The tables went up until they stopped and then it became x experience per additional level. Hit dice stopped at level 8-10 for the original classes, they received a fixed number of hp per level after that.
But the increase in abilities in 1E (that you are referring to) went past the HD caps, a Magic-Users HD topped at 10th but their spell progression didn't stop until 29th level.
All of this shows that level caps or amounts are independent as long as the time spent in each level can be adjusted (as per the XP tables in PF) and the 'tier' perhaps as a different rate of power in increase. You could say that the variable XP tables of PF achieve this, but all they really do is lengthen the time between levels - what having variable power increases according to tier would do is provide a different style of game per tier.
S.
I was talking level progression, not spell progression. There is nothing saying that spell progression stops at 29th level either. The table simply ends, much as the Experience / HD tables do (at about 18th level iirc?).
The tiers could be used to differentiate gameplay, but that could be done just by level really. The tiers are just a bit too... formal for my taste. Just bring on the abilities and let the DM know / deal with it. This gives you a little room for differences in play style to be adjusted by different levels for different classes.
The problem really only comes in if Rogues suck, but you still have to have one to deal with the traps.
If they're ineffective the rest of the time, but needed for one thing that usually isn't even very interesting, then it's bad game design.
I'm not saying that will be true of Rogues in Next, or even that it's true in other versions, but it is a common perception.
Yeah, I remember the Rolemaster Healer class (and the lay healer class was similar). It basically did nothing but heal and was astonishingly better than anything else at doing so - making it pretty much essential but boring.
|
It's a double edged sword, though.
Welcome to the world of old school gaming!
S.
Ironically, I editted out of that post to remove the old school gaming way, way, way back when traps had to be figured out in/out of character, and the thief/rogue really didn't deal with them so much as a class feature. :)
Since we dont have a rogue we are going to houserule that you have the ability to use thieves tools if you have the guild background. If Wizards gives a hard/set rule that its not allowed then it can be changed.
|
Since we dont have a rogue we are going to houserule that you have the ability to use thieves tools if you have the guild background. If Wizards gives a hard/set rule that its not allowed then it can be changed.
I am not saying your solution isn't completely fine. I personally however think that making such a house rule is like house ruling that if no body plays a Wizard then anyone with the spell book can cast Wizard spells. Rogues/Thieves had there 'role' stolen off them in 3.5e/PF. I see this current rule in D&DN (if they keep it) as little protection to keep Rogues a class that people would consider playing.
Again, this is just my take on things - house rules are personal and never wrong if your group agrees.
S.
|
I say give Rogues better ways to interact with traps. Allow Rogues to be the best at spotting them. Allow Rogues to delay them or even change how they are triggered. Let Rogues be better at making and setting them up. This way you can allow other options for Rogue-less parties to deal with traps but give the rogues an edge when dealing with them.
|
|
Since we dont have a rogue we are going to houserule that you have the ability to use thieves tools if you have the guild background. If Wizards gives a hard/set rule that its not allowed then it can be changed.I am not saying your solution isn't completely fine. I personally however think that making such a house rule is like house ruling that if no body plays a Wizard then anyone with the spell book can cast Wizard spells. Rogues/Thieves had there 'role' stolen off them in 3.5e/PF. I see this current rule in D&DN (if they keep it) as little protection to keep Rogues a class that people would consider playing.
Again, this is just my take on things - house rules are personal and never wrong if your group agrees.
S.
I think that's a lousy way to make people consider playing a Rogue.
If Rogues are fun to play and have cool stuff they can do through most of the game, people will want to play Rogues.
If they're not fun and they don't have cool stuff the rest of the time, but only Rogues can deal with traps, then you'll have to have a Rogue in the party, but no one will want to play him.That's the wrong kind of niche protection.
Is it any worse than having to be a Wizard to cast spells from a spellbook? That is niche protection also. Do we make rogues more fun by having them do lots of burst damage, ala backstab? What is interesting? The role of the 'rogue' in 1e/2e is very different than the role of the rogue in 3.5e/PF, currently I'm seeing more of the former and for my money this is a good move.
I would think Rogues are pretty cool if the party looked to me to pick the locks and disarm the traps rather than the fighter bashing them or the wizard or cleric just casting a 'bypass' spell.
We are getting into the conversation of why non-casters can't have nice things - meaning unique things. My personal opinion is they are looking to bring back the much clearer roles of the classes from 1e/2e.
Again NO class is required in a party if the GM is worth their salt. Blindly adhering to pre-written adventure completely ignoring the players and their characters is what D&D computer games are for. I did love the old SSI games however, Curse of the Azure Bonds was 57 thousands kinds of awesome.
S.
|
|
If the game remains focused as much on combat as it has been
This is what I would like to see a move away from. Not so much a move away from combat as a move away from the micromanaged combats of 3.5e/PF/4e. Exact positioning slows down the game. I'm finding the combats of the mind (ala 2e) that we are currently presented with in D&DN move at a good pace and are as much fun as I remember 2e being. I'm not under any illusion that the board-game combat rules will appear down the track but I hope they are an optional extra.
As for the niche problem, I would bet that the Bard will be as the Sorcerer is to the Wizard. Cross over achieved and problem solved! And that is without thinking about multi-classing.
S.
|
|
That wouldn't really fix the issue, though, if locks and traps are just a rogue/bard thing. I think the best solution might be to divorce traps from rogues completely, and give rogues a small boost to disarming them, and as was suggested some other minor cool things like changing they way they work/go off. Cracking locks, picking pockets, sneaking, scouting, and scoundrel's tricks are what the rogue should focus on as it's own class. In my opinion, anyway.
|
|
Cracking locks, picking pockets, sneaking, scouting, and scoundrel's tricks
Not sure why you would drop traps of that list, seems to fit right in?
Perhaps I'm just more comfortable that some times you miss a skill or ability or spell, but this doesn't mean the adventure grinds to a halt - unless the DM chooses it to.
|
|
It's not that it does not fit with rogues in general. It's that it also fits just as well with other classes. I would say rangers would naturally be even better at traps than rogues, in my opinion, but that's another thing. A cleric of thievery/exploration, a fighter thug from the thieve's guild, a wizard that focuses on machines, should all have just as much ability to deal with locks ad traps as a rogue.
The other side of it is that traps used to be sort of like PF's Haunts. More of a story element than a straight skill check encounter. It leads back to needing rogues because there are traps because there are rogues because there are traps. Now, I personally agree about not needing to end the game, to a point. But other people also play differently. I've been in games that are strictly by the book, and I've been in games that are very much outside of the box as far as rules go. In my opinion, 3.5 is the best, most clear set of D&Dish rules out there, and even in that, where the devs went out of their way all the time to clarify and explain things, rules where interpreted differently by diffrent people all the time. So, in my opinion, the best solution is if rogues get a minor bonus to some things in their perview, but no one else is absolutely excluded from them. Backgrounds and Specializations work perfect for this, like the above mentioned cleric of theives and scoundrels, fighter that likes to tinker or run a locksmithing job on the side, or wizard that just likes to study those sorts of things.
|
|
What you are describing is a skill based system, D&D is a class based system. Unless the game more becomes a true skill based system with slight advantages to being a specific class, e.g. Rolemaster, then there will always be cases where certain required skill/spells/features aren't available in a party. Sort of nature of the beast if D&DN wishes to keep the feel of its roots.
If I was designing D&DN, then I'm with you on Rangers. I would have Thieves do 'urban traps', Rangers do 'nature traps' - and perhaps Druids also. Druids a little iffy as they would be more inclined to work with nature than trap it I think. If I was to have other classes say disarm traps then I would have something like the Paladin turning where you function at a lower level than you are. So while agreeing with you I would like to think that Rogues would get a major not minor advantage in all of their class abilities. This means you could still have your sneaky fighter or thieving cleric but they wouldn't stack up against a true Rogue.
Guess the nest playtest will tell all?
S.
I agree. How about forcing the other classes to take the background and to take it as a feat or skill choice
Is it any worse than having to be a Wizard to cast spells from a spellbook?
Just a guess, but I'm going to bet that A LOT more players find casting spells cooler than picking locks.
For games that have a heavy lock-picking/trap-finding/problem-solving element to them, the traditional thief class doesn't need to be made more interesting. The question is how many people actually find those elements interesting. I'm betting the shift from the thief to the rogue in the last couple of editions has a lot to do with the average style of play more than an orchestrated attempt to make every class combat-oriented.
Remember that the thief class wasn't even in the original game until the first supplement got released. Originally anybody could try to pick a lock, find a trap, or move silently. The thief emerged because the game was very focused on dungeon-crawling and avoiding hazards. Old modules were maybe about 50% or more checking for traps and searching for secret doors. While that's still a popular style of play, the game has changed to become more action-oriented and less hazard-focused.
Unless the next edition is going to go back to the slower-paced exploration style of dungeoneering, it's probably best to give the rogue something else to do that is going to mesh with what most players will want.
|
|
As far as I can tell, other classes can invest in the Disarm Traps and Open Locks skills, without any rogue being required. Rogues are nice, because they typically get a bunch of those skills for free, but I don't see any forced limitation preventing others from having that capability.
From the most recent Playtest batch <Equipement>:
"Thieves’ Tools:
Characters proficient with thieves’ tools can use them to find and disarm traps and to open locks. Normally, these tasks are impossible if you lack proficiency with thieves’ tools. . . .
Possession of, and proficiency with, thieves’ tools allows the character to attempt the following tasks . . .
Disable a Trap. . .
Open a Lock. . ."
So far it looks like only Rogues get Tool Prof: Thieves' Tools, but I might have missed something.
Remember that the thief class wasn't even in the original game until the first supplement got released. Originally anybody could try to pick a lock, find a trap, or move silently. The thief emerged because the game was very focused on dungeon-crawling and avoiding hazards. Old modules were maybe about 50% or more checking for traps and searching for secret doors. While that's still a popular style of play, the game has changed to become more action-oriented and less hazard-focused.Unless the next edition is going to go back to the slower-paced exploration style of dungeoneering, it's probably best to give the rogue something else to do that is going to mesh with what most players will want.
There were no specific skills or mechanics for picking locks, finding traps, or moving silently until Greyhawk / the Thief class period other than some d6 throws related to races (Hobbits / Halflings, Dwarves and Elves had some abilities regarding stealth, stonework and finding secret doors as I recall). As for exploration and DDN they just finished reintroducing the exploration / turn system for both dungeon crawls and outdoor adventures...
|
|
Both the "Disarm Traps" feat and the "Open Locks" feats give proficiency with Thieves Tools as part of their benefits, so anyone who invests in those feats can use them. Now, I suppose if you aren't using an open feat system, then only Rogues will be effective at that - but that is generally going to be the trade-off between more customization vs quicker character generation, I imagine.As far as I can tell, other classes can invest in the Disarm Traps and Open Locks skills, without any rogue being required. Rogues are nice, because they typically get a bunch of those skills for free, but I don't see any forced limitation preventing others from having that capability.From the most recent Playtest batch <Equipement>:
"Thieves’ Tools:
Characters proficient with thieves’ tools can use them to find and disarm traps and to open locks. Normally, these tasks are impossible if you lack proficiency with thieves’ tools. . . .Possession of, and proficiency with, thieves’ tools allows the character to attempt the following tasks . . .
Disable a Trap. . .Open a Lock. . ."
So far it looks like only Rogues get Tool Prof: Thieves' Tools, but I might have missed something.
I'm sort of ok with this system. Rogues get for free what others haev to invest time (feats) in. Actually thinking a little more about it, I'm really happy with this idea. Well done WotC.
D&DN shaping up nicely thanks.
|
|
I'm sort of ok with this system. Rogues get for free what others haev to invest time (feats) in. Actually thinking a little more about it, I'm really happy with this idea. Well done WotC.I'm OK with that approach. I'm not OK with 'every class can be subbed except for one' which was the old 3.0 approach. The wizard can be replaced with the sorcerer, the cleric with the druid, the fighter can be replaced with the paladin or barbarian, but only the rogue was made so that nobody else could do his job. Glad that approach isn't being taken again.
I'm thinking, and assuming they keep the current 2e vibe, that the Bard will be the Rogue-sub.
Time will tell.