paranoiac or zealot backgrounds, which blended well with our over-preparation of utility items.

I've since retired that character at level 7, partially due to burning out and ennui at the encounters.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819I usually see the opposite — except for the uncharitable gamers whinging about someone 'griefing' the table by deliberately playing junk. That happens plenty. Sneak Attack is not one of those useful cornercase features either; it's core to the class, like fighters & extra attacks.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819Yes, Organized Play is Organized Play. There isn't much you can do given how modules are written. Tried the horror of an illusionist in it already. The adventure structures rarely work with that style, if at all.

The thing is, even the INT/WIS/CHA Rogues with forgery & disguise kits, they still have to flop into Organized Play combat with the group. And they do not have to be completely useless in combat — through certain narrow band of combat builds. And that's the point: that band is just not supportive to many of the basic thief archetypes anymore, because landing the Sneak Attack is such a priority.



Being on both sides of the AL screen I see that. But again, there's little incentive to bother with STR & CON emphasis of thugs & beggars outside of combat. And with the SA feature now there is little incentive for combat either.

The "striker rogue" is annoying modern design. The striker rogue limited in weapon choice and stat ability because of a sine qua non feature is even more annoying design. And in a game where you can heavily break stereotype just about everywhere else, I see it as eye rolling laziness design.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819You can actually call people on such behavior as per AL rules. Disrupting the table is an actual thing. It is not as formalized as statutes as PFS, and often is up to GM and coordinator discretion, but creating a wholly dysfunctional character to be deliberately incompatible is not welcome.

Well I can believe it not welcome, but the specifics of the Adventurer League guidelines solely address out of game behavior.

At first glance it the guidelines appear to quite open to abuse by organizers and DMs to enforce whatever they believe to be correct behavior both in-game and out of game.

http://media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/ADVLeague_PlayerGuide_TODv1_print.pdf

QuoteParticipants must not conduct themselves in a manner that is disruptive to the enjoyment or safety of others at the event.

But when you look over the example violations it is clearly focused on out of game behavior.

• Excessively vulgar or profane language
• Throwing or breaking objects in anger
• Leaving excessive trash in the play area
• Talking over other players excessively

Which is fine and needed.

After reading it bringing a useless character to a Adventure's League event or acting like a coward is not grounds for removal.

Nor it should be given the emphasis on factions and the various background elements found in the 5e PHB like bonds, etc. While it is possible for a Zhentarim to work with a Harper it is equally possible that the two would come into conflict, even PC on PC combat because the two organizations are polar opposite in their approach to issues.

If Wizard didn't want this possibility then they should have excluded the Zhentarim and limited it to the other four.

In the past there was a emphasis on everybody PC being a big cooperative family. That doesn't hold true for the Adventurer's League with faction and the PC roleplaying traits.

I am willing to bet that for now the first few season will focus on threats that apply equally to both Lawful Evil Zhentarim and Chaotic Good Harpers. Summoning back Tiamat was a bad things for all faction, whatever the Elemental Evil stuff is about will probably be as equally bad.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819You are assumed to be helping each other, and not actively hindering.

Again Zhentarim vs Harpers right in the Handbook. If there isn't conflict at some point then the players are not roleplaying their character honestly.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819Oblivious guy blithely running point and setting off all the traps, high level non-combat character upping the Average Party Level of combat situations and not being support, social reject repeatedly interjecting as the party face and flubbing things, etc. these are not encouraged anti-social behaviors.

Yes I seen the player who doesn't do anything out of game but deliberately and with malice fucks things up in game by setting off traps. But they are rare. Far more common is playing like that along with out of game behavior problems. They go hand in hand.

I am extremely skeptical about judging out of game, in-game behavior that clearly arises out of establishing characteristics and mannerism.  Doubly so when there a lack of out of game rudeness.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819As I've learned from CCGs, the cleanest solution is the ban hammer. With laser like precision it removes the offending piece without trying to work around it. While it still exists it alters the play field, so any new solutions have to take it in consideration and thus power escalation occurs.

The two situations are not equivalent. Having played magic a lot myself the point is the game and fair competition so overpowered cards are a detriment to that goal.

Tabletop roleplaying games are not competitive wargame but rather pen & paper virtual realities designed to let the players to experience a setting and do interesting things. Something like Sneak Attack means it just a world with Rogue with a a really useful combat ability.

With that being said, it fine you don't like Sneak Attack. The rules are part of the package of preferences that allows a person to enjoy tabletop RPGs. If you dislike sneak attack remove it.

However removing it won't fix the problem you having with players not roleplaying other types of rogue. You are focusing on the wrong thing to fix that issue.

The only way you are going to do that is to make other types of rogues as interesting as the default rogue. Since the players are going for the combat oriented rogue and not the other rogue options I assume you are promoting all I can conclude that combat dominates your campaigns. This is because all the other options you mention shine in non-combat situations like the beggar.

If you want players to play other types of rogue then you need to deemphasis combat, and flesh out the life of your setting. In time this will make the non-combat portion of your campaign as compelling as the combat portion. Players will respond to that and design their character to take advantage of that.

However if most of your gaming is done through Organized Play, or with large groups of 7 or more players then your options will be more limited.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819This same principle is why the game proposed to be modular in the first place. This is why multi-classing and feats are optional. This is why so much of the DMG material outright replaces certain functions than merely add until something more palatable foments.

Which is fine, except removing sneak attack won't fix your problem with players playing other types of rogues.

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819Yes, I read them. My party ran through those same challenges in record time. Your Old Owl Well Keep with the 12 zombies & red wizard? Lasted about 2-4 rounds for our group, IIRC. We plotted out our party formations ahead of time for potential threats (what would we do if encounter a flying monster?) and would wipe things out ASAP. We had mostly military or martial backgrounds & enough nova casting to finish things quick.

How many in your group?

Quote from: Opaopajr;801819The efficiency has only gotten worse as the characters leveled, sadly.

The more the referee makes the encounter like a white room fight then more effective preplanning becomes because it eliminates the extraneous factors that causes real world fights to be unpredictable.

Also I think I noticed with many people running phandelver is that they don't take in account that nearly every locale except for Wind Echo Cave is very small. A fight should trigger half of the map to converge on the disturbance. This is going by the RAW perception rules. If you go room by room it is way easier.

However the biggest factor with 5e is raw numbers which is why I am curious about how many was in your group.

Quote from: Will;801714I'm inclined to houserule sneak attack to be 'anything except big two-handed melee weapons.'

Anyone think that's likely to run into problems?

Pretty much what I'm going to to.

Quote from: tenbones;801897Pretty much what I'm going to to.

Let us know if it runs into problems! I'm unlikely to get a chance to play/run 5e for about 6 months.

Quote from: estar;801848Again Zhentarim vs Harpers right in the Handbook. If there isn't conflict at some point then the players are not roleplaying their character honestly.

No Undermining of Other Characters During
Adventures. Adventurers are brought together by
common cause, and during an adventure, they’re
expected to work together to overcome challenges.
Though certain factions might find others distasteful,
individuals will put that aside and become a team when
put in dangerous situations. In short, play nice with each
other when things get deadly.
(Adventure League Player Guide Tyranny of the Dragons. p.4. underlining mine.)

It is all good until deadly. That's always in combat, some in trap or natural disaster areas exploration, and rare in powerful personages/organizations social.

Quote from: estar;801848Yes I seen the player who doesn't do anything out of game but deliberately and with malice fucks things up in game by setting off traps. But they are rare. Far more common is playing like that along with out of game behavior problems. They go hand in hand.

I am extremely skeptical about judging out of game, in-game behavior that clearly arises out of establishing characteristics and mannerism.  Doubly so when there a lack of out of game rudeness.

Yes, it is a grey area. And I am loathe to call upon it myself as I often create and run non-optimized characters in general (including AL. My nigh-pacifist Paladin being a fun example.). However the AL issue is making a good faith effort to have a character blend well with the party's efforts.

Quote from: estar;801848The two situations are not equivalent. Having played magic a lot myself the point is the game and fair competition so overpowered cards are a detriment to that goal.

Tabletop roleplaying games are not competitive wargame but rather pen & paper virtual realities designed to let the players to experience a setting and do interesting things. Something like Sneak Attack means it just a world with Rogue with a a really useful combat ability.

They are equivalent because we are dealing with breadth of utility in the face of a feature with an overly large impact. The world's setting is actually shaped by that feature in a curious way, where it really wasn't before in AD&D. That is an issue.

It shapes my virtual realities with this system in ways I don't find useful, deviating from things I didn't find broken into things I find disjointed.

Quote from: estar;801848With that being said, it fine you don't like Sneak Attack. The rules are part of the package of preferences that allows a person to enjoy tabletop RPGs. If you dislike sneak attack remove it.

However removing it won't fix the problem you having with players not roleplaying other types of rogue. You are focusing on the wrong thing to fix that issue.

Naturally, I can remove it. But the point of this topic is to raise these questions and discuss it. This is a design I hated in 3e & 4e, was questioning before in the playtest, and had reservations in the Basic .pdf.

Now that I've played with it, I can say with confidence that I do not like it.

And further, you are misrepresenting my argument -- again -- that somehow my games devolve all into combat min/maxing. I am exactly focusing on the right thing to fix because its removal explicitly reinvigorates the debate between the small degrees of utility between various weapons. The debate within Rogue creation within the class becomes interesting again.

It only becomes a between classes issue if I remove it and offer nothing in return to the class. In comparison with other classes it would then be lacking a feature and thus in deficit. Again, from my previous posts you already see that is also not true.

You are overly concerned from a design perspective of something I already foresaw and have already addressed within this very topic. Your argument here is not very convincing in this light.

Quote from: estar;801848The only way you are going to do that is to make other types of rogues as interesting as the default rogue. Since the players are going for the combat oriented rogue and not the other rogue options I assume you are promoting all I can conclude that combat dominates your campaigns. This is because all the other options you mention shine in non-combat situations like the beggar.

If you want players to play other types of rogue then you need to deemphasis combat, and flesh out the life of your setting. In time this will make the non-combat portion of your campaign as compelling as the combat portion. Players will respond to that and design their character to take advantage of that.

However if most of your gaming is done through Organized Play, or with large groups of 7 or more players then your options will be more limited.

Organized Play I already concede is a lost cause. Sneak Attack DPS Rogue is here to stay. And running a STR variant is climbing an uphill battle v. the DEX standard. That ended debate saddens me, but no longer interests me. Creating new PCs within that class no longer excites me, the ennui has set in.

As for offering something in return for removing a feature, that is how I have already been going about it, as my previous posts in here show. However, design-wise it is easier to start with a cleaner space and replace it than retaining SA as it stands and trying to compensate around it.

And again, your assumptions on how I run my games is a) not correct, and b) not relevant. Your premise on what is going on is flawed. Let go, this line of argument has no bearing upon what I am arguing.

Quote from: estar;801848Which is fine, except removing sneak attack won't fix your problem with players playing other types of rogues.

Actually, I already showed in a previous post that this assumption is not correct in my analysis. Here, this is a breakdown of what I see as weapon cost-benefit utility. Note that in the center (which I will bold) that I can easily defend the selection of any of the weapons before SA; they allow different utility in the middle of combat. Even the Versatile property matters, as having an open hand to Use an Object or rapidly switching to Two-Hands for extra damage can matter.

Quote from: Opaopajr;800947So let's break down the weapons, and note this is "easy mode":

All of the versatile weapons are either 1H) +5 atk. 1d8+3 dmg. 2H) +5 atk. 1d10+3 dmg. But they are STR based, not finesse, therefore there is an opportunity cost dependent on what else STR v. DEX can give. You also can switch up mid-battle from 1H to 2H for "one free interaction with the environment" along with Use an Object (3rd lvl Thief Cunning Action Bonus) or extra damage.

Rapier is finesse, it is 1H) +5 atk. 1d8+3 dmg. However, it is one of few DEX melee weapons, and so that restriction to higher damage die weapons, for better AC, is the opportunity cost. You also retain "one free interaction with the environment" and Use an Object capacity with your extra hand free.

S. Swd & Dagger are light along with finesse, so they allow Two Weapon Fighting to trigger granting a conditional Bonus Action. That trick does also consume your single Bonus Action, so later powerful things like Cunning Action become an opportunity cost. You also lose out on a lot of "one free interaction with the environment" and Use an Object, a real cost.
S. Swd) +5 atk. 1d6+3 dmg.
Dagger) +5 atk. 1d4+3 dmg. plus optional range w/o improvisation.

So let's look at the damage averages before and after Sneak Attack!

Before
Versatile - 1H) 4.5+3=7.5 dmg, or 2H) 5.5+3=8.5 dmg. (lose distance as defense, but retain higher average damage & enviro interaction.)
Finesse - rapier) 4.5+3=7.5 dmg. (reserved for DEX builds w/ better AC & ranged weapons.)
Finesse & Light - s. swd) 3.5+3 + 3.5 = 10 dmg. (lose Opportunity for many "one free environment interaction" and Bonus flexibility.)
dagger) 2.5+3 + 2.5 = 8 dmg. (lose Opportunity for many "one free environment interaction" and Bonus flexibility. may throw & use distance as defense.)

As you can see these are quite close in cost benefit analysis. I could make arguments for any one of them as they are so similar in degrees.

After
Versatile - 1H) 4.5+3=7.5 dmg, or 2H) 5.5+3=8.5 dmg.
Finesse - rapier) 4.5+3 +3.5=11 dmg.
Finesse & Light -
s. swd) 3.5+3 +3.5 +3.5 = 14 dmg.
dagger) 2.5+3 +2.5 +3.5 = 11.5 dmg. plus optional distance as defense.

And every two levels add another 3.5 damage to Sneak Attack.

1st) 3.5 dmg. 3rd) 7 dmg. 5th) 10.5 dmg. 7th) 14 dmg. 9th) 17.5 dmg...

Afterwards SA delivers so much damage as to overshadow the previous degrees of advantage.

Remember, you are still arguing from the false premise that I somehow run combat-heavy home games and I am not letting Rogue social and exploration to shine. That's not the issue, that's not my argument. Adventure League is its own animal and I know my complaint means nothing there. Further, my home games in general do not favor combat by a long shot. Your advice is literally irrelevant to my situation at hand.

I am arguing that a feature is heavily favoring a combat state that shapes the Rogue in a narrow manner. Removing that feature actually opens up Rogue in-class design without doing anything else. As I have shown above, there are fine degrees of advantage between STR v. DEX v. CON Rogues and their different weapons. It is the inclusion of Sneak Attack feature that this play between archetypes and weapons gets heavily favored in one direction.

The peripheral complaint is this then weakens the Rogue's damage per round in the face of other classes and combat. This is an inter-class argument v. an intra-class argument. I understand that complaint, but don't feel it warrants retaining SA because there are better ways to mitigate that design space. By emptying that feature's space I have more to design space work with and still retain the flexibility of character conception.

Basically removing the feature and then replacing it is easier that retaining it and building around its influence.

Quote from: estar;801848How many in your group?

Around 4 to 5 on average. A rarity would be 6. Once we ran 7, but that was actually harder due to getting personalities to align. The 4 to 5 party ran swimmingly.

Quote from: estar;801848The more the referee makes the encounter like a white room fight then more effective preplanning becomes because it eliminates the extraneous factors that causes real world fights to be unpredictable.

Also I think I noticed with many people running phandelver is that they don't take in account that nearly every locale except for Wind Echo Cave is very small. A fight should trigger half of the map to converge on the disturbance. This is going by the RAW perception rules. If you go room by room it is way easier.

However the biggest factor with 5e is raw numbers which is why I am curious about how many was in your group.

Oh no, we would definitely and actively aggro everything as soon as possible, up-front and direct -- with 300' of thunder no less. It made killing things go faster. We essentially played the high aggro red-burn deck and the module just collapses in the face of it. Sure there were attempts to use circumstance and positioning benefits, but aggro-ing immediately led many to our beachhead position and we just slaughtered.
---------------------------

Now, before we waste more page count on counterpoint argumentation, look at the state I created and add value to my efforts:

I am removing Sneak Attack for my home games for a very specific reason --  to open up the stat and weapon space for other archetypal Rogues.

I am also removing Sneak Attack first before I design anything to add to it because it is cleaner in design development. It is easier to add in an empty space than add or subtract (or both) in an already occupied space.

I have already put up two features in which to replace that space. They need refinement.

Given that you do design, and I do respect your opinion, what are your thoughts of what I have already offered?

Quote from: Opaopajr;802060No Undermining of Other Characters During
Adventures. Adventurers are brought together by
common cause, and during an adventure, they're
expected to work together to overcome challenges.
Though certain factions might find others distasteful,
individuals will put that aside and become a team when
put in dangerous situations. In short, play nice with each
other when things get deadly.
(Adventure League Player Guide Tyranny of the Dragons. p.4. underlining mine.)

It is all good until deadly. That's always in combat, some in trap or natural disaster areas exploration, and rare in powerful personages/organizations social.



Yes, it is a grey area. And I am loathe to call upon it myself as I often create and run non-optimized characters in general (including AL. My nigh-pacifist Paladin being a fun example.). However the AL issue is making a good faith effort to have a character blend well with the party's efforts.



They are equivalent because we are dealing with breadth of utility in the face of a feature with an overly large impact. The world's setting is actually shaped by that feature in a curious way, where it really wasn't before in AD&D. That is an issue.

It shapes my virtual realities with this system in ways I don't find useful, deviating from things I didn't find broken into things I find disjointed.



Naturally, I can remove it. But the point of this topic is to raise these questions and discuss it. This is a design I hated in 3e & 4e, was questioning before in the playtest, and had reservations in the Basic .pdf.

Now that I've played with it, I can say with confidence that I do not like it.

And further, you are misrepresenting my argument -- again -- that somehow my games devolve all into combat min/maxing. I am exactly focusing on the right thing to fix because its removal explicitly reinvigorates the debate between the small degrees of utility between various weapons. The debate within Rogue creation within the class becomes interesting again.

It only becomes a between classes issue if I remove it and offer nothing in return to the class. In comparison with other classes it would then be lacking a feature and thus in deficit. Again, from my previous posts you already see that is also not true.

You are overly concerned from a design perspective of something I already foresaw and have already addressed within this very topic. Your argument here is not very convincing in this light.



Organized Play I already concede is a lost cause. Sneak Attack DPS Rogue is here to stay. And running a STR variant is climbing an uphill battle v. the DEX standard. That ended debate saddens me, but no longer interests me. Creating new PCs within that class no longer excites me, the ennui has set in.

As for offering something in return for removing a feature, that is how I have already been going about it, as my previous posts in here show. However, design-wise it is easier to start with a cleaner space and replace it than retaining SA as it stands and trying to compensate around it.

And again, your assumptions on how I run my games is a) not correct, and b) not relevant. Your premise on what is going on is flawed. Let go, this line of argument has no bearing upon what I am arguing.



Actually, I already showed in a previous post that this assumption is not correct in my analysis. Here, this is a breakdown of what I see as weapon cost-benefit utility. Note that in the center (which I will bold) that I can easily defend the selection of any of the weapons before SA; they allow different utility in the middle of combat. Even the Versatile property matters, as having an open hand to Use an Object or rapidly switching to Two-Hands for extra damage can matter.



Afterwards SA delivers so much damage as to overshadow the previous degrees of advantage.

Remember, you are still arguing from the false premise that I somehow run combat-heavy home games and I am not letting Rogue social and exploration to shine. That's not the issue, that's not my argument. Adventure League is its own animal and I know my complaint means nothing there. Further, my home games in general do not favor combat by a long shot. Your advice is literally irrelevant to my situation at hand.

I am arguing that a feature is heavily favoring a combat state that shapes the Rogue in a narrow manner. Removing that feature actually opens up Rogue in-class design without doing anything else. As I have shown above, there are fine degrees of advantage between STR v. DEX v. CON Rogues and their different weapons. It is the inclusion of Sneak Attack feature that this play between archetypes and weapons gets heavily favored in one direction.

The peripheral complaint is this then weakens the Rogue's damage per round in the face of other classes and combat. This is an inter-class argument v. an intra-class argument. I understand that complaint, but don't feel it warrants retaining SA because there are better ways to mitigate that design space. By emptying that feature's space I have more to design space work with and still retain the flexibility of character conception.

Basically removing the feature and then replacing it is easier that retaining it and building around its influence.



Around 4 to 5 on average. A rarity would be 6. Once we ran 7, but that was actually harder due to getting personalities to align. The 4 to 5 party ran swimmingly.



Oh no, we would definitely and actively aggro everything as soon as possible, up-front and direct -- with 300' of thunder no less. It made killing things go faster. We essentially played the high aggro red-burn deck and the module just collapses in the face of it. Sure there were attempts to use circumstance and positioning benefits, but aggro-ing immediately led many to our beachhead position and we just slaughtered.
---------------------------

Now, before we waste more page count on counterpoint argumentation, look at the state I created and add value to my efforts:

I am removing Sneak Attack for my home games for a very specific reason --  to open up the stat and weapon space for other archetypal Rogues.

I am also removing Sneak Attack first before I design anything to add to it because it is cleaner in design development. It is easier to add in an empty space than add or subtract (or both) in an already occupied space.

I have already put up two features in which to replace that space. They need refinement.

Given that you do design, and I do respect your opinion, what are your thoughts of what I have already offered?

So let me get this straight you want to remove SA entirely and basically run into the issue of why the Rogue has been hated by most players in 1-2e especially? Basically being just good enough to get in trouble and die because most times Rogues work alone you know?

Quote from: Will;801898Let us know if it runs into problems! I'm unlikely to get a chance to play/run 5e for about 6 months.

Because I'm tinkering with the martial arts system I mentioned earlier (I haven't posted it yet as I'm not done) - I *MIGHT* even let Thieves SA with any weapon they're proficient with... Yes I realize I might regret it - I'm aiming for my Pirates vs. Ninja game to be a little over-the-top. We'll see how it goes.

Quote from: tenbones;802075Because I'm tinkering with the martial arts system I mentioned earlier (I haven't posted it yet as I'm not done) - I *MIGHT* even let Thieves SA with any weapon they're proficient with... Yes I realize I might regret it - I'm aiming for my Pirates vs. Ninja game to be a little over-the-top. We'll see how it goes.

Thief backstabbing with a naginato from the back of a horse? Thief backstabbing with a cannon from the deck of a galleon? :)

My favourite sneak attack in a movie was in Hannibal where the good doctor cuts the Italian pickpocket's femoral artery as he brushes past him in the street. That was when I started enforcing rules that backstab had to be a surprise but came directly off wounds bypassing hit points but thieves lost the multiplier and instead got a bonus to surprise. Course that is hard in traditional d&d if you use a lot of monsters cost their hitpoints are supposed to be about hardiness and size nor skill so I never used wound for them.... but how does a sneak attack against a manticore actually work anyway?

Quote from: Marleycat;802061So let me get this straight you want to remove SA entirely and basically run into the issue of why the Rogue has been hated by most players in 1-2e especially? Basically being just good enough to get in trouble and die because most times Rogues work alone you know?

I don't think you needed to quote that whole thing, did you now? ;)

And no, my 2e experience (and with other players) does not mirror yours. We instead had conflict about how to interpret Thief Skills, as often it was read as a singular roll not the safety net roll that Old Geezer said it was used. As for 1e/2e thieves "sucking" in combat v. the 3e DPS "striker," I think it wholly fine as I found absolutely everything that I initially liked about 3e utter shit in practice.

I also found it disingenuous argument as Rogues often were able to be capable combatants, within reason of higher armored PCs. Bards, thieves with kits, Guilders (Birthright), etc. were all quite viable through good play. (Any low level, thinly armored, dual wielder is obviously squishy; look at all the sad debates from back then about those who dual wield their low level rangers into their premature deaths.) And the Rogue archetype, with its sub-type expressions, didn't have to narrow down into one narrowly expressed combat form — which is the core of my complaint.

So at this point our tastes are going to be agree to disagree. :)

There is an argument to be made for every class having a role in combat. My problem with that is usually the REAL argument is that if you go that way, really, every class should have a role in EVERYTHING. (At which point I look at the fighter and wonder where their skills went, mmm?)


I ALSO find 'I do lots of damage but I'm less armored' to be incredibly dull and unimaginative as a role for rogues, compared to trickster stuff.

Just asking given you seemed shocked you're players are complaining. Hint for you count yourself lucky you're not physically injured... yeah don't mind the snickering in my corner over your awesome fix that never worked the first time it was done.

Honestly the Rogue shouldn't even be a standalone class but what can you do?

Quote from: jibbajibba;802113Thief backstabbing with a naginato from the back of a horse? Thief backstabbing with a cannon from the deck of a galleon? :)

Backstabbing with a griffon in a dive attack...

Quote from: Omega;802162Backstabbing with a griffon in a dive attack...

Sneaky....

Quote from: jibbajibba;802113Thief backstabbing with a naginato from the back of a horse? Thief backstabbing with a cannon from the deck of a galleon? :)

My favourite sneak attack in a movie was in Hannibal where the good doctor cuts the Italian pickpocket's femoral artery as he brushes past him in the street. That was when I started enforcing rules that backstab had to be a surprise but came directly off wounds bypassing hit points but thieves lost the multiplier and instead got a bonus to surprise. Course that is hard in traditional d&d if you use a lot of monsters cost their hitpoints are supposed to be about hardiness and size nor skill so I never used wound for them.... but how does a sneak attack against a manticore actually work anyway?

Oh sure - there's all kinds of jicks that allowing this will allow. My stipulations will be that it has to be from the hands of the Thief - or from a ranged weapon he's directly aiming (not a siege weapon - but that would be awesome to Sneak Attack with a Catapult like in the Gamers... LOL)

The Naginata backstab from Horseback - is not different than what I'm allowing regardless. The mounted condition doesn't impact say... a Thief mounted in melee, where the target is currently engaged with someone else. So if I'm willing to allow it with a Thief that is proficient with a Naginata (or whatever) - why does being mounted matter? But I get what you're saying, but I'm pretty flexible.

Quote from: Will;802125There is an argument to be made for every class having a role in combat. My problem with that is usually the REAL argument is that if you go that way, really, every class should have a role in EVERYTHING. (At which point I look at the fighter and wonder where their skills went, mmm?)

Ahhh my favorite topic of late with my players when we're just discussing the purpose of classes. It may sound like heresy... especially since it's my favorite class. I've come to this uneasy conclusion that the "Fighter" is a bullshit class.

Yes - I vomit a little every time I type/speak those words.

This was more true in 3.x/PF/4e than in 5e imo. But even still the implementation of the "Fighter" and definition of what he's supposed to represent is not indicative mechanically of what I believe it should represent in terms of fluff-to-crunch.

A "Fighter" should be, imo, defined as the equivalent of the Spec Ops soldier of the fantasy-world. I don't feel the Archetypes for the class do it justice. The Battlemaster gets close... but I feel this mixed unease that I think non-casters should have the ability to do most of these maneuvers too - but the Fighter should do them *better* or have faster acquisition options to get more of them.

I don't even like the vestigial term "Fighter" because from its inception the class has splintered as its various concepts have become their own seperate classes, or PrC's in other editions. I prefer the Fantasy Craft term Soldier (which I think they handle much cleaner than D&D - even the 5e version.) and rings closer to the concept of what a "Fighter" should be: a professional hand-to-hand combatant that is made for conflict both personal and on the battlefield, and everything that those things connotes.

 I'm working on a martial-system that's a modular thing for 5e that will exemplify this for Fighters. When I'm done with it I'll post it here for scrutiny/criticism/fine-tuning. It might not be everyone's cuppa, but I'm *wanting* non-casters to have a lot more options in combat that are utilitarian

Quote from: Will;802125I ALSO find 'I do lots of damage but I'm less armored' to be incredibly dull and unimaginative as a role for rogues, compared to trickster stuff.

I think this is a case where the the flavor is something both developed by the player and the conceits of the game. As a general rule - I'm a context whore. I want to know the reasons why these things exist. As an example - I'm a big fan of the Kensai class - which is exactly mechanically as you described. Yet in the hands of a the good player it can be a very deep experience nothing like a rogue, or swashbuckler or even a monk or barbarian - which also inhabits that same mechanical space. And even those can be given a lot of depth too - depends on the player.

Tenbones, I used to think that until I went back and reread, and replayed, AD&D 2e through with Complete Fighter Handbook. Those rules just rock. As long as you skip the Player Option madness, the Fighter really shines.

The large number of WPs, and the flexibility with all styles, along with being able to start with a Punch/Wrestle style atop Weapon Style, atop Weapon Specialization all at level one, makes the fighter dominant in his niche. Throw in called shots and rapid THAC0/BAB progression to take advantage of all those maneuvers and it's toys for days without having to reinvent the wheel. It really took me going back to those happy nostalgic games as a player and actually reading in full the rules and running them RAW to get an adult appreciation of how much never needed fixing in the first place in the transition from TSR to WotC.

A lot of what I wanted to achieve was already done, and modular too.

Quote from: Marleycat;802148Just asking given you seemed shocked you're players are complaining. Hint for you count yourself lucky you're not physically injured... yeah don't mind the snickering in my corner over your awesome fix that never worked the first time it was done.

Honestly the Rogue shouldn't even be a standalone class but what can you do?

You have experienced/witnessed violence in your sessions? Over how-to-pretend games? I've seen some dice chucking in frustration and accidents (and the uncommon "let's pull out martial weapons and kata, because I'm feeling a raging martial arts boner now,"), but hopefully you are not playing with people who lack perspective.

:confused:

The complaints from my players were from a mere fraction of their numbers, and it was from those who worried about between class comparisons with solely high level encounters. Which is my opinion is just as white room theoretical as just about anything out there. No one obliges 12+ lvl characters to go live among the megadungeons, dick measuring DPS between long rests. That's a video game experience, in my experience, and nothing I run as a campaign.

What was hit point advancement like previously?

Quote from: Will;802560What was hit point advancement like previously?

2e Rogues were d6+CON (with a very different bonus progression and large average middle) for HD levels (IIRC 10 lvls each for the wizard & thief) and then +2 HP from then on.

I'm toying with either not having hit point progression at all or making it much slower.

Like, oh, 'you have Proficiency hit dice' or something.

But that crosses the line firmly to totally different balance, and I'm still debating that line.

Well you then have to ask yourself what do HP represent and why am I bothering with a level-based system. Then you have a better sense why you are changing things, and thus hopefully have better design precision.

What sort of setting conceits are you trying to emulate for that campaign?

Eh, this is more an esthetic 'I think I'd like to do a stripped down 5e.' I don't have any venue to play or run anything right now.

So my considerations are more ... theoretical. ;)

(Yes, for at least another 6 months I'm one of those skerry armchair gamers)

Well the DMG recommendation for grittier games was something I liked. They had a suggestion about Short Rests for camping in wilderness and Long Rest a 7 day rest in the city. Makes quite a bit of those Short Rest recharge abilities way more valuable.

I also liked the Healer's Kit ideas. One was can't have natural healing without it. Another was it took more time to dress wounds. There's some good brainstorming in that book.

As for keeping HP flat, it might work well in retaining the lethality of firearms, both modern and futuristic, in a Modern or Sci-Fi setting. A flat HP total that never expands is quite lethal. Keeping the pool of HD as a means to Short Rest heal might give that mix of lethality plus high adventure some people want.

Quote from: Will;802587I'm toying with either not having hit point progression at all or making it much slower.

Like, oh, 'you have Proficiency hit dice' or something.

But that crosses the line firmly to totally different balance, and I'm still debating that line.

My heart-breaker has very slow HP progression.

It uses a wound/HP split. First damage comes of HPs which recover at a rate much like 5e. After HPs are used up damage comes off wounds which recover at a rate of 1 per week and impose -s on rolls.  
A PC has 1-11 wounds (3+ str and con bonus on a -1 to +4 range)
Depending on class at first level they then get 6,8,or 10 HPS + con bonus.

Now as they level a Warrior gets 1 HP per level and may use some of their improvement points (you get 10 per level) to buy 1 more HP.
A Rogue gets 1 HP per 2 levels a Mage 1 per 3 and each may buy a HP per level but at a higher cost.

So a 5th level Mage probably has 4 wounds and 8-10 HP.  A 5th level Warrior has 8 or 9 wounds and 20-24 HP.

Martial weapon damage is currently much like D&D although I have been toying to moving to just d6s (dagger 1d6, longsword 2d6, etc) as in the Sci fi adaption that was how weapons worked (standard blaster 3d6) and it was simpler to have all damage as d6 pools.

So a wizard cam probably use HPs on the first hit then they are taking wounds.

Note Armour absorbs damage in my game so HPs can be lower.
PCs have defense scores that increase as you level.
HPs are effectively a pool you spend to avoid taking wounds.

The effect of Low HPs is everything still seems risky even if you know Plate armour can absorb 8 points from a blow. Criticals and sneak attacks are lethal.

Quote from: jibbajibba;802624The effect of Low HPs is everything still seems risky even if you know Plate armour can absorb 8 points from a blow. Criticals and sneak attacks are lethal.

Based on years of experience with fixed hit points in Runequest and BRP style games and armor subtracting from damage, unless some hits can by pass or do enough damage to smash throuogh Plate Armor, low hit points still won't make everything seem risky.

Quote from: Skyrock;801500It's not an error, it is has been one of the goals of the game at that time. It was very much the intention in 3e to soup up the combat role of the rogue/thief and make him a "squishy glass-cannon" that is better in damage output, at the expense of AC and hitpoints compared to the fighter "tank".

Which is idiotic. A game where the Fighter isn't the best at fighting is stupid.  Likewise one where the fighter is relegated to just being a meatsack while everyone else gets to be special.

If the fighter doesn't get to do more average damage per round in a standard battle than the thief, there's a problem.

The thief should be a class that does a number of other cool things that have nothing to do with fighting as such, that are by no means terrible at fighting but nowhere anywhere close to the fighter, and that have one very special attack that can only rarely be used that can then do a shitload of damage.

The problem here became when the thief's backstab passed from being something that the thief could only ever use as a first-strike on a totally unaware opponent, into something that he can use any time that he has the slightest advantage.

Quote from: RPGPundit;803094Which is idiotic. A game where the Fighter isn't the best at fighting is stupid.  Likewise one where the fighter is relegated to just being a meatsack while everyone else gets to be special.

If the fighter doesn't get to do more average damage per round in a standard battle than the thief, there's a problem.

The thief should be a class that does a number of other cool things that have nothing to do with fighting as such, that are by no means terrible at fighting but nowhere anywhere close to the fighter, and that have one very special attack that can only rarely be used that can then do a shitload of damage.

The problem here became when the thief's backstab passed from being something that the thief could only ever use as a first-strike on a totally unaware opponent, into something that he can use any time that he has the slightest advantage.

The backstab once at start of combat versus the sneak attack on 95% of attacks remains an issue now.

I always thought rogues should be better at fighting than priests, so historically I switched theives and clerics HP and THACO/Combat matrix.
This meant rogues were fair fighters with that backstab option and it worked.

Clerics could wear armour but used d6 HP and theif thaco/matrix. You wanted a tougher cleric then you used 2e modling to reduce spells in return for better HP and/or AC.

5e effectively puts clerics and rogues in the same place in HP terms. THACO/combat matrix is now of course no longer needed

This is precisely why I like Fantasy Craft's take on the Fighter best. It let's everyone be badass in melee (if they pick the appropriate skills/Feats). But the Soldier (their Fighter) - he's going to be badass and top-dog, with Heat-seeking Mjolnir-launcher pods on his shoulders over you in whatever form(s) of combat they decide to focus on.

There are a few mechanical deviations made to allow this that seperate it from standard D&D - specifically Wound/HP system.

@Opaopajr - Yeah the Fighter in 2e with the Complete Fighter (and I'd do you one more with the OA1e Martial Arts system hacked onto it) is my definition of how I kluged my concept of what a Fighter should be mechanically. I think that concept is/was lost after Skills and Options-era going into 3e and beyond. In 5e - it's still wide open to be realized again. Again - I think that FC's Soldier combined with the robust combat options of FC does this very very well.