...but I looked over the D&D Next playtest and I'm annoyed so I want to complain about it.
I don't know if I've mentioned it here, but I'm not a fan of class-based systems. To put it that way is to greatly undersell just how much I hate classes, but in some cases I will suffer through. The usual case is where it concerns gaming with friends, but sometimes I make exceptions.
D&D is one of those exceptions, in that I at least like to browse their ideas and see if it works for me at all. Generally, it just reinforces how much I don't like classes. 3.5 was decent but horribly balanced in a few ways that matter to me. 4e had its high points, but overall I couldn't get into it. Doing away with passives on such a large scale was just one of the things that bugged me; for some classes this isn't a big issue, but for classes like Rogue it was unforgivable.
D&D Next tries to go back to the "old school" of D&D, but really it looks like it wants to be 3.something again. While it is still an interesting idea, looking over the classes has brought it to near auto-ignore territory.
Rogues in combat *still* hinge on Sneak Attack.
This is the dumbest thing ever, and it has spawned some of the poorest class design ever.
For starters, Sneak Attack is lazy. It's a silly mechanic put in a game where the difficulty of pulling it off is supposed to be a class-defining mainstay. It's like they wanted to say "oh, well, these guys sneak around so we'll make it where attacking under sneaky conditions gets bonus damage, and that will be how you know you're a Rogue."
Except it doesn't make any sense. There's nothing about Sneak Attack that inherently says only Rogues should be able to pull it off (and in some cases, other classes do have access, so there goes that). Any well-trained warrior type should be able to do it. An eagle-eyed archer type should be able to do it. Anyone hitting from the back should be able to do it (seriously, it's not hard to go for the kidneys). Sneak Attack should be a feat.
The other problem is that Rogues are traditionally the skillful class, and D&DN doesn't change that. So we're supposed to assume that while they were studying up on every skill in the game, they also had time to master this talent for striking people in their weak point for massive damage, yet the classes that gear themselves for pure combat just can't pull that off, even the Ranger who studies his enemies enough to have Favored Enemies (or whatever it'll be this time) which would likely include anatomy and, if you can believe it, knowing how to MOST EFFECTIVELY KILL THEM.
This brings us right back to lazy, because they've kept this stupid concept of Rogue around for at least three editions now. They seriously haven't thought of a way to employ the Rogue's massive skillfulness as a better combat tactic? As much as they try to paint Rogues as trapspringers and explorers, is it really beyond thinking that maybe the know how to set traps, even improvised traps in the middle of combat such as employing Use Rope (yup, going 3e) to tie their enemy to a chair without his/her notice? A lot of feats, class features, and items from previous editions just scream Rogue, and yet we're still going with Sneak Attack. 3e had tons of supplements, the internet provided a multitude of ideas, but no. Sneak Attack. It's just disappointing.
Sneak Attack represents an idea of what Rogue combat should be like, but ultimately fails in execution. It turns things away from this idea of the evasive combatant that darts around picking his moments and turns it into just a thing of getting your flanking bonus or combat advantage or whatever and hitting for massive damage. It turns Rogues into an all-or-nothing class, where the math tells you that you either stay Rogue to 20 for max SA dice or you dip into it for Evasion and move on. It should be more interesting than that, and it annoys me that so much attention is given to the idea that "hey, Rogues are really diverse and skilled" yet they turn around and make them one-trick ponies in combat.
Sneak Attack is why I hate playing Rogue, because if you don't spec SA then people look at you funny. For good reason, because if you're not a Rogue going hard into SA or taking combat feats that work well with SA, then you're not that useful in combat. It's pointless to be great at getting the team through the dungeon if the group gets killed because you passed on extra SA dice or Weapon Focus so you could have another +3 to Disable Device. Maybe somewhat of an exaggeration (because really, SA is ridiculous anyway), but the point stands.
The lack of combat options outside of SA make it hard to play an interesting Rogue, and so far D&DN is continuing that same role for Rogues.
Also, Spells/Day is back for Wizards, I have no idea wtf they've done with Sorcerers, so that's not encouraging at all. Fighters look interesting now, so that's a plus. Warlocks also look like they've gone somewhere between 3.5 and 4e, so I'm at least interested in seeing what happens there.
