Likes
1. Advantage and Disadvantage. This could actually end up streamlining things similar to how combat advantage did in 4e.
2. Short rest healing. I like the built in limiter of your HD for taking a rest but at the same time allowing some patching up between fights. Coupled with the feat the human cleric gets at 3rd the party can save a few spells and hit fights at better numbers.
3. Actually having a section that spells out the need to improvise if something as to do something without a rule. Nothing irks me more as a player than asking if I can try something (ex swing from a rope down towards and enemy to attack them) just to have a GM rule that since there isn't a rule for it no.
4. finesse weapons being a type of weapon. No need for a feat just apply dex to attack and damage.
Dislikes.
1.Armor at current the armor rules make dex even better than it is now for boosting AC.
2. Humans, right now it doesn't seem like they get anything racially. Though since its kinda hard to work back stats and such who knows.
3. Fighters seem to be going back to the days of swing weapon, swing weapon, swing weapon, swing weapon.....
Note that 2 and 3 may be removed as we see more info.
|
I won't go into your likes, because there are a number of features that I love about the playtest documents, but I think you're spot on with your dislikes: armor, as written, just doesn't work, and Fighters don't really have much going on for them at the moment. Haven't thought about humans yet, though.
I'm still cautiously optimistic, because they've implied that what we're seeing now is the most basic version of the Fighter. Hopefully, as we get on to the next stage of the playtest, we'll be seeing more options for the Fighter.
I agree and I hope that the current trend of awesome continues.
As to my likes those are the ones that quickly came to mind though any feed back from others definatly i apprectaied.
|
|
I agree and I hope that the current trend of awesome continues.
As to my likes those are the ones that quickly came to mind though any feed back from others definatly i apprectaied.
Oh, fine, I'll post the things I most like about it. ;)
1. The way spells work. They've retained the feel of 3e's spells while accommodating them with 4e's balance. Charm Person finally tells you what it actually does instead of giving you guidelines, while at the same time giving enough leeway for it to be a useful spell in social situations and/or turning combat encounters into negotiations.
2. Themes and Backgrounds. I know that these are pretty much just schemes for gaining skills and feats, but some of the traits granted by Backgrounds actually codify the sort of stuff that is normally just written into your character's background section on the character sheet, only to be summarily forgotten by the DM. The traits granted by the Researcher and Priest backgrounds are both absolutely inspired, as the former pretty much generates quest seeds ("Welp, I don't know where this magical sword came from, but I know for a fact that a sage a couple of towns over would!") while the other finally resolves all the arguments I've had over the years about whether Clerics should get discounts on healing from their god's churches or not. (The answer is "YES! But you don't have to be a Cleric, as long as you've been raised into a religious tradition! Also, if you're a Cleric raised outside of the accepted religious tradition of your god, f%*% off!" [which is a cool bit of characterization in and of itself])
3. The fact that writing about my favourite bits of the game makes me overflow with my writing to such an extent as to make me have to break out not only the good old brackets but also the square brackets.
2. Humans, right now it doesn't seem like they get anything racially. Though since its kinda hard to work back stats and such who knows.
Humans seem to get +1 to every stat, which is basically "plus one-half" to everything they do. Seems like a pretty reasonable benefit for the "can be good at anything they try" race.
Likes
2. Humans, right now it doesn't seem like they get anything racially. Though since its kinda hard to work back stats and such who knows.Note that 2 and 3 may be removed as we see more info.
Humans get +2 at wills and +1 to every stat.
2 at wills helps, really compare Pelor vs Moradin Cleric: at will wise, have 3 is very useful.
Where did you find that humans get +1 to every stat and +2 at will saves? i'm looking for it, but can't find it. Thanks!
Not saves, at will spells.
|
I've been looking at the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic, and I've worked out what bothers me about it:
If you have advantage:
-- You have a 10% chance of rolling a 20, instead of a 5% chance.
-- You have a 1 in 400 chance (.25%) of rolling a 1 (since you have to roll a 1 on each of 2 20-sided dice to actually get a 1)
-- You have a 5% bonus (actually 4.986%) (+1 on a d20) overall modifier to your d20 rollIf you have disadvantage:
-- You have a 10% chance of rolling a 1, instead of a 5% chance.
-- You have a 1 in 400 chance (.25%) of rolling a 20 (since you have to roll a 20 on each of 2 20-sided dice to actually get a 20)
-- You have a 5% penalty (actually 4.986%) (-1 on a d20) overall modifier to your d20 rollThe effect is thus only slightly better than +1/-1. It's pretty much intended to nudge the chances for Criticals or Fumbles.
You might as well have your players roll a single d20, and say that an advantage gives you a +1 to the roll, and you crit on a natural 19 or 20. A disadvantage has a -1 to the roll, and you fumble on a natural 1 or a 2.
Since Criticals or Fumbles are aspects of the game I don't worry much about, I'm even more convinced I'm going to use the standard D&D +4/-4 modifier for advantage/disadvantage. It has a greater effect on success and failure.
I read somewhere that 2d20 is roughly the equivalent of +4/-4... I'll go find it.
http://onlinedungeonmaster.com/2012/05/24/advantage-and-disadvantage-in-dd- next-the-math/
It's an interesting mechanic which doesnt really translate into a flat bonus. As bubgleyman(?)'s analysis showed - the effect of rolling 2d20 and taking the worst varies on the underlying, non-modified chance of success.
Those with a 1/20 chance of success are not affected that much in an absolute sense (5% chance reduced to a 0.25% chance).
Those who will succeed 1/2 the time have their success reduced the most (50% chance reduced to 25% chance).
Those who will otherwise succeed 19 times in twenty have their chance of success reduced by the same absolute amount as those with a 1/20 success rate: (95% chance of success to 90.25%)
I think you can make arguments both in favor and against - until we see it working in play, it's hard to tell how sensible it is.
|
|
I read somewhere that 2d20 is roughly the equivalent of +4/-4... I'll go find it.
http://onlinedungeonmaster.com/2012/05/24/advantage-and-disadvantage-in-dd- next-the-math/
That's pretty much what I found by my math, but I also realize that it's an over-simplification. The actual benefits of Advantage have a lot to do with what you actually need to roll in order to succeed.
Digging out my cool program again: http://anydice.com/program/11fd
If you need to roll a natural 20 in order to succeed, the chance of that on a normal d20 is 5%. With advantage that is 9.75%. That translates, rounding up, to a +1 bonus with advantage.
However, if you must roll a 9 in order to succeed, your chances with a d20 are 60%, while with advantage it's 84%. Rounding to the nearest +1, that's a +5 difference.
But yes, advantage shifts the average by roughly +4, but a +4 bonus doesn't return the same sorts of results that you get with advantage.
EDIT: Also, the -4/+4 is a huge over-simplification, because a d20+4 has a possible range of results from 5 to 24, whereas 2d20 drop the lowest has a range of results from 1 to 20. The difference between d20 and 2d20 drop the lowest isn't in the range of results, but in the distribution of results. 2d20 drop the lowest heavily skews the results higher.
Initial impression
The advantage / disadvantage feels a bit gimmicky to me.
Simplicity over simulation- more like savage worlds than d&d ( which I like but I like d&d as well)
Also you dont stack disadvantages - so shooting at long range, from out of combat, into combat is the same as just shooting at long range
But I will play test it as written and maybe I will not feel this way
There are quite a few details that I don't like, but only one thing really jumps out at me.
I'm not convinced that it's a desirable feature, but the lack of +AC or +attack per level is a pretty radical move. I didn't think WotC had the balls.
I can see the mechanical appeal of no scaling, but D&D has already proven that a +1 can be as important at max level as it is at 1st.
The best argument I can see for no scaling is that in 4e terms, it creates a smooth flow from minion to standard to solo monsters without needing much of the background math adjustments. However, since PCs can do things other than just damage, higher level 5e monsters will still need special attention if they're to live up to their XP value. (I'm saying 'XP' because 5e monsters don't seem to have levels or roles.)
this is a bit off topic, but does anyone know why the fighter has a plus 7 to damage?
The advantage/disadvantage cannot be modeled with a +x to your roll (as stated by several posts in several different places). It provides a totally different distribution of rolls that when graphed looks like a nice sloped straight line across all 20 possibilities (1-20) with a minimum of 0.25% on one end and a maximum of 10% on the other (depending on if it's an advantage or a disadvantage) with linear scaling between. It is a very different mechanic than a single d20+-X. I think it's great and have been wondering how to incorporate it in my own game, though a lot of people have complained about the extra dice rolling required so I imagine it is best when used sparingly.
|
I honestly don't see how it's extra dice rolling. You put 2 d20's in your hand instead of one, and roll. I kind of think it's awesome.
My practical experience with that mechanic, though (that being the witch's misfortune hex in PF), indicates that when someone has advantage, they will virtually always succeed, while disadvantage will virtually always fail. The probability implications outweigh the odds.
My practical experience with that mechanic, though (that being the witch's misfortune hex in PF), indicates that when someone has advantage, they will virtually always succeed, while disadvantage will virtually always fail. The probability implications outweigh the odds.
I don't understand the meaning of the final sentence. What is the difference between probability implications and odds?
this is a bit off topic, but does anyone know why the fighter has a plus 7 to damage?
Don't have my stuff availble right now but I believe he has an ability that gives him a + on damage. Though I also think its still higher than it should be.
this is a bit off topic, but does anyone know why the fighter has a plus 7 to damage?Don't have my stuff availble right now but I believe he has an ability that gives him a + on damage. Though I also think its still higher than it should be.
He does have an ability that says he gets a +2 to damage, but that +Str still only adds to +5. I couldn't figure out where the other +2 was coming from, so I was wondering it was a mistake on the sheet.
|
|
He does have an ability that says he gets a +2 to damage, but that +Str still only adds to +5. I couldn't figure out where the other +2 was coming from, so I was wondering it was a mistake on the sheet.this is a bit off topic, but does anyone know why the fighter has a plus 7 to damage?Don't have my stuff availble right now but I believe he has an ability that gives him a + on damage. Though I also think its still higher than it should be.
It's either, as you point out, a mistake, or alternately some of the math is still behind the curtain.
|
|
My practical experience with that mechanic, though (that being the witch's misfortune hex in PF), indicates that when someone has advantage, they will virtually always succeed, while disadvantage will virtually always fail. The probability implications outweigh the odds.I don't understand the meaning of the final sentence. What is the difference between probability implications and odds?
In theory, odds and probability are merely two different ways of looking at the chances of something happening (as I think you may be aware). In theory (again) they are equal, as they are applied to a given situation, because the strictest definition of the odds of something is something like "the probability of it happening divided by the probability of it not happening, expressed as a ratio".
In practice (in my personal opinion), this doesn't always tell the whole story. There are a number of factors that go into rolls of the sort that we're talking about (not least of which is the dice themselves - not having been made by some sort of dice creation diety, it's almost assumed that each dice is at least ever so slightly out of balance, which begins to show itself over a large number of samples - but that's a discussion for somewhere else and not really the crux of my argument anyway), and those factors tend to exhibit tendencies over a large sample size.
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| FAILED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| FAILED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| FAILED
| PASSED
| FAILED
| FAILED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
| PASSED
That's 5 in 30 failures, if I'm counting correctly, or 1:6 odds of failure as demonstrated by the sample (which is of course flawed, as it's not infinitely large). The "odds" of failing such a check given 2d20's should both be 1:4, and again, in theory the odds ARE 1:4 on any given roll. However, consider that in Row 17 we failed, and in Row 18 we failed again. Probability (as I'm attempting to use it) dictates that the chances that we're going to fail a roll that we should succeed on three out of four times three times IN A ROW are not good at all. True to form, we then pass 12 times in a row - something that, although anomalous, is far more probable to happen than failing three times in a row.
The above example is not perfect, I know. It's merely trying to illustrate my point, which is that people are (I think) going to find adv/dis making a HUGE difference in rolls over large samples.
|
|
You know, after running a session, I think the thing I dislike the most about the playtest is the lack of information concerning Character Creation, Skills, Feats, and all the other things that will eventually be available.
I appreciate WotC's desire to test each part in its own time, but it's VERY frustrating trying to playtest a game that is in no way complete.
I've had to make things up in regards to the way the characters are used, and my players all asked if they could generate regular 3.5 characters to run with this.
It would be easier to playtest the game if we actually had it.
Anyone still have the old Alpha playtest PDFs from Pathfinder? I missed the first alpha, but I think the first I saw was the second revision. That's how you run an RPG playtest. From my first read-through of those rules I was sold and have loved playing through the Beta and final versions.
I'm just not seeing that with Next.
|
|
Anyone still have the old Alpha playtest PDFs from Pathfinder? I missed the first alpha, but I think the first I saw was the second revision. That's how you run an RPG playtest. From my first read-through of those rules I was sold and have loved playing through the Beta and final versions.
I'm just not seeing that with Next.
Personally, I think the two aren't really comparable. Pathfinder was based directly on the D&D 3.5 ruleset, so Paizo already had a framework to start working on, whereas with D&D Next the only framework they had was "All editions of D&D ever."
Taken into account that they first had to identify which parts of the various editions they thought to be part of the core experience of D&D, I think it's okay that the first playtest we're getting is very bare-bones. I mean, unlike WotC with Next, Paizo wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel with Pathfinder. (The wheel, in this case, being Dungeons & Dragons.)
Anyone still have the old Alpha playtest PDFs from Pathfinder? I missed the first alpha, but I think the first I saw was the second revision. That's how you run an RPG playtest. From my first read-through of those rules I was sold and have loved playing through the Beta and final versions.
I'm just not seeing that with Next.
Personally, I think the two aren't really comparable. Pathfinder was based directly on the D&D 3.5 ruleset, so Paizo already had a framework to start working on, whereas with D&D Next the only framework they had was "All editions of D&D ever."
Taken into account that they first had to identify which parts of the various editions they thought to be part of the core experience of D&D, I think it's okay that the first playtest we're getting is very bare-bones. I mean, unlike WotC with Next, Paizo wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel with Pathfinder. (The wheel, in this case, being Dungeons & Dragons.)
In some forums, the basic idea goes from "WotC has no idea where it is going" to "Why the f*** is Mike Mearl in charge?", so quite a few people are doubting about a lot of things.
|
|
In some forums, the basic idea goes from "WotC has no idea where it is going" to "Why the f*** is Mike Mearl in charge?", so quite a few people are doubting about a lot of things.
Yeah, obviously there's no telling at this point if they actually manage to do what they've set out to do. But you've got to admit, there is a lot more ambition in trying to make the perfect D&D by melting it down to its special essence and molding that into a great edition enjoyed by all than in taking an existing rules-system and tweaking it.
Also, as far as Mearls goes, he made Iron Heroes, so he's cool in my book.
(With that said, and I feel that it is necessary to addend my post with this on this particular forum, I think Pathfinder is a vast improvement on D&D 3.5, because all of the little tweaks add up to make a superior game, but most of the ideas in the Core Rulebook aren't very novel.
Now, the Advanced Player's Guide is f%*&ing awesome.)
Yeah, obviously there's no telling at this point if they actually manage to do what they've set out to do. But you've got to admit, there is a lot more ambition in trying to make the perfect D&D by melting it down to its special essence and molding that into a great edition enjoyed by all than in taking an existing rules-system and tweaking it.
That's a mentality they need to lose, they can't do that; please the majority maybe; 100% full aproval rate? Perfection doesn't exist in this world.
|
|
Yeah, obviously there's no telling at this point if they actually manage to do what they've set out to do. But you've got to admit, there is a lot more ambition in trying to make the perfect D&D by melting it down to its special essence and molding that into a great edition enjoyed by all than in taking an existing rules-system and tweaking it.That's a mentality they need to lose, they can't do that; please the majority maybe; 100% full aproval rate? Perfection doesn't exist in this world.
I'm sure they have no delusions of being able to please everyone. My post was an exercise in humouristic hyperbole (which apparently failed miserably). ;)
I'm sure they have no delusions of being able to please everyone. My post was an exercise in humouristic hyperbole (which apparently failed miserably). ;)Yeah, obviously there's no telling at this point if they actually manage to do what they've set out to do. But you've got to admit, there is a lot more ambition in trying to make the perfect D&D by melting it down to its special essence and molding that into a great edition enjoyed by all than in taking an existing rules-system and tweaking it.That's a mentality they need to lose, they can't do that; please the majority maybe; 100% full aproval rate? Perfection doesn't exist in this world.
They tried it before, or at less, close to it, with 4th Ed and Essentials.
In theory, odds and probability are merely two different ways of looking at the chances of something happening (as I think you may be aware). In theory (again) they are equal, as they are applied to a given situation, because the strictest definition of the odds of something is something like "the probability of it happening divided by the probability of it not happening, expressed as a ratio".
In practice (in my personal opinion), this doesn't always tell the whole story. There are a number of factors that go into rolls of the sort that we're talking about (not least of which is the dice themselves - not having been made by some sort of dice creation diety, it's almost assumed that each dice is at least ever so slightly out of balance, which begins to show itself over a large number of samples - but that's a discussion for somewhere else and not really the crux of my argument anyway), and those factors tend to exhibit tendencies over a large sample size.
The expected odds of a roll making the target DC are 79.75%.... your experimental average of 83.33% seems pretty close, I think.
I'll admit that I'm still not 100% on what you're arguing, if it's not the inapplicability of probability theory to imperfect die rolls. Are you saying that high/low streaks trump theoretical probability?
In any case, I don't think we need to go into this if you'd rather not--when I asked the first question I had been about to piggy back on your post to discuss psychology, but now I think that train has sailed. :)
Something I didn't like, to get back to the original discussion:
Spell disruption for wizards. I didn't see it for clerics, so I can only assume it's a wizard-only thing. The idea that taking damage sometime in the previous round can disrupt spellcasting is ... disturbing. Damage happens; it's often unavoidable and isn't something smart playing can avoid. I don't like the idea that wizard actions are unreliable.
That was one of my favourite things, actually. Magic should be a powerful tool. I'd much rather they kept magic powerful, but made it difficult/inconvenient to cast, rather than nerfing magic into the ground.
I don't know if it's fair that clerics go free of that, but it does follow the lack of spell failure on divine magic from previous editions.
The disadvantage, of course, is that it could rob us of some concept options for wizards. You have to be the small fry in the back, you can't be the awesome eldritch knight dishing it out in melee. But I could see a bard-like class taking over some of those roles (as in, less magic but more fight-y than a wizard)
|
|
Spell disruption for wizards. I didn't see it for clerics, so I can only assume it's a wizard-only thing. The idea that taking damage sometime in the previous round can disrupt spellcasting is ... disturbing. Damage happens; it's often unavoidable and isn't something smart playing can avoid. I don't like the idea that wizard actions are unreliable.
I must admit I hadn't noticed it didn't apply to clerics too, I will need to re-read my pack.
However, it basically seems to be a nod to the ideas that:
1) if you cast a spell in melee and don't cast defensively you may provoke an AoO, take damage then lose the spell by failing a Concentration check
2) if you cast a spell with a 1 round casting time and take damage you have to make a Concentration check to maintain the spell
However its a single rule rather than two, doesn't require the idea of AoOs to be in play or spells taking different lengths of time to cast, and can speed up gameplay by the player deciding not to cast a spell (or cast a Cantrip) and thus not have to make a check to maintain the spell.
I think its fairly neat, and emphasises the need to protect the wizard.
My turn to make some lists!
- One of the things I don't like is that the Fighter seems to be so useless compared to the other three classes shown. Granted, he can swing a weapon, but I foresee the Rogue being a more damaging class than the Fighter unless there is something drastic that hasn't been revealed.
My reasoning is base don the level additions on the character sheet. At level two, Sneak Attack is increased to 2d6. At level 3, it's increased to 3d6. This implies a d6 per level of rogue. Meaning at 20th level, he'll be rolling 20d6 for sneak attack. That's a lot of damned dice.
- I'm not a big fan of the AC system. The fighter with lots of strength is, apparently, going to be easier to hit than the Rogue with lots of Dex. The armor seems to favor a high dex build than a good armor. For example, someone with a Chainshirt and a 20 dex is going to have an AC of 19. The best Heavy Armor is 18, and the best medium armor is 17 + half Dex mod (a fore mentioned guy would also have 19 in Dragon Scale). PC stats seem to be limited to a 20 max. That means the guy in medium armor is unlikely to have a 20 Dex unless he's going to be playing a Dex character, at which point it would be better to go light armor and Mithral Chain has AC 15 + Dex and he'd have a 20. So Mithral Chain > Dragon Scale > Adamantine Plate which leads into my next part of this rant.
It also annoys me on a historical level because of one of the fallacies of role-playing games. I'm not history expert, but I do enjoy my T.V. shows. I enjoyed watching the show Deadliest Warrior. One of the episodes had Joan of Arc vs William the Conqueror. One of the things they tested was the mobility of armor. The female they had for Joan of Arc did a series of tests in her armor, and out, and it showed her full plate as reducing her mobility by only 14%. The guy that tested for William did the same tests, in and out of his chainmail armor, and it reduced his mobility by 27%, effectively twice the reduction as the full-plate. RPG's would have us believe that Chainmail is easier to move in than Full-Plate, when the opposite is true.
- The whole resting system is kind of odd and breaks my immersion in the game. You go to sleep, and wake up will full hit points, everything is healed. This is very contrary to real life. It basically says, "If you get your stomach sliced open by a sword, go to sleep and when you wake up, everything is better."
- Healing - You know, it can already be hard enough to threaten PC's with out going overboard, but the fact that healing automatically recovers all negative hit points, then gives you a positive amount equal to what you healed is really whack. Combine this with the Cleric of Pelor maximizing all healing spells, items and effects. If he uses a healing potion, it's maximized; if he casts a healing spell, it's maximized; if he uses a healer's kit, it's maxmized. A party including a Cleric of Pelor is going to be a damned hard party to threaten.
- Wizards - I enjoy wizards, but I'm fearful of the magic system that the wizards now enjoy. I never bothered to touch 4E, I almost never heard a nice word about it, but heard plenty of horror stories. So I don't know how magic worked in 4E. However, the Wizards in D&D Next enjoy the never ending cantrips, similar to Pathfinder, but they don't have to memorize them. Once they know a cantrip, they can cast it indefinitely, forever. Magic Missile, is a Cantrip. You're going to see a lot of Magic Missile sniping wizards in D&D Next. And if you get close? Shocking Grasp is also a Cantrip and does 1d8 + ability mod in damage.
Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of things in the new edition, like the short rests, the streamlined application of playing, etc. I'm just a little concerned the positives are going to be outweighed (in my mind at least) the negatives.
He does have an ability that says he gets a +2 to damage, but that +Str still only adds to +5. I couldn't figure out where the other +2 was coming from, so I was wondering it was a mistake on the sheet.this is a bit off topic, but does anyone know why the fighter has a plus 7 to damage?Don't have my stuff availble right now but I believe he has an ability that gives him a + on damage. Though I also think its still higher than it should be.
It might be because the Greataxe is a two-handed wealpon, and maybe get his strength x1.5, but even this only gives a total of 6. I should also point out, the Greataxe is listed as 2d6 damage, while the weapons table lists it as 1d12, same as the Greatsword. I don't know which one is correct, so hopefully it will be fixed in later releases, or at least clarified.
|
I foresee the Rogue being a more damaging class than the Fighter unless there is something drastic that hasn't been revealed.
Well, they are supposed to be going for the old-school feel :-)
While the damage progression wasn't as fast (a thief only got an extra damage die every four levels), that extra +4 to hit on a sneak attack made a low-level thief rather more likely to hit than a low-level fighter.
Based on the fighter and rogue that was included, at first level,the rogue will deal 2d6 + 3 on a sneak attack, while the fighter will deal 2d6 + 7. At second level, the rogue will be dealing 3d6 + 3 on a sneak attack, while the fighter deals 2d6 + 7. At third level, the rogue will deal 4d6 + 3 on a sneak attack, while the fighter will deal 2d6 + 8.
So, on average, the rogue will deal 9 point of damage at first level, 12 at second level, and 15 at third level during sneak attacks. While the fighter will deal 13 at first and second level, and 14 at third level.
Keep in mind also, the fighter and rogue included have the same AC, the same hit points at first level (though the fighter gains more than the rogue in following levels) and their attack bonus is only 1 point of difference. Also, they really didn't include any info for leveling up characters, so their attack bonus stays the same through all three levels, unless I missed something.
Granted, the fighter does his damage, every time, and it's more consistent, plus he gets to take 'extra actions' which I assume allows him to attack again. But it just strikes me as odd that the Rogue is, more or less, going to be able to roughly equal the fighter in term of damage output, while eventually having a higher AC.
Funnily enough, in D&D next, the fighter is more MAD than the Rogue.
The rogue can only really sneak attack every second round right? Or have I read the rules wrong? 1round he needs to hide so he can gain advantage for the second round? So really he'd be doing 7.5 per round where the fighter is doing 14.
Thats assuming that the enemy isn't already granting advantage to every attack on it due to a spell or a ability we haven't seen yet.
The rogue can only really sneak attack every second round right? Or have I read the rules wrong? 1round he needs to hide so he can gain advantage for the second round? So really he'd be doing 7.5 per round where the fighter is doing 14.
That's how I read it, yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue can only really sneak attack every second round right? Or have I read the rules wrong? 1round he needs to hide so he can gain advantage for the second round? So really he'd be doing 7.5 per round where the fighter is doing 14.
This is true, but we haven't learned all the rules, which is one of the things I'm hesitant about. If all the Rogue has to do is flank, then he doesn't need to hide.
I'm wary of certain things, dislike others, but I'm reserving over-all judgement until we see the full beta test.
|
|
My turn to make some lists!
[list]
One of the things I don't like is that the Fighter seems to be so useless compared to the other three classes shown. Granted, he can swing a weapon, but I foresee the Rogue being a more damaging class than the Fighter unless there is something drastic that hasn't been revealed. My reasoning is base don the level additions on the character sheet. At level two, Sneak Attack is increased to 2d6. At level 3, it's increased to 3d6. This implies a d6 per level of rogue. Meaning at 20th level, he'll be rolling 20d6 for sneak attack. That's a lot of damned dice.
Yeah, I'm also worried about this. However, you should also remember that at the moment the only way for the Rogue to get Sneak Attack damage is to have advantage. The only way for the Rogue to gain advantage that is explicitly spelled out on their character sheet/in the rules is to be hidden, and hiding takes your entire action for the turn. So, unless the DM is being extremely liberal in giving you advantage, you're only getting in your extra damage every other round.
I also did some quick calculations on the expected damage for the Fighter compared to the Rogue. By my math, the Fighter, for the first three levels, is well ahead of the Rogue in terms of raw damage, even if you assume that the Rogue has advantage every round (which, in actual play, probably won't be the case).
If the Fighter gets more things to do in terms of combat maneuvers and such, what they might lose in terms of potential damage compared to the Rogue at high levels might be made up for by an increased amount of choices.