Found in one of the latest articles here.  

What do you think of this assessment?

RPGPundit

I am mildly annoyed by the use of "myth" and "legend" to mean "kewl supernatural abilities".

I posted the article in the DndNext thread already but overall I don't mind the goals except I would prefer skills get evenly distributed to every archetype with the siloing occuring in areas of focus instead.  That's just me though.

As I stated in the D&D Next thread, too superhero and not picaresque enough for my tastes.

I dislike how designers hamstring Fighters to make designspace for Rogues. Narrowing the scope of each class (except generalist Magic Users) to fit roles (THAT CHARACTERS MUST ALWAYS STICK TO TO BE EFFECTIVE) is too much like Japanese computer rpgs. Fighters should get as much mechanical advantage for not fighting fair.

Rogues skill mastery auto-success hoopla sounds awful to me.

As someone who mostly likes to play Thieves and sometimes Fighters as a player, I like the general message of the post. Social skills are still not something I consider good for the game, but the rest of the suggested abilities are par for course in high-level play. If the extraordinary abilities are kept to higher power levels, people can just stick to the lower end and middle of the curve.

This here is a pretty likeable understanding of Thief abilities:

QuoteRogue are in a class by themselves when it comes to attempting ability checks and using skills. Not only is a rogue more skilled than other classes, but he or she can achieve many difficult tasks without much exertion. To the rogue, luck and chance play no role in determining success. The rogue's talent and training make such concerns negligible.

Traditionally, the mechanics of D&D have reflected better training by increasing the chance of success. That doesn't quite capture the rogue's level of talent. The rogue isn't just more likely to succeed. Instead, he or she takes success for granted in most cases. It's only when facing a real challenge that the rogue must worry about the outcome.

And from Philotomy's musings:

QuoteWhile I prefer to run without the Thief class, there are campaigns where I've allowed them. When I allow Thieves, their class skills are treated as extraordinary capabilities. That is, anyone can hide, but a Thief can hide in shadows. Anyone can move quietly, but a Thief can move silently, without even making a sound. Anyone can climb, but a Thief can climb sheer walls. Et cetera.

As an example, consider the act of sneaking up behind a human sentry. The Fighting Man takes of his mail and hard boots, and makes an effort to be quiet on his approach. I'd probably give him an increased chance of surprising the sentry: maybe 3 or 4 in 6, depending on the exact circumstances. If a Thief were trying the same thing, he'd use his move silently ability. If the Thief makes his roll, he's moving without making any audible noise, and since he's out of the sentry's line of sight (i.e. behind him), I'd give him automatic surprise. If the Thief failed his move silently roll, he made some noise, but he's still moving quietly; I'd give him the same chance to surprise as the stealthy Fighting Man (i.e. 3 or 4 in 6).

Quote from: Sean !;537250I dislike how designers hamstring Fighters to make designspace for Rogues. Narrowing the scope of each class (except generalist Magic Users) to fit roles (THAT CHARACTERS MUST ALWAYS STICK TO TO BE EFFECTIVE) is too much like Japanese computer rpgs. Fighters should get as much mechanical advantage for not fighting fair.

Rogues skill mastery auto-success hoopla sounds awful to me.

This would never be an issue if every archetype got the same amount of skill points and the same access/costs to a list of general skills with reduced costs in their archetypal skills. Or just flat out give every archetype the same number of class skills and full access to a general list at same cost for all archetypes. As Melan points out Rogue abilities are something any archetype can do but the rogue should get bonuses on top. Much like a fighter in a stand up combat.

The easiest method is just give Rougue more 'skill points' this will mean they have more skills and the skills they have will be better. It doesn't preclude a fighter learning to move silently or a wizard learning read languages it just enables rougues to be bteer at it.

On Ben's point I am also loath to see High level rougues getting Superpowers but generally speaking in myth an legend that is what happens.

Quote from: Sean !;537250Rogues skill mastery auto-success hoopla sounds awful to me.

They might just be taking the fiddly rolling bits out of climbing, jumping, and the like. There are a lot of skills that a rogue really ought to not roll in combat, if only to keep things down around a roll per round.

x-posting for relevance from the D&D Next thread

Quote:

QuoteOriginally Posted by John Morrow  
I disagree. I think all classes have justification for skills and would rather see all classes have decent skill acquisitions so that players can choose to have their characters have things to do out of combat. A Fighter could learn how to fix weapons and armor, carouse, or deal with courtly etiquette. A Cleric or Magic user could learn history or have investigation skills. And so on. And what I've seen the concentration of skill points in Thief do in 3.x is encourage players to take a few levels of Rogue just to get skill points, which is the tail wagging the dog. I think this is the wrong way to go with Rogues.

I'd much rather see Rogues be master of movement and not getting hurt. They should have the ability to move silently in shadows without being seen, move through combat without getting hit, roll with hits to lesson the demage, land from falls without getting hurt, flee from opponents chasing them, move across uneven terrain without penalty, and be able to use vertical surfaces to move. I'm thinking less full-blown acrobat and more parkour (that page has a good list of maneuvers one could start with, too). Stuff like this. They should also have the ability to not only spot but dodge out of the way of traps that have been sprung.

I don't think that makes sense.
Just to do their job Rogues needs additional skills
Hide in Shadows, move silently, pick locks, pick pocketc, etc etc ... A fighter with no skills can still do his job, ie hit stuff, and a wizard can do his job, cast spells. The Rogue is in effect a collection of their skills.

Also the rogue you outline is just one sort of rogue I want to have acces sto a myriad of rogues archetypes, from the deft acrobat to the fat greasy fence to the glib con man. Narrowing the class to just be uber competant at one aspect is something players can do for an individual PC but nopt something you do for hte entire class.

Rogues as more skillful doesn't seem like it would quite work if they're trying to make the game so that skills are optional.
 
Anyway, I'd rather that things integral to classes be treated as class features (e.g. how 3E handled wild empathy or bardic knowledge) rather than be separate skills; there's no point having optional skills that you end up having to take. I'd rather have skills kept for interesting flavour/background abilities - like crafts, knowledges and professions.
 
 
Not a fan of skill auto-success (I even hate take-10), or the uber social skills(I'd rather use a Charisma check if I had to dice it).

There are things that characters can do that doesn't involve fighting or spell casting.  That it is perfectly D&Dish that there are classes that can do them better than other classes. In my mind, the Rogue is one of those types of classes.

It would be ideal that they would get away from focusing on the Rogue role in combat and focus more on the skills or abilities that the Rogue has. That the core rules actually contains a class that not really part of the combat game. And goes further and explains how a campaign can be organized so that such a class has a important role even outshining the other classes in certain situations.

In my opinion this would be a crucial elements in returning the D&D mechanics to being more than just a combat oriented game like it was in 4e.

Quote from: estar;537307There are things that characters can do that doesn't involve fighting or spell casting.  That it is perfectly D&Dish that there are classes that can do them better than other classes. In my mind, the Rogue is one of those types of classes.

It would be ideal that they would get away from focusing on the Rogue role in combat and focus more on the skills or abilities that the Rogue has. That the core rules actually contains a class that not really part of the combat game. And goes further and explains how a campaign can be organized so that such a class has a important role even outshining the other classes in certain situations.

In my opinion this would be a crucial elements in returning the D&D mechanics to being more than just a combat oriented game like it was in 4e.

Totally agree.
It's why I liked the reference to the 3 Pillars of design as 'Roleplay' (social is better), Exploration and Combat because it means they are thinking about games that aren't just about combat.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;537302Rogues as more skillful doesn't seem like it would quite work if they're trying to make the game so that skills are optional.
 
Anyway, I'd rather that things integral to classes be treated as class features (e.g. how 3E handled wild empathy or bardic knowledge) rather than be separate skills; there's no point having optional skills that you end up having to take. I'd rather have skills kept for interesting flavour/background abilities - like crafts, knowledges and professions.
 
 
Not a fan of skill auto-success (I even hate take-10), or the uber social skills(I'd rather use a Charisma check if I had to dice it).

I think having a skill system that thieves use is essential. Every version of D&D since thieves were introduced had a skill system for them to do thiefy stuff its just it was a separate skill system that didn't fit with anything else.

So you include the skill system as a core part of the Rogue class and then you give the option to open the sytem up to all PCs if you want to use the skill option in your game.

Also making the rogues skills optional just means you can play different sorts of rogues. So drop hide in shadows and focus on lock pick, drop read languages and focus on disguise or whatever. The 2e kits give you enough ideas for different sorts of rogue with different balances of skills.

I would assume that class abilities would be obligated at the most basic version of the game. Then a level up become one of a set of class options (aka feats) then at the very top become one of a pool of options/feats open to all. The DM just chooses where to set the dial.

Maybe your templates give you skillsets and the class + level decides how well you execute them - So a Fighter with Street Urchin Template has thievery/hidey skills but can't do them as well as Rogue with Street Urchin.

But Rogue with Merchant, Thug or Seductress etc is a different Rogue entirely