|
Generic Octopus posted:Yes. At a lot of levels of play. Alrighty, well, I may change my tune when we get to higher levels. I adapted the old Ravenloft I6 module to 5th ed to play over Halloween with my regular group, and we need to be much higher level to play it and actually have half a chance to make it through, so it'll at least give us some perspective of levels 9-10 or so. quote:Every class is trying to get Advantage, the fact that the rogue gets +Xd6 damage for doing so doesn't actually affect its playstyle. Rogue does have more mobility though via Cunning Action, yeah. Rogue doesn't even need advantage though - more often, it's just hitting a target that one of my allies is also attacking, although advantage helps if I'm stealthing ahead and get the drop on someone. I don't have to tactically move around to "flank" like I did in 3.5/Pathfinder, I can just attack any old target that someone else is attacking and get my bonus. That's rad, and removes one of my big bugbears about why straight (not multiclass) rogues sucked in 3.Path.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
What is the difference between a Fighter moving in and attacking, and a Rogue moving in and attacking, that makes them feel unique?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:What is the difference between a Fighter moving in and attacking, and a Rogue moving in and attacking, that makes them feel unique? I do it with panache? A fighter can take on a single enemy by himself. I need a buddy next to me to help distract said enemy, or I need to get the drop on said enemy, to do the same amount of damage the fighter does. And if I get hit, I fall down a gently caress of a lot faster. So, I spend a lot of my time moving around, rather than standing there and whacking things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:A fighter can take on a single enemy by himself. I need a buddy next to me to help distract said enemy, or I need to get the drop on said enemy, to do the same amount of damage the fighter does. And if I get hit, I fall down a gently caress of a lot faster. Sounds balanced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I do it with panache? So, if I understand: while the fighter merely attacks, the rogue both moves and attacks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:So, if I understand: while the fighter merely attacks, the rogue both moves and attacks? This is different than earlier editions how, apart from the ability for a rogue to actually do something effective during combat? Really Pants posted:Sounds balanced. I do better damage when I hit than I did in 3.Path, so yeah, that's better balanced. I seem to be having two separate and completely disparate conversations here: one, that "THESE CLASSES ARE REALLY SIMILAR IF NOT EXACTLY THE SAME," and the other that "THESE CLASSES ARE REALLY UNBALANCED." So which is it? Because I don't think it can be both... Peas and Rice fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Something less effective than the Fighter, you mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Something less effective than the Fighter, you mean. Just like the Fighter is less effective than me at disarming traps, but we both have a better chance than we used to do each other's jobs while our classes still feel different? Yeah. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:This is different than earlier editions how, apart from the ability for a rogue to actually do something effective during combat? Play more 4e! Or literally any game in any other hobby because only ttgs have refused to budge from the idea that combat should basically just be zoomed in wargame minis bumping into each other, like, the amount of experimentation that doesn't happen in this hobby is actually pretty shameful. Or 4e! EDIT: Or 13A, because rogues also get stuff unique from fighters there too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:This is different than earlier editions how, apart from the ability for a rogue to actually do something effective during combat? Well, 4th at least had a lot of distinctions between those two classes (I've only played 4e and a retroclone of Basic, aside from 5e). A lot of the differences involve the fact that their powers did different things. Innately though, Fighter reduced the effectiveness of enemy attacks against its allies while also threatening to attack said enemies if they failed to attack the fighter. Rogue honestly didn't have much that wasn't +numbers in terms of class features until Cunning Sneak was released, which lowered the hiding threshold and opened up tons of ways to utilize stealth in the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
I'm getting so far into Dungeon World that it's going to be my fallback RPG when I'm not playing 5th. (Or Dungeon Crawl Classics because the funnel is hilarious and awesome).
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Well, 4th at least had a lot of distinctions between those two classes (I've only played 4e and a retroclone of Basic, aside from 5e). A lot of the differences involve the fact that their powers did different things. Innately though, Fighter reduced the effectiveness of enemy attacks against its allies while also threatening to attack said enemies if they failed to attack the fighter. Rogue honestly didn't have much that wasn't +numbers in terms of class features until Cunning Sneak was released, which lowered the hiding threshold and opened up tons of ways to utilize stealth in the game. Well, the rogue's powers were very different, emphasizing super high mobility and general "play dirty" fighting, blinding dudes or knocking them out or tricking them into hurting themselves and such. ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Having run my second full session last night, and played in several more in the last few weeks, 5th ed seems well-balanced, well-designed, and fun to play. I'm getting ready to start a 5th Edition campaign, had a mixed group of longtime and newer gamers over for character creation and a bull session on the campaign. Everyone's looking forward to it and are generally in agreement that the game looks cleaner, quicker and better at inspiring everyone to come up with cool poo poo than other versions of D&D they've played. And I do not care to elaborate on any of this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I seem to be having two separate and completely disparate conversations here: one, that "THESE CLASSES ARE REALLY SIMILAR IF NOT EXACTLY THE SAME," and the other that "THESE CLASSES ARE REALLY UNBALANCED." "Feels similar in play" and "is similarly effective" are not the same thing. Also, debating fighter vs rogue is missing the elephant in the room. You guys are going back and forth with "this martial melee class is slightly better/worse than that one while also feeling similar in play". I can see both sides of that, but it's mostly an irrelevant discussion of balance. Because wizards, bards, and clerics are just better. Maybe druids too. polisurgist posted:I'm getting ready to start a 5th Edition campaign, had a mixed group of longtime and newer gamers over for character creation and a bull session on the campaign. Everyone's looking forward to it and are generally in agreement that the game looks cleaner, quicker and better at inspiring everyone to come up with cool poo poo than other versions of D&D they've played. And I do not care to elaborate on any of this. This one time I skimmed a rulebook and got excited. I made sure to mention this, but I'm never going to discuss it. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Just like the Fighter is less effective than me at disarming traps, but we both have a better chance than we used to do each other's jobs while our classes still feel different? So they feel unique because they can take the exact same actions, only with a + or a - in different spots?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:I'm getting so far into Dungeon World that it's going to be my fallback RPG when I'm not playing 5th. DW does everything I need an rpg to do. I don't run/play D&D of any ed outside of pbp anymore; they're too cumbersome and I don't see what they offer that I can't do or recreate in DW.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Because wizards, bards, and clerics are just better. Maybe druids too. My first character was a bard because I thought hey, maybe a bard might actually not suck in 5th ed. Nope, he sucked, I "forgot" him at home so I could roll a rogue instead. When do bards get good? E: quote:DW does everything I need an rpg to do. I don't run/play D&D of any ed outside of pbp anymore; they're too cumbersome and I don't see what they offer that I can't do or recreate in DW. I have 2 wargamers in my group, and they REALLY like using the map in D&D. In fact they got mad at me last night because I used goblins to represent hobgoblins. My off-the-cuff answer is that, as a GM, I could tell more of a plotted story in D&D, and my group does not do well with sandbox play. Even running the Way of the Wicked adventure path for them didn't work in places because they didn't know what to do unless they had a clear objective. (I'm the youngest and least-experienced gamer in my group at age 37, having played since I was 12). E2: I REALLY like DW, especially for less-experienced groups. I even ran it at my office as a teambuilding exercise! Peas and Rice fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:My first character was a bard because I thought hey, maybe a bard might actually not suck in 5th ed. When you read and understand the rulebook?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:When do bards get good? The only thing the bard doesn't have over the Rogue is sneak attack and cunning action, which are pretty easily compensated for by its spellcasting progression. It even gets the exact same Expertise feature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Note: you may have to "understand the rulebook" the way Dan Brown "understands the Bible" to get most of this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Like not only did each class in 4e play different from the others both in combat (spoilers the rogue in 4e also pickpockets and disarms traps better then the fighter! And yet neither is "bad" at fighting!), different subclasses played different too! The polearm fighter with all their slides and fancy footwork plays differently from the two hand charge machine which plays different from the fighter with two short swords which plays different from the fighter with NO weapons. In 5e, a greatsword fighter wants to move up, gain advantage, then attack. A sword and board fighter wants to move up, gain advantage, then attack for less damage. A polearm fighter wants to move up, gain advantage, then attack. A rogue wants to move up, gain advantage, then attack. A paladin wants to move up, gain advantage, then attack with a spell. The unarmed fighter wants to move up, gain advantage, then loving reroll. This is what people are trying to talk about differentiating from each other. Does the fighter play differently from the rogue? So far, you've said...no! Not really! The fighter has +maths to combat and the rogue has more skills. What about the ranger compared to the rogue? A different +maths/-maths in combat and different skills. But do they actually play differently? Look at your own example. The fighter is just "tanking and trading blows." How loving exciting is that. Your rogue, however, is trading blows without tanking holy poo poo. This is why people keep comparing it to 3e. Because in 3e, it didn't matter what non-full caster you were. Monk. Fighter. Barbarian. Paladin. Ranger. Rogue. You were still saying "I move to flank and full attack." Has this changed in 5e?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:My first character was a bard because I thought hey, maybe a bard might actually not suck in 5th ed. Level 3. Both of the Bard schools are extremely good, with Bards of Valor being by far the best Gish class and Bards of Lore being arguably the best casters, having good defensive proficiencies/martial abilities, a killer "nope" reaction to enemy attacks, and are able to poach spells from every class. This is on top of being a nine level casters with full spell progression, which counts for a lot. Bardic Inspiration is also pretty crazy strong in play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
RPZip posted:Level 3. Both of the Bard schools are extremely good, with Bards of Valor being by far the best Gish class and Bards of Lore being arguably the best casters, having good defensive proficiencies/martial abilities, a killer "nope" reaction to enemy attacks, and are able to poach spells from every class. This is on top of being a nine level casters with full spell progression, which counts for a lot. Bardic Inspiration is also pretty crazy strong in play. Well I know what I'm playing next time then.  E: quote:This is what people are trying to talk about differentiating from each other. Does the fighter play differently from the rogue? So far, you've said...no! Not really! The fighter has +maths to combat and the rogue has more skills. What about the ranger compared to the rogue? A different +maths/-maths in combat and different skills. But do they actually play differently? Fighters are lame classes for newbies anyway.  Seriously though, maybe it's just because I play the rogue completely differently, but I'm usually sneaking around and doing poo poo, and I'm different enough outside of combat, that it doesn't feel like we're doing the same thing at all? I dunno. E2: \/\/\/ Won't dispute that. Peas and Rice fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Well I know what I'm playing next time then. It's too bad the first two levels didn't actually let you get a proper feel for things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Seriously though, maybe it's just because I play the rogue completely differently, but I'm usually sneaking around and doing poo poo, and I'm different enough outside of combat, that it doesn't feel like we're doing the same thing at all? I dunno. Ok but why not have the two classes feel different inside and outside of combat??? Like, demand more, man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:It's too bad the first two levels didn't actually let you get a proper feel for things. At this point I'm not sure why you'd use them. They're specifically the Training Wheel Shitfarmer Levels For Babby Idiots (TM). The game starts at level 3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
That's surprising, considering how much the designers trumpeted their revolutionary new concept of 'apprentice levels' that will showcase what the classes do for newbies. And by that I mean it is not in the slightest bit surprising.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Transient People posted:At this point I'm not sure why you'd use them. They're specifically the Training Wheel Shitfarmer Levels For Babby Idiots (TM). The game starts at level 3. Dark Sun or NOTHING motherfuckers. quote:Ok but why not have the two classes feel different inside and outside of combat??? Maybe it's just because we're playing them with 30+ years of expectations behind us, and that's what makes it different, but they DO feel different both in and out of combat. We've all mentioned it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Transient People posted:At this point I'm not sure why you'd use them. They're specifically the Training Wheel Shitfarmer Levels For Babby Idiots (TM). The game starts at level 3. In their defense, they did make level 2 and 3 come after only a few fights with the extremely low XP requirements. On the other hand it's still stupid. E: quote:Maybe it's just because we're playing them with 30+ years of expectations behind us, and that's what makes it different, but they DO feel different both in and out of combat. We've all mentioned it. This is basically it, though. The reason they feel different is because you're reading your own 'feel' into the fact that the character sheet says THIEF and not FIGHTER (or BARD). The mechanics don't support any real difference, but you can read one into it with the weight of experience. When the mechanics don't support the feel you're trying to create, that's a failure of design. To put it another way - if you were coming at this as a new player without that huge D&D heritage, would the classes actually feel different? RPZip fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:Maybe it's just because we're playing them with 30+ years of expectations behind us, and that's what makes it different, but they DO feel different both in and out of combat. We've all mentioned it. ALmost certainly this is the case. Much in the same way that the Fighter is only capable of tanking because the DM lets him, because the DM's expectation is that the fighter can tank, but he has almost no mechanical way to effectively enforce that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
quote:Look at your own example. The fighter is just "tanking and trading blows." How loving exciting is that. Your rogue, however, is trading blows without tanking holy poo poo. The fighter has a lot of options other thank tanking and trading blows. The Eldritch Knight has spells, obviously. Battlemasters have maneuvers, which provide unique advantages and often increased damage. All fighters have the action surge and second wind thing going on. and there's the more generic options like shove. The champion obviously doesn't have any other options, but they aren't really supposed to. They're clearly designed for someone who doesn't want to think much about options while still being effective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Transient People posted:At this point I'm not sure why you'd use them. They're specifically the Training Wheel Shitfarmer Levels For Babby Idiots (TM). The game starts at level 3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:
I REALLY have to ask this: Do you only read the rules in a system as they become important to know? The only way you couldn't have known about the 5E Bard's powers compared to the Rogue is if you hadn't read any of their powers and abilities past Level 1. Like, do you remain completely ignorant of what a Paladin can do unless you decide to play one, and then only learn what they do one level at a time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:They're clearly designed for someone who doesn't want to think much about options while still being effective. But the Champion is completely ineffective. Battlemaster is okay but you get all you need from it by level 3. EKnight's spell progression is so hilariously bad that there is no reason to play one over a Bard or Fighter 2-5/Wizard 15-18.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
ascendance posted:The first 2 levels are not as awesome as previous editions because there was a conscious decision to make classes less frontloaded, so multiclassing 3e style becomes more balanced. 3e multiclassing was horrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Peas and Rice posted:My first character was a bard because I thought hey, maybe a bard might actually not suck in 5th ed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:The fighter has a lot of options other thank tanking and trading blows. Like what? The Eldritch Knight's spell list is all about tanking and trading blows. Battlemaster lets you roll an extra 1d6 on your blows or tanking. Action Surge gives you an extra blow. Second Wind lets you tank a whole 1d10+ extra HP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Agent Boogeyman posted:I REALLY have to ask this: Do you only read the rules in a system as they become important to know? The only way you couldn't have known about the 5E Bard's powers compared to the Rogue is if you hadn't read any of their powers and abilities past Level 1. Like, do you remain completely ignorant of what a Paladin can do unless you decide to play one, and then only learn what they do one level at a time? No, I read through the class abilities and the basic rules for the game, but rules typically don't "click" for me in practice until I experience them in action, either as a player or as a GM, with one of my players using those rules. I have a difficult time reading a set of rules and imagining how it would play out vs. actually PLAYING it an experiencing it and sinking my teeth into it, if that makes sense. Nothing stood out to me as extra-unbalanced about the bard reading it through. quote:3e multiclassing was horrible. I had a guy who cheese Fighter/Rogues who would disagree with you on that. quote:Did Bard suck in the last system you played? Just curious. I last tried it in 3.0, and 3.5 / Path didn't seem to improve anything, so I wrote it off. quote:ALmost certainly this is the case. Much in the same way that the Fighter is only capable of tanking because the DM lets him, because the DM's expectation is that the fighter can tank, but he has almost no mechanical way to effectively enforce that. I will absolutely consider that as a possibility, and I'd even be willing to try swapping the names of classes while keeping abilities the same, to see if my group plays them based more on the class name vs. the abilities. We playtest poo poo all the time, so they'd probably be up for it, although it wouldn't be a blind experiment since they all know 5th ed by now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Don't know about 3.0 or PF, but Bard is fantastic in 3.5, and probably the best designed class in core.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
quote:Like what? The Eldritch Knight's spell list is all about tanking and trading blows. Battlemaster lets you roll an extra 1d6 on your blows or tanking. Action Surge gives you an extra blow. Second Wind lets you tank a whole 1d10+ extra HP. quote:But the Champion is completely ineffective. With advantage and the 18 crit, a champion can be getting crits on 28% of attacks, or a 63% chance of landing at least one crit per round with 3 attacks. Champions also get a bonus to initiative which i hope noone is going to sneer at. quote:Battlemaster is okay but you get all you need from it by level 3. EKnight's spell progression is so hilariously bad that there is no reason to play one over a Bard or Fighter 2-5/Wizard 15-18.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 00:45
|
|