The DnD Next rogue is an interesting counterpoint to the recently re-worked fighter class unveiled in the second playtest packet. While the initial playtest fighter had very few strategic options in a fight outside of the ill-defined "improvise" rules, this new version has a growing number of combat maneuvers and a limited resource (in the form of expertise dice) per round on which to spend them. Not only does this play into the larger design philosophy of outsourcing the player's mental efforts to the physical space at the table (in this case, being able to have a literal pool of dice) as echoed by the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, it also invites some interesting considerations of how to focus your individual fighter as well as how to bring these resources to bear in the current situation. It gives a visible sense of improvement as the player levels up, and it remains mechanically distinct from the increased spell rosters offered to spellcaster classes. While the individual combat maneuvers clearly need refinement (I'm looking at you, Glancing Blow), the core concept is one I would like to see make it into the final edition.
As an aside: it is interesting from a game design perspective how, on the way to arriving at this design decision, Mike Mearls suggested giving fighters a second theme (now called specialization) before finally arriving at the current fighter concept as a kind of band-aid to make the fighter more interesting before they could release the second playtest. It gives a kind of insight into how Wizards is playing with the existing mechanics of the new edition, and seems to mirror the decision to give the rogue a second background to increase the number of skills to which the class has access.
The rogue seems to be designed as the mirror image of the fighter - a limited but effective range of combat options, and a wide array of choices in skills for use outside of combat. The rogue gets two backgrounds - one from a limited selection - and as a result begins the game with six skills instead of the more typical three. Further, twice per day the rogue can receive advantage on a skill roll, and any skill attempt below a certain threshold is brought up to a more reasonable amount. The overriding sentiment appears to be this: the rogue is The Guy with Skills. Whether it’s disarming traps, researching lore, or making a stew: the rogue will always be the best at it.
In combat, the rogue uses these skills as a kind of sneak attack delivery mechanism. Because sneak attack damage requires advantage to deploy, the rogue is encouraged to use any number of skills to acquire this desired result. One could conceivably employ sneak, bluff, intimidate, or even a relevant lore skill to create an advantageous situation down the line. Like the flat bonuses given to fighters, this is thematically interesting but mechanically dull. The rogue has an avalanche of six sided dice, and dropping that on specific targets is what he has come to do. This is okay, but it could be great. Again: the rogue is The Skill Guy. This should be true both in and out of combat. However, rogue players shouldn't be forced to go through combats on autopilot just because they aren't fighters. After all, fighters still get skills, even if that isn't the main focus of their role.
I don't think the problem with this is sneak attack damage. It fits with the overall "feel" of the rogue that they step back neatly place a dagger right where the armor is weakest. I also don't think the mechanic of "losing" a turn to acquire sneak attack damage is a problem either. For me, the crux of the problem is that all these skills feel the same. A rogue that relies on sneaking to gain the upper hand in combat should be mechanically distinct from a rogue that uses intimidation or bluff. Further, a rogue that has access to both these skills should have a variety of combat options.
A way to represent this might include sacrificing individual sneak attack damage dice to cause debilitating effects to monsters, or hand out bonuses to allies. While a sneaky rogue might do the greatest amount of damage, an intimidating rogue might distract a monster, allowing another player to reposition. Bluff might let the rogue give some of his sneak attack dice to a better positioned ally, and lore skills might let him add a flat bonus to accuracy.
Additionally, this provides a platform for other, well loved classes such as the Bard or Warlord to bridge the gap between Rogue and Wizard or Rogue and Fighter. A fighter with a hypothetical leadership specialization may be able to employ his intimidating or diplomatic nature to turn the battle of a fight (much in the same way that the magic-user specialization would give him access to a few cantrips). That's not to say these shouldn't be classes in their own right, but it does lay some groundwork for how these classes might operate mechanically.
Overall, I like the overall changes the rogue has made between packets 1 and 2. However, I think the rogue is in need of the same consideration the fighter received. The need is far less dire, but I do think there is an opportunity to codify an array of tactical options for the rogue in coming playtests. The best way, in my mind, to keep the fighter and the rogue different is to have the fighter go through combat using expertise dice to react, and have the rogue go through combat using skills to predict.
No comments:
Post a Comment